Speckle Noise Reduction of Sar Image Using Wavelet Packet Transform
Speckle Noise Reduction of Sar Image Using Wavelet Packet Transform
=
=
mn
1 j , i
2
j , i
2
f
WP
mn
1
~
o (5)
where mn is the size of the subband under consideration. WPi,j
is the wavelet packet subband.The original image variance
(
2
x
~
o ) is estimated by the formula is ) 0 ,
~ ~
max(
~ 2
n
2
f
2
x
o o o =
(6)
We refer to our method as Bayesshrink which perform soft
thresholding, wavelet packet subbands dependent threshold (T),
which is given by
x
2
n
~
~
T
o
o
= .
4. Proposed Methodology
The flow chart of the proposed algorithm is shown in figure
2.
Figure 2 Flow chart of Proposed Algorithm
The noise variance is obtained from the high frequency
subband of first level wavelet packet decomposition. Using the
noise variance and the variance of each subband, calculate the
approximated variance original image subbands.
From the approximated variance and noise variance find the
threshold for each subbands. The obtained threshold value is
compared with each subband coefficients and applies the soft
thresholding algorithm.
Get the Noisy image
Apply the Wavelet Packet Transform
Find the Noise variance, (
2
n
o )
Find the Threshold value (T) using VishuShrink and
BayesShrink method
Apply Soft-thresholding for the high frequency WPT
subbands
Take Inverse Wavelet Packet Transform
Denoised image
3
Inverse WPT is then applied to the soft threshold coefficients.
Finally, the performance metrics like Peak Signal to Noise Ratio
(PSNR) and Image Enhancement Factor (IEF) are calculated.
5. Simulation Results and Discussion
The algorithm is tested with the SAR images of size 256 256.
Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and IEF are used to estimate the
performance of the denoised image. The PSNR and IEF values are
calculated from the equation (7) and (8) respectively.
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
MSE
255
log 20 dB in PSNR
10
(7)
= =
= =
=
N
1 i
N
1 j
2
N
1 i
N
1 j
2
)) j , i ( x ) j , i ( z (
)) j , i ( x ) j , i ( f (
IEF
(8)
where
= =
=
N
1 i
N
1 j
2
2
)) j , i ( z ) j , i ( x (
N
1
MSE
(9)
where MSE is the Mean Square Error, N2 is the size of the image,
x is the original image and z is the denoised image and f is the
noisy image.
The following table shows the performance analysis by comparing
the PSNR values for wavelet and wavelet packet for the
thresholding techniques namely BayesShrink and VisuShrink by
using Haar filter for different variance. The level of decomposition
is three. From the table 1, it is obvious that the performance of
wavelet packet is better than the wavelet.
The wavelet packet based methods have drawbacks that the run
time is longer than the wavelet based method because the wavelet
packet decomposition is more time-consuming. The wavelet packet
based denoising method can achieve the good performance
especially for the SAR images with much detailed information.
Table 1 gives the comparison of the proposed scheme against the
existing scheme for GeoEye1 satellite image of Kutztown
University and the corresponding plot is shown in figure 3. From
the figures 3 and 4, we observe that the proposed WPT based
BayesShrink algorithm gives better result than the other spatial and
frequency domain approach.
Table 1 PSNR and IEF values for WPT and various filters
of GeoEye1 Image
Filters Variance
0.01 0.08 0.16
PSNR
in dB
IEF PSNR
in dB
IEF PSNR
in dB
IEF
Lee 23.03 0.30 22.47 2.00 21.80 3.38
Stick 17.79 0.12 16.81 0.76 16.06 1.25
Kuwahara 24.22 0.40 21.69 1.75 20.09 2.36
Kuwahara
Fast
21.31 0.18 20.00 1.13 19.07 1.79
Median 23.68 0.35 22.00 1.83 20.76 2.68
Frost 25.70 0.53 22.36 2.03 20.31 2.52
WT Vishu 25.05 1.15 21.86 2.32 20.79 3.33
WT Bayes 29.10 0.44 23.16 1.73 21.47 2.69
WPT
Vishu
28.79 0.50 22.10 1.91 20.90 2.88
WPT
Bayes
29.34 1.28 23.32 2.47 21.91 3.41
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Variance-->
P
S
N
R
i
n
d
B
-
-
>
PSNR Vs Variance
Lee
Stick
WTVishu
WTBayes
WPTVishu
WPTBayes
Figure 3 Plot for comparing of various thresholding techniques
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Variance-->
I
E
F
-
-
>
IEF Vs Variance
Lee
Stick
WTVishu
WTBayes
WPTVishu
WPTBayes
Figure 4 IEF values of various thresholding techniques
4
The results for comparison of various filters with the proposed
methodology for GeoEye1 Image are shown in the figure 5.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
(g) (h)
(i) (j)
(k) (l)
Figure 5 Original and denoised images
(a)Original image (b)Noisy image ((c) Lee filter(d)Stick filter(e)Kuwahara
filter (f)Kuwahara fast filter(g)Median filter (h)Frost filter(i)WT
BayesShrink(j)WT VisuShrink (k)WPT BayesShrink (l)WPT VisuShrink
Table 2 gives the result of the comparison of various WPT
filters for west concordoorthophoto image and the
corresponding plot is shown in figure 6. From the table, it is
possible to observe that the choice of the wavelet filters affects
the performance of the proposed algorithm.
