Foveated self-similarity in nonlocal image filtering

Nonlocal image filters suppress noise and other distortions by searching for similar patches at different locations within the image, thus exploiting the self-similarity present in natural images. This similarity is typically assessed by a windowed distance of the patches pixels. Inspired by the human visual system, we introduce a patch foveation operator and measure patch similarity through a foveated distance, where each patch is blurred with spatially variant point-spread functions having standard deviation increasing with the spatial distance from the patch center. In this way, we install a different form of self-similarity in images: the foveated self-similarity. We consider the Nonlocal Means algorithm (NL-means) for the removal of additive white Gaussian noise as a simple prototype of nonlocal image filtering and derive an explicit construction of its corresponding foveation operator, thus yielding the Foveated NL-means algorithm. Our analysis and experimental study show that, to the purpose of image denoising, the foveated self-similarity can be a far more effective regularity assumption than the conventional windowed self-similarity. In the comparison with NL-means, the proposed foveated algorithm achieves a substantial improvement in denoising quality, according to both objective criteria and visual appearance, particularly due to better contrast and sharpness. Moreover, foveation is introduced at a negligible cost in terms of computational complexity.

[1]  Jean-Michel Morel,et al.  A Review of Image Denoising Algorithms, with a New One , 2005, Multiscale Model. Simul..

[2]  Joseph Salmon,et al.  On Two Parameters for Denoising With Non-Local Means , 2010, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[3]  Jaakko Astola,et al.  From Local Kernel to Nonlocal Multiple-Model Image Denoising , 2009, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[4]  Jean-Michel Morel,et al.  A non-local algorithm for image denoising , 2005, 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05).

[5]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Visual search: a retrospective. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[6]  N. L. Johnson,et al.  Continuous Multivariate Distributions, Volume 1: Models and Applications , 2019 .

[7]  Zhou Wang,et al.  Image Quality Assessment: From Error Measurement to Structural Similarity , 2004 .

[8]  Joachim Weickert,et al.  Rotationally invariant similarity measures for nonlocal image denoising , 2011, J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent..

[9]  Alessandro Foi,et al.  Image Denoising by Sparse 3-D Transform-Domain Collaborative Filtering , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[10]  A. Hendrickson,et al.  Human photoreceptor topography , 1990, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[11]  Irene A. Stegun,et al.  Handbook of Mathematical Functions. , 1966 .

[12]  Charles Kervrann,et al.  Optimal Spatial Adaptation for Patch-Based Image Denoising , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[13]  G LoweDavid,et al.  Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints , 2004 .

[14]  C.-C. Jay Kuo,et al.  Improved image denoising with adaptive nonlocal means (ANL-means) algorithm , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics.

[15]  B. Wandell Foundations of vision , 1995 .

[16]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Transsaccadic identification of highly similar artificial shapes. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[17]  Stefano Soatto,et al.  Nonlocal Similarity Image Filtering , 2009, ICIAP.

[18]  Michael F. Barnsley,et al.  Fractals everywhere , 1988 .