Table 2 Performance of the different fusion methods on processing Fig. 4 for Group 1
From: Image fusion research based on the Haar-like multi-scale analysis
Images (methods) | AG | SF | OP | MI | SpD | CR | SSIM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Figure 4a (PCA) | 8.7903 | 21.4346 | − 15.2545 | 3.5397 | 24.0447 | 0.8795 | 0.7904 |
Figure 4b (HSV) | 6.9625 | 17.2834 | − 11.1289 | 4.1398 | 18.0914 | 0.8784 | 0.8494 |
Figure 4c (WPT) | 10.8598 | 22.9335 | 1.7329 | 2.7861 | 9.1269 | 0.9365 | 0.9362 |
Figure 4d (Curvelet) | 8.9192 | 19.6470 | − 2.7791 | 2.4540 | 11.6982 | 0.9150 | 0.9136 |
Figure 4e (Contourlet) | 8.7912 | 18.9437 | − 3.2805 | 2.4358 | 12.0717 | 0.9150 | 0.9110 |
Figure 4f (NSCT) | 9.0090 | 21.0169 | − 4.8913 | 2.5859 | 13.9003 | 0.9012 | 0.8888 |
Figure 4g (HSV + WPT) | 9.1320 | 19.4122 | 0.0648 | 3.0833 | 9.0672 | 0.9397 | 0.9332 |
Figure 4h (HSV + NSCT) | 7.8324 | 17.8977 | − 1.8937 | 3.2785 | 9.7261 | 0.9394 | 0.9324 |
9.2017 | 19.9655 | − 8.0944 | 3.4226 | 17.2961 | 0.8930 | 0.8627 | |
8.3083 | 17.3955 | − 15.6440 | 3.1723 | 23.9523 | 0.8951 | 0.7783 | |
8.6850 | 17.6899 | − 15.8341 | 3.0287 | 24.5191 | 0.8598 | 0.7874 | |
Figure 4l (Proposed) | 9.2437 | 20.2221 | 3.0122 | 3.2787 | 6.2316 | 0.9684 | 0.9687 |