In this case, the performance of La8 filter is better than other
wavelet filters. La8 wavelet coefficients is proportional to
change between avarage over scale and its surroundings, the
change measured by length of filter by 2 first differences and
the average is localiized weighted average.
But in Daubhechies filter wavelet coeffients are proportional to
difference between localized weighted average and its
surroundings. Hence, the performance of La8 better than the
other fiters.
Table 2 PSNR values for WPT filters of West
concordoorthophoto Image
Filters
PSNR in dB
Noise Variance
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.16
Haar 26.25 24.24 22.40 20.70 20.16 19.50 19.02
D4 26.80 24.81 22.91 21.13 20.74 20.28 19.70
Bi9 27.00 24.75 22.67 20.73 20.17 19.43 18.83
Bi5 24.48 23.01 21.21 19.24 18.59 18.08 18.67
La8 27.08 25.13 23.33 23.33 21.49 20.94 19.77
5
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Wavelet Filters-->
P
S
N
R
i
n
d
B
-
-
>
PSNR Vs Wavelet Filters
Haar
Db2
Bi9/7
Bi5/3
La8
Figure 6 Plot for comparing of WPT filters for West concordoorthophoto
The denoised image obtained using the proposed method and the
existing methods are given in figure 7. From the figure, it shows
that the visual quality of the proposed method better than the
existing methods.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
(g) (h)
(i) (j)
(k) (l)
Figure 7 Original and denoised West concordorthophoto images (a) Original
image (b) Noisy image (c) Lee filter (d) Stick filter (e) Kuwahara filter (f)
Kuwahara fast filter (g) Median filter (h) Frost filter (i) WT BayesShrink (j)
WT VisuShrink (k) WPT BayesShrink (l) WPT VisuShrink
6. Conclusion
In this paper, removal of speckle noise in SAR image
using wavelet packet transform by incorporating BayesShrink
and VisuShrink thresholding techniques has been presented.
BayesShrink performs better than VisuShrink in terms of
PSNR. The resultant SAR image using BayesShrink gives
smoother results and more visually appealing than one obtained
by VisuShrink. The denoising of the image using wavelet
packet achieves better performance than wavelet denoising.
References
[1] Goodman J W, Some fundamental properties of speckle, J. Opr.Soc. Am.,
66 (1976) 1145).
[2] Lee J S, Speckle analysis and smoothing of synthetic aperture radar
images, Comput. Graphics Image Graphics, 17 (1981) 32).
[3] Lee J S, A simple speckle smoothing algorithm for synthetic aperture radar
images, IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet., 13 (1983) 89).
[4] Lim J S, Two-Dimensional Signal and Image Processing, (Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey), 1990 ,476.
[5] Franceschetti, G & Pascazio V, Iterative homomorphic technique for
speckle reduction in synthetic-aperture radar imaging, J. Opt. Soc. Amer., 12
(1995) 686).
6
[6] Lee S, Digital image enhancement and noise filtering by use of local statistics,
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell., 2 (1980) 165).
[7] Kuan D T, Sawchuk A A, Strand T C & Chavel P, Adaptive noise smoothing
filter for images with signal dependent noise,IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine
Intell., 2 (1985) 165).
[8] Frost V S, Stiles I A, et al, A model for radar images and its application to
adaptive digital filtering of multiplicative noise, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal.
Machine Intell., 4 (1982) 157).
[9] Chi M, Lu G, & Huang S Z, De-Noising the Speckle Noises of the SAR Image
via the Wavelet Soft-Thresholding Method, Journal of Xiamen University (Nature
Science), 41 (2002) 756).
[10] Xiong Z, Ramchandran K & Orchard M T, Wavelet packets coding using
space-frequency quantization, IEEE Trans. Image Processing, 7 (1998) 892).
[11] Mallat S, A Wavelet tour of signal processing, {Academic press, New York),
1999}.
[12] Donoho D L, De-Noising by Soft Thresholding, IEEE Trans. Info. Theory
43 (1993) 933).
[13] Donoho D L & Johnstone I M , Ideal spatial adaptation via wavelet shrinkage,
Biometrika, 81 (1994) 425).
[14] Chang S, Yu B & Vetterli M, Adaptive Wavelet Thresholding for Image
denoising and Compression, IEEE Trans. Image Processing, 9 (2000) 1532).