THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO...
-
Upload
peregrine-laurence-williamson -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO...
![Page 1: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS
M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph Poland
Ph. D. Przemysław Kupidura, Warsaw University of Technology
![Page 2: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
The aim of the research:
The evaluation of the morphological filters in comparison to the non-morphological ones in their ability of noise removement at the remote sensing images.
![Page 3: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
How the aim was reached:
Choice of the reference images, Artificial noises added to the images, Filtering ( non-morphological and
morphological filters), Comparison of the efects of the filtering, Evaluation, Conclusions.
![Page 4: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Choice of the reference images Images with different spatial resolution
and from differents systems: Landsat ETM+, Spot 5 ano aerial camera,
Images contain urban and rural areas.
![Page 5: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Artificial noises added to the images
Gaussian noise, „Salt and pepper” noise, All noises were generated and added in
ImageJ software.
![Page 6: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Image 1 – LANDSAT ETM+a
dc
b
![Page 7: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Image 2 – SPOT 5a
dc
b
![Page 8: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Image 3 – aerial photoa
dc
b
![Page 9: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Filtering
Non-morphological filter Mean filter, Median filter, Frost filter, Kernel size: 3x3, 5x5, 7x7, 9x9, 11x11, Software: Idrisi32, Erdas.
Morphological filter Alternate filter, Alternate filter with Multiple Structuring Function, Element size: 3x3, 5x5, 7x7, 9x9, 11x11, Software: BlueNote.
![Page 10: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Comparison of the efects of the filtering
Indicators: correlation coefficient, Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), correlation coefficient for edges.
Software: ImageJ
![Page 11: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Evaluation
Basic criteria: correlation coefficient and correlation
coefficient for edges for image after filtering higher than for noised image,
SNR and PSNR value for image after filtering higher than for noised image,
RMSE and MAE value for image after filtering lower than for noised image,
![Page 12: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Evaluation
Complementary criteria correlation coefficient and correlation
coefficient for edges for image after filtering with the highest calculated value,
SNR and PSNR value for image after filtering with the highest calculated value,
RMSE and MAE value for image after filtering with the lowest calculated value,
![Page 13: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Results – Gaussian noise σ=10
kernel/element
size
Frost filter
Alternate filter
Alternate filter with
Multiple Structuri
ng Function
Mean filter
Median filter
Median sequential filter
3x3 0,718 0,654 0,742 0,646 0,695 0,695
5x5 0,708 0,582 0,657 0,547 0,564 0,673
7x7 0,722 0,533 0,679 0,504 0,571 0,656
9x9 0,718 0,508 0,609 0,468 0,542 0,645
11x11 0,703 0,508 0,625 0,447 0,520 0,639
![Page 14: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Results – Gaussian noise σ=10
Alternate filter with Multiple
Structuring Function with
element size 3x3,
Frost filter with kernel size 7x7,
Frost filter with kernel size 3x3 i
9x9.
![Page 15: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Image 1 – LANDSAT ETM+a
c
b
![Page 16: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Image 2 – SPOT 5a
c
b
![Page 17: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Image 3 – aerial photoa
c
b
![Page 18: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Results – Gaussian noise σ=25
kernel/element
size
Frost filter
Alternate filter
Alternate filter with
Multiple Structuri
ng Function
Mean filter
Median filter
Median sequential filter
3x3 0,354 0,505 0,468 0,581 0,537 0,537
5x5 0,364 0,488 0,542 0,524 0,485 0,556
7x7 0,382 0,470 0,541 0,488 0,514 0,557
9x9 0,404 0,451 0,528 0,456 0,497 0,557
11x11 0,429 0,437 0,524 0,441 0,485 0,557
![Page 19: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Results – Gaussian noise σ=25
Mean filter with kernel size 3x3,
Median sequential filter with
triple, fourfold, fivefold kernel
size 3x3,
Median sequential filter with
double kernel size 3x3.
![Page 20: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Image 1 – LANDSAT ETM+a
c
b
![Page 21: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Image 2 – SPOT 5a
c
b
![Page 22: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Image 3 – aerial photoa
c
b
![Page 23: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Results – Gaussian noise
kernel/element
size
Frost filter
Alternate filter
Alternate filter with
Multiple Structuri
ng Function
Mean filter
Median filter
Median sequential filter
3x3 0,536 0,580 0,605 0,614 0,616 0,616
5x5 0,536 0,535 0,600 0,535 0,524 0,615
7x7 0,552 0,501 0,610 0,496 0,543 0,606
9x9 0,561 0,480 0,569 0,462 0,519 0,601
11x11 0,567 0,472 0,574 0,444 0,503 0,598
![Page 24: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Results – Gaussian noise
Median filter with kernel size 3x3,
Median sequential filter with
double kernel size 3x3,
Mean filter with kernel size 3x3.
![Page 25: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Results – „salt and pepper” noise
kernel/element
size
Frost filter
Alternate filter
Alternate filter with
Multiple Structuri
ng Function
Mean filter
Median filter
Median sequential filter
3x3 0,487 0,966 0,972 0,861 0,976 0,976
5x5 0,496 0,921 0,968 0,862 0,937 0,972
7x7 0,502 0,845 0,971 0,875 0,942 0,967
9x9 0,515 0,425 0,952 0,873 0,927 0,964
11x11 0,525 0,225 0,952 0,865 0,908 0,961
![Page 26: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Results – „salt and pepper” noise
Median filter with kernel size
3x3,
Alternate filter with Multiple
Structuring Function with
element size 3x3,
Alternate filter with Multiple
Structuring Function with
element size 7x7.
![Page 27: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Image 1 – LANDSAT ETM+a
c
b
![Page 28: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Image 2 – SPOT 5a
c
b
![Page 29: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Image 3 – aerial photoa
c
b
![Page 30: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Conclusions
When there is a choice of the methods of the
filtering, the kind of the noise should be taken
into consideration before making a decision.
The Alternate filter (opening-closeing
operations) gives satisfying result in
removing researched noises, but also causes
a significant edges degradation.
![Page 31: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Conclusions
Alternate filter with Multiple Structuring Function
has ability to preserve edges during noise
removing.
Alternate filter with Multiple Structuring Function
gives very good results for all kinds of noises.
Alternate filter with Multiple Structuring Function
appeares as the most universal filter.
![Page 32: THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph.](https://reader037.fdocuments.us/reader037/viewer/2022110403/56649e715503460f94b70296/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
THE MORPHOLOGICAL FILTERING OF THE REMOTE SENSING IMAGES FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION COMPARING TO TRADITIONAL FILTERS
M. Sc. Magdalena Jakubiak, Intergraph Poland
Ph. D. Przemysław Kupidura, Warsaw University of Technology