Turbidity-adaptive underwater image enhancement method using image fusion
Bin HAN, Hao WANG, Xin LUO, Chengyuan LIANG, Xin YANG, Shuang LIU, Yicheng LIN
Turbidity-adaptive underwater image enhancement method using image fusion
Clear, correct imaging is a prerequisite for underwater operations. In real freshwater environment including rivers and lakes, the water bodies are usually turbid and dynamic, which brings extra troubles to quality of imaging due to color deviation and suspended particulate. Most of the existing underwater imaging methods focus on relatively clear underwater environment, it is uncertain that if those methods can work well in turbid and dynamic underwater environments. In this paper, we propose a turbidity-adaptive underwater image enhancement method. To deal with attenuation and scattering of varying degree, the turbidity is detected by the histogram of images. Based on the detection result, different image enhancement strategies are designed to deal with the problem of color deviation and blurring. The proposed method is verified by an underwater image dataset captured in real underwater environment. The result is evaluated by image metrics including structure similarity index measure, underwater color image quality evaluation metric, and speeded-up robust features. Test results exhibit that the method can correct the color deviation and improve the quality of underwater images.
turbidity / underwater image enhancement / image fusion / underwater robots / visibility
[1] |
Boudhane M, Nsiri B. Underwater image processing method for fish localization and detection in submarine environment. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 2016, 39: 226–238
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[2] |
Lin Y H, Yu C M, Wu C Y. Towards the design and implementation of an image-based navigation system of an autonomous underwater vehicle combining a color recognition technique and a fuzzy logic controller. Sensors, 2021, 21(12): 4053
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[3] |
Liu J G, Wang Y C, Li B, Ma S G. Current research, key performances and future development of search and rescue robots. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 2007, 2(4): 404–416
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[4] |
Li T C, Wang J L, Yao K N. Visibility enhancement of underwater images based on active polarized illumination and average filtering technology. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 2022, 61(1): 701–708
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[5] |
Zhuang P X, Li C Y, Wu J M. Bayesian retinex underwater image enhancement. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2021, 101: 104171
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[6] |
Liang Z, Wang Y F, Ding X Y, Mi Z T, Fu X P. Single underwater image enhancement by attenuation map guided color correction and detail preserved dehazing. Neurocomputing, 2021, 425: 160–172
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[7] |
Li C Y, Anwar S, Hou J H, Cong R M, Guo C L, Ren W Q. Underwater image enhancement via medium transmission-guided multi-color space embedding. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2021, 30: 4985–5000
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[8] |
AncutiC, Ancuti C O, HaberT, BekaertP. Enhancing underwater images and videos by fusion. In: Proceedings of 2012 IEEE CVPR Conference. 2012, 81–88
|
[9] |
Ancuti C O, Ancuti C, De Vleeschouwer C, Bekaert P. Color balance and fusion for underwater image enhancement. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2018, 27(1): 379–393
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[10] |
Wang Y, Zhang J, Cao Y, Wang Z F. A deep CNN method for underwater image enhancement. In: Proceedings of 2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, 2017,
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[11] |
Guo Y C, Li H Y, Zhuang P X. Underwater image enhancement using a multiscale dense generative adversarial network. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 2020, 45(3): 862–870
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[12] |
Liu R S, Fan X, Zhu M, Hou M J, Luo Z X. Real-world underwater enhancement: challenges, benchmarks, and solutions under natural light. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2020, 30(12): 4861–4875
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[13] |
Fu X Y, Cao X Y. Underwater image enhancement with global–local networks and compressed-histogram equalization. Signal Processing: Image Communication, 2020, 86: 115892
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[14] |
Yang M, Hu K, Du Y X, Wei Z Q, Sheng Z B, Hu J T. Underwater image enhancement based on conditional generative adversarial network. Signal Processing: Image Communication, 2020, 81: 115723
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[15] |
Jiang Q, Zhang Y F, Bao F X, Zhao X Y, Zhang C M, Liu P D. Two-step domain adaptation for underwater image enhancement. Pattern Recognition, 2022, 122: 108324
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[16] |
Li C Y, Guo C L, Ren W Q, Cong R M, Hou J H, Kwong S, Tao D C. An underwater image enhancement benchmark dataset and beyond. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2020, 29: 4376–4389
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[17] |
Liu Y Q, Chen Y Y, Fang X M. A review of turbidity detection based on computer vision. IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 2018, 6: 60586–60604
