Table 1 Comparison of methods on the main factors determining the image quality. Three independent test subjects scored the performance, in terms of their ability to perceive the scene, relative to the raw input images before mitigation as: large improvement [++], improvement [+], no significant improvement or deterioration [o], deterioration [−], and large deterioration [−−]. High scores on oversegmentation and deformation thus indicate positive contributions to image quality. The results for the different motion estimation methods (LK, HS, TVL1) are reported assuming local adaptive stabilization but not occlusion compensation. The results for dynamic turbulence mitigation with stabilization or occlusion compensation are reported assuming the best performing motion estimation method for a given scene
From: Dynamic turbulence mitigation for long-range imaging in the presence of large moving objects
| Â | Sharpness of static background | Sharpness of large moving objects | Sharpness of small moving objects | Oversegmentation of moving objects | Ghosting on or around moving objects | Image shearing on motion boundaries | Dynamic deformation of scene | Lag of moving objects |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Global motion + stab. | + | + | + | – | – | – | + | o |
Dynamic turb mit. + LK | + | o | + | o | – | – | + | o |
Dynamic turb mit. + HS | ++ | o | o | o | – | – | + | o |
Dynamic turb mit. + TVL1 | + | + | + | o | o | –– | + | o |
Dynamic turb mit. + global stab. | + | + | + | o | o | o | + | o |
Dynamic turb mit. + local unadaptive stab. | + | o | – | o | o | –– | –– | o |
Dynamic turb mit. + local adaptive stab. | ++ | + | o | o | – | o | ++ | o |
Dynamic turb mit. + local adaptive stab. + occlusion compensation | + | + | o | o | o | o | – | o |
Fishbain et al. | o | o | o | o | o | o | o | o |
Oreifej et al. | – | + | – | –– | –– | o | + | o |