Skip to main content
Log in

Multiresolution visual enhancement of hazy underwater scene

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Haze is an obvious phenomenon in the underwater scenario. The scene visibility reduces to a great extent due to haze, which makes the underwater visual surveillance quite a challenging task. In this article, we have exploited the multi-resolution ability of discrete wavelet transform and applied dark channel prior based transmission map estimation scheme to dehaze the highly degraded underwater image and restored the color. A three-fold scheme for dehazing of underwater sequences is proposed. In the first stage, image details are extracted using discrete wavelet transform followed by image negative operation. In the second stage, the negative of detail images are enhanced by the help of dark channel prior. The third stage is used for reconstruction, where the enhanced image details are used along with the single level approximate of the input image to get the dehazed underwater image using inverse discrete wavelet transform. The proposed scheme is tested with numerous standard underwater images, as well as the excavation images of Dwaraka (Dvārakā) underwater ruins. The effectiveness of the proposed scheme is justified by comparing it with different state-of-the-art image dehazing techniques. The quantitative evaluation has been carried out using five well established general purpose non-reference image quality indices namely BIQI (blind image quality index), BLIINDS (BLind Image Integrity Notator using DCT Statistics), DIIVINE (Distortion Identification-based Image Verity and INtegrity Evaluation), BRISQUE (Blind/Referenceless Image Spatial Quality Evaluator), and SSEQ (Spatial-Spectral Entropy-based Quality). Encouraging scores of 35.01, 30.105, 27.22, 30.10, and 27.8, are achieved for the BIQI, BRISQUE, SSEQ, DIIVINE, and BLIINDS, respectively. Four evaluation measures, exclusively designed for underwater scenarios (underwater image quality, contrast, sharpness, and colorfulness measures) are also used to test the performance of the proposed scheme.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abas PE, De Silva LC et al (2019) Review of underwater image restoration algorithms. IET Image Process 13(10):1587–1596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Addison PS (2017) The illustrated wavelet transform handbook: Introductory theory and applications in science, engineering, medicine and finance. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Agarwal S, Regentova EE, Kachroo P, Verma H (2017) Multidimensional compression of its data using wavelet-based compression techniques. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 18(7):1907–1917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ahn J, Yasukawa S, Sonoda T, Ura T, Ishii K (2017) Enhancement of deep-sea floor images obtained by an underwater vehicle and its evaluation by crab recognition. J Mar Sci Technol 22(4):758–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alex RS, Deepa S, Supriya M (2016) Underwater image enhancement using clahe in a reconfigurable platform. In: MTS/IEEE Monterey OCEANS, pp 1–5

  6. Ancuti CO, Ancuti C (2013) Single image dehazing by multi-scale fusion. IEEE Trans Image Process 22(8):3271–3282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ancuti CO, Ancuti C, De Vleeschouwer C, Bekaert P (2018) Color balance and fusion for underwater image enhancement. IEEE Trans Image Process 27(1):379–393

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Antonini M, Barlaud M, Mathieu P, Daubechies I (1992) Image coding using wavelet transform. IEEE Trans Image Process 1(2):205–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Anwar S, Li C (2020) Diving deeper into underwater image enhancement: a survey. Signal Process Image Commun 89:115978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bickford D, Lohman DJ, Sodhi NS, Ng PK, Meier R, Winker K, Ingram KK, Das I (2007) Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 22(3):148–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boujelbene R, Jemaa YB, Zribi M (2019) A comparative study of recent improvements in wavelet-based image coding schemes. Multimed Tools Appl 78(2):1649–1683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cai B, Xu X, Jia K, Qing C, Tao D (2016) DehazeNet: An end-to-end system for single image haze removal. IEEE Trans Image Process 25(11):5187–5198

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen Z, Wang H, Shen J, Li X, Xu L (2014) Region-specialized underwater image restoration in inhomogeneous optical environments. Opt Int J Light Electron Opt 125(9):2090–2098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cheng CY, Sung CC, Chang HH (2015) Underwater image restoration by red-dark channel prior and point spread function deconvolution. In: IEEE International conference on signal and image processing applications, pp 110–115

  15. Chiang JY, Chen YC (2012) Underwater image enhancement by wavelength compensation and dehazing. IEEE Trans Image Process 21(4):1756–1769

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Colores SS, Moya-Sánchez EU, Ramos-arreguín JM, Cabal-Yépez E (2019) Statistical multidirectional line dark channel for single-image dehazing. IET Image Process 13(14):2877–2887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Emberton S, Chittka L, Cavallaro A (2017) Underwater image and video dehazing with pure haze region segmentation. Comput Vis Image Underst 168:145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fabbri C, Islam MJ, Sattar J (2018) Enhancing underwater imagery using generative adversarial networks. In: IEEE International conference on robotics and automation, pp 7159–7165

  19. Gao Y, Hu HM, Wang S, Li B (2014) A fast image dehazing algorithm based on negative correction. Signal Process 103:380–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ghani ASA, Isa NAM (2017) Automatic system for improving underwater image contrast and color through recursive adaptive histogram modification. Comput Electron Agric 141:181–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Goh Y, Teoh AB, Goh MK (2008) Wavelet based illumination invariant preprocessing in face recognition. In: IEEE Congress on image and signal processing, vol 3, pp 421–425

  22. González-Rivero M, Bongaerts P, Beijbom O, Pizarro O, Friedman A, Rodriguez-Ramirez A, Upcroft B, Laffoley D, Kline D, Bailhache C et al (2014) The catlin seaview survey–kilometre-scale seascape assessment, and monitoring of coral reef ecosystems. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 24(S2):184–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Haar A (1910) Zur theorie der orthogonalen funktionensysteme. Math Ann 69(3):331–371

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Harris S, Ballard R (1986) Argo: Capabilities for deep ocean exploration. In: IEEE OCEANS, pp 6–8

  25. Hassan N, Ullah S, Bhatti N, Mahmood H, Zia M (2021) The retinex based improved underwater image enhancement. Multimed Tools Appl 80 (2):1839–1857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. He K, Sun J, Tang X (2011) Single image haze removal using dark channel prior. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 33(12):2341–2353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hsia CH, Chiang JS, Guo JM (2012) Memory-efficient hardware architecture of 2-D dual-mode lifting-based discrete wavelet transform. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 23(4):671–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hsia CH, Guo JM, Chiang JS (2009) Improved low-complexity algorithm for 2-D integer lifting-based discrete wavelet transform using symmetric mask-based scheme. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 19(8):1202–1208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hussein R, Shaban KB, El-Hag AH (2015) Wavelet transform with histogram-based threshold estimation for online partial discharge signal denoising. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 64(12):3601–3614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. J M, K P (2012) Performance comparison of PCA, DWT-PCA and LWT-PCA for face image retrieval. Comput Sci Eng 2(6):41–50

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jaffe JS (2015) Underwater optical imaging: The past, the present, and the prospects. IEEE J Ocean Eng 40(3):683–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ju M, Ding C, Zhang D, Guo YJ (2018) BDPK: Bayesian Dehazing using prior knowledge. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 29(8):2349–2362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee D, Kim G, Kim D, Myung H, Choi HT (2012) Vision-based object detection and tracking for autonomous navigation of underwater robots. Ocean Eng 48:59–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Li J, Skinner KA, Eustice RM, Johnson-Roberson M (2018) WaterGan: Unsupervised generative network to enable real-time color correction of monocular underwater images. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 3(1):387–394

    Google Scholar 

  35. Liu L, Liu B, Huang H, Bovik AC (2014) No-reference image quality assessment based on spatial and spectral entropies. Signal Process Image Commun 29(8):856–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lu H, Li Y, Serikawa S (2015) Single underwater image descattering and color correction. In: IEEE International conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing, pp 1623–1627

  37. Mallat SG (1989) A theory for multiresolution signal decomposition: The wavelet representation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 11(7):674–693

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Mittal A, Moorthy AK, Bovik AC (2012) No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain. IEEE Trans Image Process 21(12):4695–4708

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Moorthy AK, Bovik AC (2010) A two-step framework for constructing blind image quality indices. IEEE Signal Process Lett 17(5):513–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Moorthy AK, Bovik AC (2011) Blind image quality assessment: From natural scene statistics to perceptual quality. IEEE Trans Image Process 20 (12):3350–3364

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Naik DK, Rout DK (2014) Outdoor image enhancement: Increasing visibility under extreme haze and lighting condition. In: IEEE International advance computing conference, pp 1081–1086

  42. Nikan S, Ahmadi M (2014) Local gradient-based illumination invariant face recognition using local phase quantisation and multi-resolution local binary pattern fusion. IET Image Process 9(1):12–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nishino K, Kratz L, Lombardi S (2012) Bayesian defogging. Int J Comput Vis 98(3):263–278

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. Olszewska JI (2013) Multi-scale, multi-feature vector flow active contours for automatic multiple-face detection. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on bio inspired systems and signal processing, pp 429–435

  45. Ortega A, Jiang W, Fernandez P, Chrysafis CG (1999) Implementations of the discrete wavelet transform: Complexity, memory, and parallelization issues. In: Wavelet applications in signal and image processing VII, vol 3813, pp 386–400

  46. Pan PW, Yuan F, Cheng E (2018) Underwater image de-scattering and enhancing using dehazeNet and HWD. J Mar Sci Technol 26(4):531–540

    Google Scholar 

  47. Panetta K, Gao C, Agaian S (2015) Human-visual-system-inspired underwater image quality measures. IEEE J Ocean Eng 41(3):541–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pereira DA, Fraza O et al (2004) Fiber bragg grating sensing system for simultaneous measurement of salinity and temperature. Opt Eng 43 (2):299–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Priyadharsini R, Sharmila TS, Rajendran V (2018) A wavelet transform based contrast enhancement method for underwater acoustic images. Multidim Syst Sign Process 29(4):1845–1859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Qiao X, Bao J, Zhang H, Zeng L, Li D (2017) Underwater image quality enhancement of sea cucumbers based on improved histogram equalization and wavelet transform. Inf Process Agric 4(3):206–213

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rout DK, Subudhi BN, Veerakumar T, Chaudhury S (2018) Spatio-contextual gaussian mixture model for local change detection in underwater video. Expert Syst Appl 97:117–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Saad MA, Bovik AC, Charrier C (2010) A DCT statistics-based blind image quality index. IEEE Signal Process Lett 17(6):583–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sahu G, Seal A, Krejcar O, Yazidi A (2021) Single image dehazing using a new color channel. J Vis Commun Image Represent 103008:74

    Google Scholar 

  54. Serikawa S, Lu H (2014) Underwater image dehazing using joint trilateral filter. Comput Electr Eng 40(1):41–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shahbahrami A (2012) Algorithms and architectures for 2D discrete wavelet transform. J Supercomput 62(2):1045–1064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Singh H, Adams J, Mindell D, Foley B (2000) Imaging underwater for archaeology. J Field Archeol 27(3):319–328

    Google Scholar 

  57. Song W, Wang Y, Huang D, Liotta A, Perra C (2020) Enhancement of underwater images with statistical model of background light and optimization of transmission map. IEEE Trans Broadcast 66(1):153–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Souaidi M, El Ansari M (2019) Multi-scale analysis of ulcer disease detection from wce images. IET Image Process 13(12):2233–2244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Srivastava V, Purwar RK (2017) A five-level wavelet decomposition and dimensional reduction approach for feature extraction and classification of mr and ct scan images, vol 2017

  60. Stark JA (2000) Adaptive image contrast enhancement using generalizations of histogram equalization. IEEE Trans Image Process 9(5):889–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sweldens W (1998) The lifting scheme: A construction of second generation wavelets. SIAM J Math Anal 29(2):511–546

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  62. Temple SE (2007) Effect of salinity on the refractive index of water: considerations for archer fish aerial vision. J Fish Biol 70(5):1626–1629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Twardowski MS, Boss E, Macdonald JB, Pegau WS, Barnard AH, Zaneveld JRV (2001) A model for estimating bulk refractive index from the optical backscattering ratio and the implications for understanding particle composition in case I and case II waters. J Geophys Res 106(C7):14129–14142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Vasamsetti S, Mittal N, Neelapu BC, Sardana HK (2017) Wavelet based perspective on variational enhancement technique for underwater imagery. Ocean Eng 141:88–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wang B, Zheng F, Li X, Zhang S (2019) Single image dehazing using manifold particle filter. In: 12Th international congress on image and signal processing, biomedical engineering and informatics, pp 1–6

  66. Wood R, Olszewska JI (2012) Lighting-variable adaboost based-on system for robust face detection. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on bio-inspired systems and signal processing, pp 494–497

  67. Yassin AA, Ghadban RM, Saleh SF, Neima HZ (2013) Using discrete wavelet transformation to enhance underwater image. Int J Comput Sci Issues 10 (5):220–228

    Google Scholar 

  68. Yu H, Li X, Lou Q, Lei C, Liu Z (2020) Underwater image enhancement based on dcp and depth transmission map. Multimed Tools Appl 79(27):20373–20390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Zervas ND, Anagnostopoulos GP, Spiliotopoulos V, Andreopoulos Y, Goutis CE (2001) Evaluation of design alternatives for the 2-d-discrete wavelet transform. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 11(12):1246–1262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Zhang W, Dong L, Zhang T, Xu W (2021) Enhancing underwater image via color correction and bi-interval contrast enhancement. Signal Process Image Commun 116030:90

    Google Scholar 

  71. Zhu Q, Mai J, Shao L (2015) A fast single image haze removal algorithm using color attenuation prior. IEEE Trans Image Process 24(11):3522–3533

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  72. Zhuang P, Ding X (2020) Underwater image enhancement using an edge-preserving filtering retinex algorithm. Multimed Tools Appl 79(25):1–21

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Marine Archaeological Unit (MAU) of The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Dr. S. R. Rao, Mr. H. S. Adwani, Mr. M. A. Raveendra, Dr. Nalini Rao, Mr. Graham Hancock, and Mr. Rafal Reyzer for providing the Dwaraka sequence and images used in this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Badri Narayan Subudhi.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Evaluation Measures

Appendix: Evaluation Measures

Quantitative analysis of the images is carried out using the non-reference image quality assessment measures. The reason for choosing these measures is that, in our experiments, the reference or ground truth images are not available.

