4.6 Article

An improved image quality algorithm for exemplar-based image inpainting

期刊

MULTIMEDIA TOOLS AND APPLICATIONS
卷 80, 期 9, 页码 13143-13156

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11042-020-10414-6

关键词

Inpainting; Exemplar; Euclidean distance; PSNR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study develops an exemplar-based image inpainting algorithm to fill-in missing regions caused by various damages, which shows superior performance over some state-of-the-art approaches in terms of both objective and subjective measures through comprehensive experiments.
Image inpainting is a common technique for repairing image regions that are scratched or damaged. This process involves reconstructing damaged parts and filling-in regions in which data/colour information is missing. There are many potential applications for image inpainting, such as repairing old images, repairing scratched images, removing unwanted objects, and filling-in missing areas. This paper develops an exemplar-based algorithm, one of the most important and popular image inpainting techniques, to fill-in missing regions caused by removing unwanted objects, image compression, scratches, or image transformation via the Internet. The proposed algorithm includes two phases of searching to select the best-matching information. In the first phase, the searching mechanism uses the entire image to find and select the most similar patches using the Euclidean distance. The second phase measures the distance between the location of the selected patches and the location of the patch to be filled. The performance of the proposed approach is evaluated through comprehensive experiments on several well-known images used in this area of research. The experimental results demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed approach over some state-of-the-art approaches in terms of quality in terms of both objective (using the peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) as well as the structural similarity index method (SSIM)) and subjective (i.e., visual) measures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据