Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the Sensitivity of Image Fusion Quality Metrics to Image Degradation in Satellite Imagery

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Referring to the high potential of topographic satellite in collecting high resolution panchromatic imagery and high spectral, multi spectral imagery, the purpose of image fusion is to produce a new image data with high spatial and spectral characteristics. It is necessary to evaluate the quality of fused image by some quality metrics before using this product in various applications. Up to now, several metrics have been proposed for image quality assessment; which are also applicable for quality evaluation of fused images. However, it seems more investigations are needed to inspect the potentials of proposed Image Fusion Quality Metrics (IFQMs) to registration accuracy, especially in high resolution satellite imagery. This paper focuses on such studies and, using different image fusion quality metrics, experiments are conducted to evaluate the sensitivity of such metrics to a set of high resolution satellite imagery covering urban areas. The obtained results clearly reveal that these metrics sometimes do not behave robust in the whole area and also their obtained results are inconsistence in different patch areas in comparison with the whole image. These limitations are in minimum situation for an image quality metric such as SAM and are completely tangible for image quality metrics such as ERGAS in case of multi modal and DIV and CC from mono modal category.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alparone, L., Wald, L., Chanussot, J., Thomas, C., Gamba, P., & Bruce, L. M. (2007). Comparison of Pansharpening algorithms: outcome of the 2006 GRS-S data fusion contest. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience Remote Sensing, 45(10), 3012–3021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, O. A., Jr, Carvalho, A. P. F., & Mensese, P. R. (2000). Spectral Correlation Mapper (Scm): An Improvement On The Spectral Angle Mapper (Sam). Summaries of the ninth Annual jpl airborne earth science workshop, jpl pub 00–18, jet propulsion laboratory, Pasadena, CA.

  • Chen, Y., & Blum, R. S. (2005). Experimental tests of image fusion for night vision, in: Proceeding of the 8th International Conference on Information Fusion, 2005.

  • Ehlers, M., Klonus, S., & Åstrand, P. J. (2008). Quality assessment for multi-sensor multi-date image fusion. In: Proc. XXIth Int. Congr. ISPRS, Beijing, China, pp. 499–506.

  • Hossny, M., Nahavandi, S, & Creighton, D. (2007). A quadtree driven image fusion quality assessment, in 5th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics, 2007, IEEE Xplore, Piscataway, N.J, pp. 419–424.

  • Leung, L. W., King, B., & Vohora, V. (2001). Comparison of image data fusion techniques using entropy and INI, in proc. Acrs, vol. 1, 2001, pp. 152–157.

  • Piella, G., & Heijmans, H. (2003). A new quality metric for image fusion. In: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, pp. 137–176.

  • QuickBird spacecraft information and specifications, http://www.digitalglobe.com/index.php/85/QuickBird

  • Ranchin, T., & Wald, L. (2000). Comparison of different algorithms for the improvement of the spatial resolution of images, In Proceedings of the 24th EARSeL Symposium “ Fusion of Earth data: merging point measurements, raster maps and remotely sensed image”, 2000, Sophia Antipolis, France.

  • Reyes, R. A., Gutierrez, M. J., Fernandez, S., Thomas, C., Ranchin, T., & Wald, L. (2004). Evaluation of the quality of Quickbird fused products. Proceedings of the 24th symposium of the European Association of Remote Sensing laboratories, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 25–27 May 2004 in New strategies for European Remote Sensing, Oluic (ed) 2005.

  • Riyahi, R., Kleinn, C., & Fuchs, H. (2009). Comparison of different image fusion techniques for individual tree crown identification using QuickBird images, in proceeding of ISPRS Hannover Workshop 2009.

  • Sadjadi, F. (2005). Comparative image fusion analysis, computer vision and pattern recognition, 2005 IEEE computer society conference on 25th June, page(s): 8–8.

  • Shi, W., Zhu, Ch, Tian, Y., & Nichol, J. (2005). Wavelet-based image fusion and quality assessment. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 6, 241–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C., & Wald, L. (2004). Assessment of the quality of fused products. Proceedings of the 24th symposium of the European Association of Remote Sensing laboratories, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 25–27 May 2004 in New strategies for European Remote Sensing, Oluic (ed) 2005.

  • Thomas, C., & Wald, L. (2006a). Comparing distances for quality assessment of fused products, In Proceedings of the 26th EARSeL Symposium “New Strategies for European Remote Sensing”, 29–31 May 2006, Varsovie, Pologne.

  • Thomas, C., & Wald, L. (2006b). Analysis of changes in quality assessment with scales. In Proceedings of FUSION06, 10–13 July 2006, Florence, Italy.

  • Van Der Meer, F. (2005). The effectiveness of spectral similarity measures for the analysis of hyperspectral imagery. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 93, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vijayaraj, V. (2004). Quantitative Analysis of Pansharpened Images, Mississippi State University.

  • Wald, L. (2000). Quality of High Resolution Synthesized Images: Is There a Simple Criterion? Proc. Int. Conf. Fusion Earth Data.

  • Wang, Z., & Bovik, A. C. (2002). A universal image quality index. IEEE Signal Processing Letter, 3, 81–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Z., & Bovik, A. C. (2009). Mean squared error: love it or leave it? IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 26(1), 98–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Z., Bovik, A. C., Sheikh, H. R., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2004). Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(4), 600–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y. (2008). Methods for image fusion quality assessment-a review, comparison and analysis, the international archives of photogrammety, remote sensing and spatial information sciences, Vol XXXVII,(B7). Beijing, China.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surveying and Geomatics, University College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Farhad Samadzadegan & Farzaneh DadrasJavan

Authors
  1. Farhad Samadzadegan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farzaneh DadrasJavan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farzaneh DadrasJavan.

About this article

Cite this article

Samadzadegan, F., DadrasJavan, F. Evaluating the Sensitivity of Image Fusion Quality Metrics to Image Degradation in Satellite Imagery. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 39, 431–441 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-011-0117-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-011-0117-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation