Journal of Geo-information Science >
Standardization of Radiation Resolution for Fusion of Multi-sensor Remote Sensing Images
Received date: 2014-08-24
Request revised date: 2014-09-22
Online published: 2015-06-10
Copyright
Today, an abundant supply of remote senseing data with various spatial, radiative and spectral resolutions from multi-platforms has provided rich sources of information for scientific research. In order to overcome the limitation of a particular type of remote sensing data in application, and take the full advantage of other remote sensing data, image fusion technique has been frequently used to enhance the resolution of remote sensing data and perform scale transformation among images obtained from different remote sensing platforms. A proper image fusion algorithm can not only improve the refinement of details of a low-resolution multispectral image, but also preserve its spectral information. Moreover, it can utilize the complementary information, reduce the data redundancy, and enhance the interpretation ability of the images. The fusion result is influenced by many factors, such as image fusion algorithm, seasonal difference, registration error, spatial and radiation resolution difference, etc. The images used in this study have different radiation resolutions, including 8 bit, 11 bit and 16 bit. In order to reduce the influence of differences in the radiation resolution and in the resultant data dynamic range on image fusion, this paper proposed a method for the standardization of radiation resolution. Based on the unification of quantization intervals for digital number, the transformation from low to high radiation variability through multiplication of a same proportion coefficient can reduce the loss of image information, which is caused by data bits conversion in the fusion process. The results show that the proposed standardization method of radiation resolution can be applied to remote sensing data with different quantization intervals and is easy to be programmed. When using the proposed standardization method for fusing different images, the resultant fusion results are almost identical to each other, either using real number value or integer value. Whereas, when using other quantization methods, the resultant fusion image with real number value is generally better than that with integer value. The standardization of radiation resolution is a necessary step for image fusion when using reflectance-based images, because all image fusion algorithms will cause a serious spectral distortion to the fusion results.
GAO Yonggang , XU Hanqiu . Standardization of Radiation Resolution for Fusion of Multi-sensor Remote Sensing Images[J]. Journal of Geo-information Science, 2015 , 17(6) : 713 -723 . DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1047.2015.00713
Tab. 1 Information of remote sensing image表1 卫星遥感影像基本参数信息 |
卫星类型 | 传感器 | 波段使用情况 | 空间分辨率(m) | 辐射分辨率(bit) | 获取时间 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Landsat-7 | ETM+ | 多光谱 | 30 | 8 | 2003-05-29 |
EO-1 | ALI | 全色 | 10 | 16 | 2003-03-26 |
IKONOS | AVNIR-2 | 多光谱 | 4 | 11 | 2003-06-22 |
全色 | 1 | 11 | 2003-06-22 |
Fig. 1 Original and fused images of ETM+ and ALI图1 ETM+和ALI原始影像及各算法融合影像 |
