Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2021
DOI: 10.3390/e23040410
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Noisy SAR Image Fusion Method Based on NLM and GAN

Abstract: The unavoidable noise often present in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images, such as speckle noise, negatively impacts the subsequent processing of SAR images. Further, it is not easy to find an appropriate application for SAR images, given that the human visual system is sensitive to color and SAR images are gray. As a result, a noisy SAR image fusion method based on nonlocal matching and generative adversarial networks is presented in this paper. A nonlocal matching method is applied to processing source im… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 34 publications
(35 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the present section, the proposed work is compared with different fusion methods starting from traditional to advanced deep learning-based algorithms including guided GFF [45], DWT [46], NSCT [47], multi-focus based on gradient image fusion (MWGF) [48], fast filtering image fusion (FFIF) [49], convolutional neural network based on general architecture (IFCNN) [50], and image fusion based on dense blocks (DenseFuse) [51]. Further, the proposed results are compared with two hybrid neural network architectures such as U-GAN + Gram Schmidt transform (U-GAN+GST) [52], and GAN + Non-local means (GAN+NLM) [53] to show the success of the proposed work. Figure 7, Figure 9, Figure 10, and Figure 11 represents the model outcomes of the dataset described in section 3.1.…”
Section: Comparison With Prior Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the present section, the proposed work is compared with different fusion methods starting from traditional to advanced deep learning-based algorithms including guided GFF [45], DWT [46], NSCT [47], multi-focus based on gradient image fusion (MWGF) [48], fast filtering image fusion (FFIF) [49], convolutional neural network based on general architecture (IFCNN) [50], and image fusion based on dense blocks (DenseFuse) [51]. Further, the proposed results are compared with two hybrid neural network architectures such as U-GAN + Gram Schmidt transform (U-GAN+GST) [52], and GAN + Non-local means (GAN+NLM) [53] to show the success of the proposed work. Figure 7, Figure 9, Figure 10, and Figure 11 represents the model outcomes of the dataset described in section 3.1.…”
Section: Comparison With Prior Workmentioning
confidence: 99%