Table 3 Performance of the different fusion methods on processing Fig. 5 for Group 2
From: Image fusion research based on the Haar-like multi-scale analysis
Images (methods) | AG | SF | OP | MI | SpD | CR | SSIM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Figure 5a (PCA) | 7.3111 | 18.9065 | − 16.5311 | 3.9375 | 23.8421 | 0.8803 | 0.8396 |
Figure 5b (HSV) | 6.2029 | 16.8265 | − 11.3634 | 3.8358 | 17.5663 | 0.8749 | 0.8699 |
Figure 5c (WPT) | 7.6579 | 17.6449 | 2.1412 | 4.0006 | 5.5197 | 0.9860 | 0.9860 |
Figure 5d (Curvelet) | 7.3067 | 17.8589 | 0.3852 | 3.5687 | 6.9215 | 0.9811 | 0.9806 |
Figure 5e (Contourlet) | 7.3678 | 18.2038 | − 0.0068 | 3.5188 | 7.3746 | 0.9781 | 0.9772 |
Figure 5f (NSCT) | 7.3886 | 18.7080 | − 0.9964 | 3.5302 | 8.3850 | 0.9723 | 0.9701 |
Figure 5g (HSV + WPT) | 6.8387 | 16.8362 | 1.1681 | 4.0203 | 5.6706 | 0.9848 | 0.9844 |
Figure 5h (HSV + NSCT) | 6.5939 | 16.8751 | 0.3444 | 4.0215 | 6.2495 | 0.9818 | 0.9805 |
7.1802 | 17.3138 | − 11.1943 | 3.9908 | 18.3745 | 0.9025 | 0.8953 | |
6.5156 | 14.4934 | − 18.8161 | 3.8687 | 25.3317 | 0.9059 | 0.8276 | |
6.8670 | 14.6678 | − 18.4427 | 3.8419 | 25.3097 | 0.8799 | 0.8386 | |
Figure 5l (Proposed) | 7.5683 | 18.6098 | 2.7240 | 4.1673 | 4.8443 | 0.9882 | 0.9882 |