Guidelines for Underwater Image Enhancement Based on Benchmarking of Different Methods

Clicks: 498
ID: 35592
2018
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #2 of 170 articles by views in remote sensing

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 170 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Images obtained in an underwater environment are often affected by colour casting and suffer from poor visibility and lack of contrast. In the literature, there are many enhancement algorithms that improve different aspects of the underwater imagery. Each paper, when presenting a new algorithm or method, usually compares the proposed technique with some alternatives present in the current state of the art. There are no studies on the reliability of benchmarking methods, as the comparisons are based on various subjective and objective metrics. This paper would pave the way towards the definition of an effective methodology for the performance evaluation of the underwater image enhancement techniques. Moreover, this work could orientate the underwater community towards choosing which method can lead to the best results for a given task in different underwater conditions. In particular, we selected five well-known methods from the state of the art and used them to enhance a dataset of images produced in various underwater sites with different conditions of depth, turbidity, and lighting. These enhanced images were evaluated by means of three different approaches: objective metrics often adopted in the related literature, a panel of experts in the underwater field, and an evaluation based on the results of 3D reconstructions.
Reference Key
mangeruga2018guidelinesremote Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Mangeruga, Marino;Bruno, Fabio;Cozza, Marco;Agrafiotis, Panagiotis;Skarlatos, Dimitrios;
Journal remote sensing
Year 2018
DOI
DOI not found
URL
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1652
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.