METHODS FOR IMAGE FUSION QUALITY ASSESSMENT - A REVIEW, COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS

This paper focuses on the evaluation and analysis of seven frequently used image fusion quality assessment methods to see whether, or not, they can provide convincing image quality or similarity measurements. The seven indexes are Mean Bias (MB), Variance Difference (VD), Standard Deviation Difference (SDD), Correlation Coefficient (CC), Spectral Angle Mapper (SAM), Relative Dimensionless Global Error (ERGAS), and Q4 Quality Index (Q4), which were also used in the IEEE GRSS 2006 Data Fusion Contest. Four testing images are generated to evaluate the indexes. Visual comparison and digital classification demonstrate that the four testing images have the same quality for remote sensing applications; however, the seven evaluation methods provide different measurements indicating that the four images have varying qualities. The image fusion quality evaluation by Alparone, et al. (2004) and that by the IEEE GRSS 2006 data fusion contest (Alparone, et al., 2007) are also analyzed. Significant discrepancy between the quantitative measurements, visual comparison and final ranking has been found in both evaluations. The inconsistency between the visual evaluations and quantitative analyses in the above three cases demonstrate that the seven quantitative indicators cannot provide reliable measurements for quality assessment of remote sensing images.

[1]  Timo Rolf Bretschneider,et al.  Objective content-dependent quality measures for image fusion of optical data , 2004, IGARSS 2004. 2004 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium.

[2]  A. Bovik,et al.  A universal image quality index , 2002, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[3]  Luciano Alparone,et al.  A global quality measurement of pan-sharpened multispectral imagery , 2004, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters.

[4]  L. Wald,et al.  Fusion of satellite images of different spatial resolutions: Assessing the quality of resulting images , 1997 .

[5]  Andrea Garzelli,et al.  Context-driven fusion of high spatial and spectral resolution images based on oversampled multiresolution analysis , 2002, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[6]  C. Willmott,et al.  Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance , 2005 .

[7]  Jocelyn Chanussot,et al.  Comparison of Pansharpening Algorithms: Outcome of the 2006 GRS-S Data-Fusion Contest , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[8]  L. Ji,et al.  An Agreement Coefficient for Image Comparison , 2006 .

[9]  S. Baronti,et al.  Sharpening of very high resolution images with spectral distortion minimization , 2003, IGARSS 2003. 2003 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37477).

[10]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[11]  Luciano Alparone,et al.  MTF-tailored Multiscale Fusion of High-resolution MS and Pan Imagery , 2006 .

[12]  Jun Li SPATIAL QUALITY EVALUATION OF FUSION OF DIFFERENT RESOLUTION IMAGES , 2010 .