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[18] |
Chen S S, Han L S, Chen X Z, Li D, Sun L, Li Y. Estimating wide range total suspended solids concentrations from MODIS 250-m imageries: an improved method. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 2015, 99: 58–69
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[19] |
ZhangX H. Water quality turbidity detection based on image recognition system design and implementation. In: Proceedings of 2016 the First International Conference on Real Time Intelligent Systems. 2018, 613: 63–70
|
[20] |
O’Byrne M, Schoefs F, Pakrashi V, Ghosh B. An underwater lighting and turbidity image repository for analysing the performance of image-based non-destructive techniques. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2018, 14(1): 104–123
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[21] |
Xie K, Pan W, Xu S X. An underwater image enhancement algorithm for environment recognition and robot navigation. Robotics, 2018, 7(1): 14
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[22] |
Hu H F, Zhang Y B, Li X B, Lin Y, Cheng Z Z, Liu T G. Polarimetric underwater image recovery via deep learning. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 2020, 133: 106152
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[23] |
Wang Y B, Cao J, Rizvi S, Hao Q, Fang Y M. Underwater image restoration based on adaptive color compensation and dual transmission estimation. IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 2020, 8: 207834–207843
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[24] |
Zhang W H, Li G, Ying Z Q. A new underwater image enhancing method via color correction and illumination adjustment. 2017 IEEE Visual Communications and Image Processing, 2017,
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[25] |
Jaffe J S. Computer modeling and the design of optimal underwater imaging systems. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 1990, 15(2): 101–111
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[26] |
Amer K O, Elbouz M, Alfalou A, Brosseau C, Hajjami J. Enhancing underwater optical imaging by using a low-pass polarization filter. Optics Express, 2019, 27(2): 621–643
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[27] |
Li Y J, Lu H M, Li K C, Kim H, Serikawa S. Non-uniform de-scattering and de-blurring of underwater images. Mobile Networks and Applications, 2018, 23(2): 352–362
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[28] |
Peng Y T, Cosman P C. Underwater image restoration based on image blurriness and light absorption. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2017, 26(4): 1579–1594
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[29] |
Huang J, Liu G X. Multi-color space threshold segmentation and self-learning k-NN algorithm for surge test EUT status identification. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 2016, 11(3): 311–315
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[30] |
Zhu D Q, Liu Z Q, Zhang Y M. Underwater image enhancement based on colour correction and fusion. IET Image Processing, 2021, 15(11): 2591–2603
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[31] |
Yang X, Li H, Chen R. Underwater image enhancement with image colorfulness measure. Signal Processing: Image Communication, 2021, 95: 116225
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[32] |
Wang Y Q, Yu X N, An D, Wei Y G. Underwater image enhancement and marine snow removal for fishery based on integrated dual-channel neural network. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2021, 186: 106182
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[33] |
Galdran A, Pardo D, Picón A, Alvarez-Gila A. Automatic red-channel underwater image restoration. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 2015, 26: 132–145
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[34] |
He K M, Sun J, Tang X O. Single image haze removal using dark channel prior. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2011, 33(12): 2341–2353
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[35] |
YuH F, Li X B, LouQ, LeiC B, LiuZ X. Underwater image enhancement based on DCP and depth transmission map. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 2020, 79(27–28): 20373–20390
|
[36] |
Zhang M H, Peng J H. Underwater image restoration based on a new underwater image formation model. IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 2018, 6: 58634–58644
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[37] |
He K M, Sun J, Tang X O. Guided image filtering. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2013, 35(6): 1397–1409
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[38] |
Wei L S, Jiao Z X. Research and application of visual location technology for solder paste printing based on machine vision. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 2009, 4(2): 184–191
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[39] |
Lin S, Chi K C, Li W T, Tang Y D. Underwater optical image enhancement based on dominant feature image fusion. Acta Photonica Sinica, 2020, 49(3): 310003
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[40] |
KimY, KohY J, LeeC. KimS, KimC S. Dark image enhancement based onpairwise target contrast and multi-scale detail boosting. In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing. 2015, 1404–1408
|
[41] |
Shen D H, Zareapoor M, Yang J. Multimodal image fusion based on point-wise mutual information. Image and Vision Computing, 2021, 105: 104047