Tab. 2 Table of fusion quantitative evaluation of ETM+ and ALI images表2 ETM+和ALI融合影像定量分析表 |
融合算法 | 评价指标 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D | Dr | RMSE | GVI | ERGAS | CC | |
Brovey | 77.022 | 1333.736 | 478.069 | 248.805 | 28.673 | 0.987 |
BT | 117.106 | 2028.315 | 724.800 | 377.297 | 32.603 | 0.987 |
IHS | 401.873 | 7064.376 | 1224.275 | 1288.285 | 31.780 | 1.000 |
IHS_TU | 534.256 | 9390.553 | 2169.392 | 1712.113 | 32.510 | 1.000 |
PCA | 178.130 | 3130.792 | 1973.866 | 570.795 | 32.113 | 1.000 |
SFIM | 0.519 | 8.999 | 4.540 | 2.315 | 1.729 | 0.893 |
SVR | 1.264 | 21.489 | 10.829 | 5.698 | 4.137 | 0.972 |
Wavelet | 20.392 | 357.142 | 100.444 | 80.251 | 34.973 | 0.743 |
Gram-Schmidt | 0.604 | 10.343 | 6.906 | 2.843 | 2.796 | 0.950 |
Pansharp | 0.957 | 16.126 | 7.821 | 4.490 | 3.206 | 0.969 |
Ehlers | 2.267 | 25.347 | 6.929 | 9.080 | 2.896 | 0.954 |
Fig. 2 Original and fused images of ETM+ and ALI in difference dynamic ranges of DN values图2 ETM+和ALI在不同量化区间的DN值融合影像 |
Tab. 3 Table of fusion quantitative evaluation of ETM+ and ALI in difference dynamic ranges of DN values表3 ETM+和ALI在不同量化区间的DN值融合影像定量评价表 |
评价指标 | 量化区间 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
区间(1) | 区间(2) | 区间(3) | 区间(4) | 区间(5) | 区间(6) | 区间(7) | |
D | 0.604 | 0.823 | 0.842 | 0.848 | 0.847 | 0.790 | 0.606 |
Dr | 10.343 | 13.548 | 13.891 | 13.996 | 13.960 | 13.544 | 10.384 |
RMSE | 6.906 | 8.200 | 8.382 | 7.970 | 7.975 | 7.874 | 6.900 |
GVI | 2.843 | 3.699 | 3.761 | 3.739 | 3.751 | 3.544 | 2.832 |
ERGAS | 2.780 | 3.208 | 3.278 | 3.129 | 3.132 | 3.080 | 2.793 |
CC | 0.949 | 0.526 | 0.478 | 0.975 | 0.972 | 0.975 | 0.959 |
Fig. 3 Original and fused images of ETM+ and ALI reflectance image in difference dynamic ranges图3 ETM+和ALI反射率融合影像 |
Fig. 4 Original and fused images of IKONOS reflectance image in difference dynamic ranges图4 IKONOS反射率融合影像 |
Tab. 4 Table of fusion quantitative evaluation of ETM+ and ALI reflectance image in difference dynamic ranges表4 ETM+和ALI反射率融合影像定量评价表 |
评价指标 | 量化区间 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
区间(1) | 区间(2) | 区间(3) | 区间(4) | 区间(5) | 区间(6) | 区间(7) | 区间(8) | |
D | 0.0033 | 0.0033 | 0.0033 | 0.0033 | 0.0033 | 0.0033 | 0.0033 | 0.0192 |
Dr | 19.2190 | 19.2190 | 19.1905 | 19.1308 | 19.1310 | 19.1308 | 19.1312 | 25.3279 |
RMSE | 0.0152 | 0.0152 | 0.0152 | 0.0152 | 0.0152 | 0.0152 | 0.0152 | 0.0286 |
GVI | 0.0157 | 0.0157 | 0.0157 | 0.0157 | 0.0157 | 0.0157 | 0.0157 | 0.0198 |
ERGAS | 3.8873 | 3.8873 | 3.8951 | 3.8855 | 3.8855 | 3.8855 | 3.8855 | 4.3886 |
CC | 0.9795 | 0.9795 | 0.9674 | 0.9789 | 0.9789 | 0.9789 | 0.9789 | 0.9262 |
Tab. 5 Table of fusion quantitative evaluation of IKONOS reflectance image in difference dynamic ranges表5 IKONOS反射率融合影像定量评价表 |
评价指标 | 量化区间 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
区间(1) | 区间(2) | 区间(3) | 区间(4) | 区间(5) | |
D | 0.0052 | 0.0052 | 0.0052 | 0.0052 | 0.0179 |
Dr | 32.7489 | 32.7497 | 32.7497 | 32.9489 | 39.6572 |
RMSE | 0.0227 | 0.0227 | 0.0227 | 0.0227 | 0.0275 |
GVI | 0.0023 | 0.0023 | 0.0023 | 0.0023 | 0.0039 |
ERGAS | 3.9744 | 3.9743 | 3.9744 | 3.9744 | 4.1326 |
CC | 0.9521 | 0.9521 | 0.9521 | 0.9521 | 0.8736 |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |