Qualitative assessment of geostatistical and non-geostatistical fusion techniques: a case study on landsat 8 images
- 24 Downloads
Broadly satellite images are available in two categories (1) high spectral resolution but less spatial resolution (2) high spatial resolution but less spectral resolution. But in certain applications, images with high spatial as well as high spectral resolution are required. To meet such kind of requirement, Image fusion is widely accepted and increasingly being used. In this study satellite image fusion is done using geostatistical methods (cokriging, regression kriging) and non-geostatistical methods (intensity hue saturation, principal component analysis). The study is focused on performing qualitative assessment of selected image fusion techniques. In this study, the primary variable is RGB bands of Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) and the panchromatic band is chosen as the second variable. The output of these selected methods is compared to access spectral and spatial quality. Spectral quality is accessed by finding the correlation between the primary variable and the output, however spatial quality is accessed via texture analysis method named entropy. Overall assessment of loss of correlation, luminance distortion, and contrast distortion is done using Image quality index. Correlation index of regression kriging and PCA are comparable whereas entropy and image quality index of fused output is highest in case of regression kriging. Hence regression kriging can be concluded as the best fusion technique out of the compared techniques.
KeywordsGeostatistical Cokriging Regression kriging Kriging Landsat OLI PCA IHS
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
- 4.Sheffield, C. (1985). Selecting band combinations from multispectral data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 51, 681–687.Google Scholar
- 6.Sahu, D. K., & Parsai, M. P. (2012). Different image fusion techniques—A critical review. International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER), 2(5), 4298–4301.Google Scholar
- 14.Rossiter, D. G. (2016). Lecture 5—Spatial prediction from point samples. In Applied geostatistics. Google Scholar
- 15.Memarsadeghi, N., Moigne, J. L., & Mount, D. (2006). Image fusion using cokriging. In IEEE international symposium on geoscience and remote sensing, 14.Google Scholar
- 17.Gebejes, A., & Huertas, R. (2013). Texture characterization based on grey-level co-occurrence matrix. In Conference of informatics and management sciences (pp. 375–378).Google Scholar
- 18.U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. (2016). USGS. Retrieved from landsat.usgs.gov: http://landsat.usgs.gov/band_designations_landsat_satellites.php. Accessed 15 July 2016.
- 19.Mandhare, R. A., Upadhyay, P., & Gupta, S. (2013). Pixel-level image fusion using brovey transforme and wavelet transform. International Journal of Advanced Research in Electrical, Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering, 2(6), 2690–2695.Google Scholar
- 20.Gharbia, R., El Baz, A. H., Hassanien, A. E., & Tolba, M. F. (2014). Remote sensing image fusion approach based on Brovey and wavelets transforms. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on innovations in bio-inspired computing and applications IBICA 2014 (pp. 311–321). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
- 21.Pebesma E. (2012). Package gstat. Available online at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gstat/. Accessed 3 June 2016.
- 22.Al-Wassai, F. A., Kalyankar, N. V., & Al-Zuky, A. A. (2011). The IHS transformations based image fusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1107.4396.
- 23.Metwalli, M. R., Nasr, A. H., Allah, O. S. F., & El-Rabaie, S. (2009, December). Image fusion based on principal component analysis and high-pass filter. In International conference on computer engineering & systems, 2009. ICCES 2009 (pp. 63–70). IEEE.Google Scholar