Name
Title | ||
|---|---|---|
The Comparison of Fusion Methods for HSRRSI Considering the Effectiveness of Land Cover (Features) Object Recognition Based on Deep Learning. |
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
The efficient and accurate application of deep learning in the remote sensing field largely depends on the pre-processing technology of remote sensing images. Particularly, image fusion is the essential way to achieve the complementarity of the panchromatic band and multispectral bands in high spatial resolution remote sensing images. In this paper, we not only pay attention to the visual effect of fused images, but also focus on the subsequent application effectiveness of information extraction and feature recognition based on fused images. Based on the WorldView-3 images of Tongzhou District of Beijing, we apply the fusion results to conduct the experiments of object recognition of typical urban features based on deep learning. Furthermore, we perform a quantitative analysis for the existing pixel-based mainstream fusion methods of IHS (Intensity-Hue Saturation), PCS (Principal Component Substitution), GS (Gram Schmidt), ELS (Ehlers), HPF (High-Pass Filtering), and HCS (Hyper spherical Color Space) from the perspectives of spectrum, geometric features, and recognition accuracy. The results show that there are apparent differences in visual effect and quantitative index among different fusion methods, and the PCS fusion method has the most satisfying comprehensive effectiveness in the object recognition of land cover (features) based on deep learning. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2019 | 10.3390/rs11121435 | REMOTE SENSING |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
image fusion,high spatial resolution remotely sensed imagery,object recognition,deep learning,method comparison | Computer vision,Fusion,Artificial intelligence,Deep learning,Geology,Land cover,Cognitive neuroscience of visual object recognition | Journal |
Volume | Issue | Citations |
11 | 12 | 0 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.34 | 0 | 5 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shiran Song | 1 | 0 | 0.68 |
| Jianhua Liu | 2 | 13 | 3.19 |
| Heng Pu | 3 | 0 | 0.34 |
| Yuan Liu | 4 | 7 | 6.21 |
| Jingyan Luo | 5 | 0 | 0.34 |