2020
DOI: 10.1007/s00521-020-05358-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

SESF-Fuse: an unsupervised deep model for multi-focus image fusion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
85
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 169 publications
(85 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
85
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In our experiments, we compare the proposed IM-Net with several SOTAs, including DCTVar [8], DSIFT [10], CNN [12], MFF-GAN [18] and SESF [17]. Among them, DCTVar and DSIFT are traditional methods, which are based on transform domain and spatial domain respectively.…”
Section: Methods For Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In our experiments, we compare the proposed IM-Net with several SOTAs, including DCTVar [8], DSIFT [10], CNN [12], MFF-GAN [18] and SESF [17]. Among them, DCTVar and DSIFT are traditional methods, which are based on transform domain and spatial domain respectively.…”
Section: Methods For Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specifically, Prabhakar et al [15] took a pre-trained auto-encoder to extract features and mapped the original image into a highdimensional feature space. Since it is found that the extracted deep features have good generalization, robustness, and development potential, some improvements have been made based on this work [16,17]. Recently, an unsupervised fusion method called MFF-GAN [18], played an adversarial game under a joint gradient constraint.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Existing image fusion methods can be classified into two categories: traditional methods [1,3,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31] and deep learningbased methods [17,18,19,20,32,33,34,35,36,37]. Although traditional image fusion methods have achieved promising performance before the deep learning era, the hand-crafted feature extraction approaches limit further performance improvement.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…FIGURE 5 Qualitative comparison of CFNet with different deep learning-based methods. From left to right and top to bottom: Source A, Source B, CNN[6], SESF-Fuse[12], IFCNN[44], DRPL[13], CFNet and the corresponding difference images obtained by subtracting source image B from each fused image, respectively…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%