Feature Enhancement of Multispectral Images Using Vegetation, Water, and Soil Indices Image Fusion

  • M. HemaLathaEmail author
  • S. Varadarajan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computational Vision and Biomechanics book series (LNCVB, volume 30)


Land cover characteristics of satellite images are analyzed in this research paper. Remote sensing indices are calculated for multispectral image. In the proposed method, satellite image indices, i.e., NDVI (Normalized difference vegetation index), NDWI (Normalized difference water index), and BSI (Bare soil index), are calculated for various classes such as land, vegetation, water, and in land cover categories. All these remote sensing indices are fused to get composite bands and to enhance all features in multispectral image. This technique increases visual perception of human eye for multispectral images. Fusion plays vital role in remote sensing and medical images interpretation. In case of remote sensing, we cannot get entire information in one spectral band. So multispectral bands are combined, which leads to feature enhancement. This method depends on green (G), infrared (IR), near infrared (NIR), and short wave infrared (SWIR) bands and their fusion. Finally, error matrix is generated with reference data and classified data. The main application is to calculate vegetation, bare soil, and water indices in three land covers and to get better feature enhancement. Producer’s accuracy, consumer’s accuracy, commission, omission, kappa coefficient, F1score, over all accuracy, and over all kappa coefficients are calculated.


Land cover NDVI NDWI BSI Error matrix 



Authors are grateful to Bhuvan for providing satellite images to our research work.


  1. 1.
    Gonzalez RC, Woods RE (2008) Digital image processing. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee JS, Grunes MR, Schuler DL, Pottier E, Ferro-Famil L (2006) Scattering-model based speckle filtering polar metric SAR data. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 44:176–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lillesand TM, Kiffer RW (2000) Remote sensing and image interpretation, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meddens AJ, Hicke JA, Vierling LA, Hudak AT (2013) Evaluating methods to detect bark beetle-caused tree mortality using single-date and multi-date Landsat imagery. Remote Sens Environ 132:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Willis KS (2015) Remote sensing change detection for ecological monitoring in United States protected areas. Biol Conserv 182:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Randon J, Hüsoy JH (1999) Filtering for texture classification: a comparative study. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 21:291–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Justice CO, Vermote E, Townshend JRG et al (1998) The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectro radiometer (MODIS): land remote sensing for global change research. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 36:1228–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hudson WD, Ramm CW (1987) Correct formulation of the kappa coefficient of agreement. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 53:421–422Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rokni K, Ahmad A, Selamat A, Hazini S (2014) Water feature extraction and change detection using multitemporal Landsat imagery. Remote Sens 6:4173–4189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Molchanov V, Chitiboi T, Linsen L (2015) Visual analysis of medical image segmentation feature space for interactive classification. In: Eurographics conference, pp 11–19Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ECE DepartmentS.V.U.C.ETirupatiIndia

Personalised recommendations