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[42] |
Bay H, Tuytelaars T, Goo L V. Surf: speeded up robust features. In: Proceedings of 2006 the 9th European Conference on Computer Vision. 2006, 3951,
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[43] |
Huang Y F, Liu M Y, Yuan F. Color correction and restoration based on multi-scale recursive network for underwater optical image. Signal Processing: Image Communication, 2021, 93: 116174
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[44] |
Mi Z T, Li Y Y, Wang Y F, Fu X P. Multi-purpose oriented real-world underwater image enhancement. IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 2020, 8: 112957–112968
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[45] |
Chang Y K, Jung C, Ke P, Song H, Hwang J. Automatic contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization with dual gamma correction. IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 2018, 6: 11782–11792
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[46] |
Buchsbaum G. A spatial processor model for object colour perception. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 1980, 310(1): 1–26
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[47] |
Yang M, Sowmya A. An underwater color image quality evaluation metric. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2015, 24(12): 6062–6071
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
A | Ambient light |
Ac | Ambient light of color channel c |
B | Blurred image |
(i = 0,1,2,3) | is the image without filtering. , and are blurred images filtered by , , and , respectively |
Value of infinite pixel of color channels of ambient light image | |
c | Color channel (R, G, B) of image |
, , | , , and are the weight coefficients set as , , and |
, | Two other channels in addition to attenuation channel |
, | Average of and , respectively |
Mean of attenuation channel | |
Compensation channel | |
Standard deviation of chroma | |
Object distance of pixel | |
Deviation of color channel | |
Color deviation level | |
Maximum deviation of image | |
Value of UCIQE of image | |
Fusion image | |
Gaussian differential filter | |
Gi (i = 1,2,3) | Gaussian differential filter with different filter ratio |
Image to be sharpened | |
Pixel value at of image | |
Pixel value at of color channel of degraded image | |
Number k input image | |
Sharpened image | |
Variance of channels | |
Undegraded image | |
Pixel value at of color channel of original image | |
Dark channel images | |
K | Amount of input images |
, , | Channels of Lab color space |
L1, L2 | Thresholds for color deviation level detecting, and they are set as 40 and 60, respectively |
, , | Means of channels of Lab color space |
Contrast of luminance | |
m | Constant parameter for compensation, it is set as 0.18 |
Mean of color channel | |
Mean of all color channels of image | |
n | Constant parameter for compensation, it is set as 0.15 |
N | Linear normalization operator, also named histogram stretching in the literature |
S | Sharpened image in normalized unsharp masking method |
Average of saturation | |
Pixel value at of transmission map | |
T1, T2 | Variance thresholds for turbidity level detecting, and they are set as 9 and 28, respectively |
Pixel value at of color channel of transmission map | |
Turbidity level of image | |
Compensation level | |
Normalized weight map | |
WL | Laplacian weight map |
WS | Saliency weight map |
WT | Saturation weight map |
x | Localization of pixel |
y | Pixel localization of region |
Attenuation coefficient of water | |
Special parament in normalized unsharp masking method | |
Parameter to adjust the dehaze level | |
δ | A small regularization term that ensures that each input contributes to the output, and it is set as 0.1 |
Local region centered at pixel | |
Filter ratio |
Table A1 Underwater image evaluation based on UCIQE
Image | Underwater image evaluation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Origin | Gray world | CLAHE | UDCP | Our method | |
1 | 0.29482 | 0.39397 | 0.34491 | 0.30368 | 0.49016 |
2 | 0.34675 | 0.39382 | 0.38193 | 0.36540 | 0.50846 |
3 | 0.33249 | 0.34176 | 0.35667 | 0.39435 | 0.52372 |
4 | 0.36472 | 0.37469 | 0.40091 | 0.41527 | 0.53806 |
5 | 0.33711 | 0.43044 | 0.38948 | 0.35630 | 0.51864 |
6 | 0.39073 | 0.41309 | 0.41042 | 0.41415 | 0.51215 |
7 | 0.30806 | 0.30848 | 0.31754 | 0.33841 | 0.51689 |
8 | 0.29159 | 0.29569 | 0.29350 | 0.34770 | 0.48641 |
9 | 0.30773 | 0.32783 | 0.31055 | 0.33060 | 0.48963 |
10 | 0.30766 | 0.30950 | 0.31975 | 0.37578 | 0.51486 |
11 | 0.33487 | 0.33830 | 0.36050 | 0.39308 | 0.46614 |
12 | 0.29352 | 0.29745 | 0.29799 | 0.35100 | 0.50293 |
13 | 0.28471 | 0.28601 | 0.29181 | 0.34124 | 0.47248 |
14 | 0.34364 | 0.36475 | 0.36003 | 0.37045 | 0.45168 |
15 | 0.31619 | 0.33560 | 0.3320 | 0.34455 | 0.46578 |
16 | 0.53360 | 0.51917 | 0.53510 | 0.54501 | 0.55259 |
17 | 0.50480 | 0.48477 | 0.50146 | 0.51459 | 0.52190 |
18 | 0.47984 | 0.43658 | 0.47940 | 0.47915 | 0.49416 |
19 | 0.49808 | 0.47624 | 0.49343 | 0.50811 | 0.50991 |
Table A2 Average of UCIQE of Table A1
Method | Image average evaluation | Image amplification/% |
---|---|---|
Origin | 0.361627 | 100.0 |
Gray world | 0.375165 | 103.7 |
CLAHE | 0.377757 | 104.4 |
UDCP | 0.394148 | 108.9 |
Our method | 0.501924 | 138.7 |
Fig.A1 Transmission maps of guide filter based on different ratios.
Fig.A2 Intermediate results of images 1–10.
Fig.A3 Intermediate results of images 11–19.
/
〈 | 〉 |