Table 6 The comparison of average RR results among the proposed, Chang and Lin's, and previous averaging schemes for Sets 2-5 images
Operation | Type | Specification | Proposed GA scheme | Previous averaging scheme[18] | Chang and Lin's scheme[1] | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Â | Â | RR | RR | RR | ||||
| Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | t = 160 | t = 180 | t = 200 | t = 230 | t = 250 |
Blurring | Gaussian filter | 9 × 9 | 99.68% | 99.40% | 99.76% | 99.73% | 99.97% | 99.80% | 99.86% |
Surround cropping | Â | 26% | 98.52% | 86.98% | 88.93% | 89.06% | 89.14% | 89.17% | 89.17% |
Quarter cropping | Â | 25% | 98.38% | 86.68% | 89.84% | 90.60% | 91.15% | 91.89% | 92.26% |
Noise addition | Gaussian noise | Mean = 0 Variance = 0.01 | 95.78% | 77.52% | 91.12% | 92.18% | 92.95% | 93.70% | 94.11% |
JPEG compression | Â | Quality factor = 80 | 99.89% | 99.17% | 99.80% | 99.87% | 99.89% | 99.91% | 99.83% |
Scaling | Â | Â | 99.86% | 98.75% | 99.60% | 99.70% | 99.74% | 99.71% | 99.84% |
Sharpening | linear mapping | Â | 99.84% | 99.66% | 91.49% | 91.67% | 92.02% | 92.80% | 92.76% |
Median filtering | nonlinear filter | 9 × 9 | 98.66% | 92.12% | 95.83% | 96.30% | 96.89% | 97.22% | 97.50% |
Average filtering | linear filter | 9 × 9 | 98.20% | 92.59% | 95.44% | 95.88% | 96.49% | 96.86% | 97.15% |
Gamma correction | Â | 0.7 | 99.35% | 98.43% | 95.47% | 95.91% | 96.15% | 96.21% | 96.17% |
Histogram equalization | Â | Uniform | 96.98% | 95.40% | 78.34% | 78.88% | 79.69% | 81.10% | 81.77% |
Pixel shifting |  | 60 × 60 | 91.73% | 50.55% | 53.98% | 56.03% | 57.52% | 60.07% | 61.49% |
ARR | Â | Â | 98.07% | 89.77% | 89.97% | 90.48% | 90.80% | 91.53% | 91.82% |