Publication date
September 2022
DOI Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)Abstract
(a) Degraded image; (b) First input image; (c) Second input image; (d) Third input image; (e) Ours.</p
(a) Degraded image; (b) First input image; (c) Second input image; (d) Third input image; (e) Ours.</p
<p>The examples are face and house images of Class 1, 6, and 10 of the signal-to-noise (SN) weight (...
Comparison of using different data compositions of synthetic images for training the classifier and ...
<p>A comparison between the average processing time of different segmentation methods per image.</p
<p>(a) original image, (b) reduced-resolution image, (c) added Gaussian noise image, (d) defocus-blu...
side-by-side comparison of our image restoration results and original distorted image sequens
<p>Comparison of two images in their Entropy a) Entropy = 7.63 b) Entropy = 7.10.</p
<p>Comparison of the estimated PIC values calculated for the two different marker systems, TBP and S...
Comparison of relevant results: (a) damaged images, (b) Darabi’s results [20], (c) Barnes’ results [...
<p>Note: (1/2/3/4/5) represented the scores of indexes for subjective evaluation.</p><p>Comparison o...
(a) Degraded image; (b) Degraded canny detection image; (c) Restore image; (d) Recovery canny detect...
Comparison of results obtained with sieving method and image-based method (C = 0.85) (%).</p
<p>(A) the outside view of our resulting mesh; (B) the outside view of FSC mesh; (C) the cutaway vie...
<p>(A) The original scene.(B) Image after lateral inhibition filtering. (C) Image after high-pass fi...
side-by-side comparison of our image restoration results and original distorted image sequens
(a) original images; (b) ground truth; (c) output by our method; (d) output by FCN; and (e) output b...
<p>The examples are face and house images of Class 1, 6, and 10 of the signal-to-noise (SN) weight (...
Comparison of using different data compositions of synthetic images for training the classifier and ...
<p>A comparison between the average processing time of different segmentation methods per image.</p
<p>(a) original image, (b) reduced-resolution image, (c) added Gaussian noise image, (d) defocus-blu...
side-by-side comparison of our image restoration results and original distorted image sequens
<p>Comparison of two images in their Entropy a) Entropy = 7.63 b) Entropy = 7.10.</p
<p>Comparison of the estimated PIC values calculated for the two different marker systems, TBP and S...
Comparison of relevant results: (a) damaged images, (b) Darabi’s results [20], (c) Barnes’ results [...
<p>Note: (1/2/3/4/5) represented the scores of indexes for subjective evaluation.</p><p>Comparison o...
(a) Degraded image; (b) Degraded canny detection image; (c) Restore image; (d) Recovery canny detect...
Comparison of results obtained with sieving method and image-based method (C = 0.85) (%).</p
<p>(A) the outside view of our resulting mesh; (B) the outside view of FSC mesh; (C) the cutaway vie...
<p>(A) The original scene.(B) Image after lateral inhibition filtering. (C) Image after high-pass fi...
side-by-side comparison of our image restoration results and original distorted image sequens
(a) original images; (b) ground truth; (c) output by our method; (d) output by FCN; and (e) output b...
<p>The examples are face and house images of Class 1, 6, and 10 of the signal-to-noise (SN) weight (...
Comparison of using different data compositions of synthetic images for training the classifier and ...
<p>A comparison between the average processing time of different segmentation methods per image.</p
Add to ORKG