BRISQUE :

[38]: It is a natural scene statistic based distortion-generic blind/no-reference image quality assessment model which operates in the spatial domain. It uses scene statistics of locally normalized luminance coefficients to quantify possible losses of ‘naturalness’ in the images due to the presence of distortions, thereby leading to a holistic measure of quality. A support vector regression (SVR) model is employed by using the differential mean opinion score (DMOS) value. The measure is based on the mean subtracted contrast normalized (MSCN) coefficient, which is given by;

$$ I_{MSCN} = \frac{I(i,j)-\mu(i,j)}{\sigma(i,j)+c}, $$
(24)

where,

$$ \mu(i,j)={\sum}_{k=-K}^{K}{\sum}_{l=-L}^{L}w_{k,l}I(i+k,j+l), $$
(25)
$$ \sigma(i,j)=\sqrt{{\sum}_{k=-K}^{K}{\sum}_{l=-L}^{L}w_{k,l}\left[I(i+k,j+l)-\mu(i,j)\right]^{2}}. $$
(26)
DIIVINE :

[40]: It is a distortion-agnostic approach to blind image quality assessment that utilizes concepts from natural scene statistics to not only quantify the distortion but also quantify the distortion type afflicting the images. First, it computes the wavelet coefficients and normilize them. Next, it identifies the distortion afflicting the images and then performs the distortion-specific quality assessment.

BLIINDS :

[52]: It is an efficient, general-purpose, non-distortion specific, blind/no-reference image quality assessment algorithm that uses discrete cosine transform coefficients to perform the distortion-agnostic quality assessment.

BIQI :

[39]: It is a new two-step framework for no-reference image quality assessment based on natural scene statistics. Once trained, the framework does not require any knowledge of the distorting process and the framework is modular so it can be extended to any number of distortions.

SSEQ :

[35]: It is an efficient general-purpose no-reference image quality assessment model that utilizes local spatial and spectral entropy features on distorted images. It Uses a 2-stage framework of distortion classification followed by a quality assessment. It utilizes a support vector machine to train an image distortion and quality prediction engine. It is capable of assessing the quality of a distorted image across multiple distortion categories.

UICM :

[47]: This parameter is devised to measure the colorfulness of the image. This is given as;

$$ UICM = -0.0268 \sqrt{\mu_{\alpha, RG}^{2}+\mu_{\alpha, YB}^{2}}+0.1586 \sqrt{\sigma_{\alpha, RG}^{2}+\sigma_{\alpha, YB}^{2}}, $$
(27)

where μ represents the chrominance intensity, and σ2 represents the variance in the chrominance.

UISM :

[47]: The underwater image sharpness measure aims to compute the measure of sharpness of an image. It is computed by;

$$ UISM = {\sum}_{c=1}^{3}\lambda_{c} EME \left( GrayscaleEdge_{c}\right), $$
(28)
$$ EME = \frac{2}{k_{1}k_{2}}{\sum}_{l=1}^{k_{1}}{\sum}_{k=1}^{k_{2}}log\left( \frac{I_{max,k,l}}{I_{min,k,l}}\right), $$
(29)

where k1k2 is the number of blocks an image got divided by.

UIConM :

[47]: It is the underwater image contrast measure, which is defined mathematically as;

$$ UIConM = logAMEE(Intensity), $$
(30)

where the AMEE is the Agaian measure of enhancement by engropy. This is the average michaelson contrast in the local regions.

UIQM :

[47]: It is the normalized underwater image quality measure. It is given by:

$$ UIQM = c_{1} \times UICM + c_{2} \times UISM + c_{3} \times UIConM, $$
(31)

where c1, c2, and c3 are the contributing factors which are set to 0.0282, 0.2953, and 3.5753, respectively.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rout, D.K., Subudhi, B.N., Veerakumar, T. et al. Multiresolution visual enhancement of hazy underwater scene. Multimed Tools Appl 81, 32907–32936 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-12692-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-12692-8

Keywords

Navigation