An Amplifying Image Approach: Non-iterative Multi Coverage Image Fusion

  • K. ElaiyarajaEmail author
  • M. Senthil Kumar
  • L. Karthikeyan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computational Vision and Biomechanics book series (LNCVB, volume 31)


Better information can be obtained from sharp images than blurry images. Focused images are not possible to acquire in some circumstances from modalities. Some regions in the images may be blurred and out of focus. In order to overcome these drawbacks, taking more number of images of a scene (that is the same position) and applying fusion techniques to all images by merging to retrieve the best informative fused image. One of those fusion techniques is known as Multi-exposure Image Fusion. This technique synthesizes an LDR image (Low Dynamic Range image). The final result of an image will be more informative. The proposed Non-iterative Multi Exposure Image fusion is one of the promising techniques to enhance the images. Multiscale transform method and Sparse-Representation methods are popular nowadays. In Multi-scale transform methods, the images are divided into layers. In these layers, low pass band and the high pass band exist. In the low pass band, it is possible to lose some vital information when compared to its original image from source. This problem arises due to illumination in various levels of an image. Max-abs (Maximum Absolute) value can be used for the high-pass band to merging image. But for the low-pass band, the even averaging rule cannot be applied. Instead of choosing multi-scale transform and SR representation techniques, we are going to operate directly in all images. In existing system, MEF technique is used as an iterative approach. That means the origins of space from all images are iteratively increased up to convergence level. The proposed Non-iterative MEF context is to form better MEF for image fusion.


Image fusion Medical image Non-iterative Multi-coverage MEF 


  1. 1.
    Burt PJ, Kolcznski RJ (1993) Enhanced-image capture through fusion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference computer visionGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Debevec PE, Malik J (2008) Recovering high dynamic range radiance maps from photographs. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2008 classes. ACM, p 31Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goshtasby AA (2005) Fusion of multi-exposure images. Image Vis Comput 23(6):611–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goshtasby A, Nilolov S (2007) Image fusion—advances in the state of art. Inf FusionGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gu B, Li W, Wong J, Zhu M, Wang M (2012) Gradient field multi-exposure images fusion for high dynamic range image visualization. J Vis Commun Image RepresentGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    He K, Sun J, Tang X (2012) Guided-image filtering. Pattern Anal Mach Intell 35:1397–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jacobs K, Loscos C, Ward G (2008) Automatic high-dynamic range image generation for dynamic scenes. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 28(2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kao WC, Hsu CC, Chen LY, Kao CC, Chen SH (2006) Integrating image fusion and motion stabilization for capturing still images in high dynamic range scenes. IEEE Trans Consum Electron 52(3):735–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ma K, Li H, Yong H, Meng D, Wang Z, Zhang L (2017) Robust multi-exposure image fusion: a structural patch decomposition approach. IEEE Trans Image Process 26(5):2519–2532MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mertens T, Kautz J, Van Reeth F (2009) Exposure fusion: a simple and practical alternative to high dynamic range photography. In: Computer graphics forumGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Robertson MA, Borman S, Stevenson RL (2003) Estimation-theoretic approach to dynamic range enhancement using multiple exposures. J Electron Imaging 12(2):219–228MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rong H, Hui W, Xiaoxu L (2017) Observation of CT-MRI image-fusion in post operative precise radio therapy for Glimas. Chin J Radiat Oncol BiolGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sampat MP, Wang Z, Gupta S, Bovik AC, Markey MK (2009) Complex wavelet structural similarity: a new image similarity index. IEEE Trans Image Process 18:2385–2401MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shen F, Zhao Y, Jiang X, Suwa M (2009) Recovering high dynamic range by multi-exposure retinex. J Vis Commun Image Represent 20(8):521–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shen R, Cheng I, Shi J, Basu A (2011) Generalized random walks for fusion of multi-exposure images. IEEE Trans Image Process 20(12):3634–3646MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simoncelli EP, Freeman WT (1995) The steerable pyramid: a flexible architecture for multi-scale derivative computation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, pp 444–447Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang W, Cham WK (2012) Gradient-directed multi-exposure composition. IEEE Trans Image Process 21(4):2318–2323MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhao Y, Zhao A, Hao A (2014) Multi-modal medical image-fusion using improved multichannel PCNN. Biomed Mater EngGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhu J, Che J, Guo Z (2014) Curvelet-algorithm of remote-sensing image-fusion based on local-mean and standard-deviation. J Ningxia UnivGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Elaiyaraja
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Senthil Kumar
    • 2
  • L. Karthikeyan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ITValliammai Engineering CollegeChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of CSEValliammai Engineering CollegeChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations