2017 20th International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion) 2017
DOI: 10.23919/icif.2017.8009719
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multi-sensor image fusion based on fourth order partial differential equations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
102
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 201 publications
(102 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
102
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Multi-resolution Singular Value Decomposition (MSVD) [42] ,Fourth Order Partial Differential Equations (FPDE) [43] , Different Resolutions via Total Variation (DRTV) [44] and Visual Attention Saliency Guided Joint Sparse Representation (SGJSR) [45] .…”
Section: Comparison With the State-of-the-art Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multi-resolution Singular Value Decomposition (MSVD) [42] ,Fourth Order Partial Differential Equations (FPDE) [43] , Different Resolutions via Total Variation (DRTV) [44] and Visual Attention Saliency Guided Joint Sparse Representation (SGJSR) [45] .…”
Section: Comparison With the State-of-the-art Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These methods decompose visible-infrared images and reconstruct a new image according to the rules for fusion. Pyramid-based methods [1][2] [3], wavelet-based methods [4][5] [6], curvelet transform-based methods [7], multi-resolution singular value decomposition-based method [8], bilateral filter-based method [9], guided filtering-based methods [10][11] [12], sparse representation-based methods [13], fourth order partial differential based method [14], and visual saliency based method [15] [16] have been studied. Image decomposing and recomposing based fusion methods have shown superior results in terms of the quality of the fused image.…”
Section: Image Decomposing and Recomposing Based Image Fusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, this is achieved with a lower complexity in comparison to algorithms that give similar results [6]. In [6] 18 different fusion methods [10,[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] are compared using nine objective fusion performance metrics and computational complexity evaluations. The analysis concluded that out of the real-time capable fusion algorithms, the Laplacian fusion performs best for the majority of metrics.…”
Section: Dynamic Laplacian Rolling-pyramid Fusionmentioning
confidence: 99%