4.6 Article

Structural Similarity Loss for Learning to Fuse Multi-Focus Images

期刊

SENSORS
卷 20, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s20226647

关键词

multi-focus image fusion; convolution neural network; unsupervised learning; structural similarity

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [61901330]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2019M653566]
  3. National Science Foundation of Shaan Xi Province [2020JQ-322]
  4. ARC [DP160101458]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Convolutional neural networks have recently been used for multi-focus image fusion. However, some existing methods have resorted to adding Gaussian blur to focused images, to simulate defocus, thereby generating data (with ground-truth) for supervised learning. Moreover, they classify pixels as 'focused' or 'defocused', and use the classified results to construct the fusion weight maps. This then necessitates a series of post-processing steps. In this paper, we present an end-to-end learning approach for directly predicting the fully focused output image from multi-focus input image pairs. The suggested approach uses a CNN architecture trained to perform fusion, without the need for ground truth fused images. The CNN exploits the image structural similarity (SSIM) to calculate the loss, a metric that is widely accepted for fused image quality evaluation. What is more, we also use the standard deviation of a local window of the image to automatically estimate the importance of the source images in the final fused image when designing the loss function. Our network can accept images of variable sizes and hence, we are able to utilize real benchmark datasets, instead of simulated ones, to train our network. The model is a feed-forward, fully convolutional neural network that can process images of variable sizes during test time. Extensive evaluation on benchmark datasets show that our method outperforms, or is comparable with, existing state-of-the-art techniques on both objective and subjective benchmarks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据