Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 50, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2012
AbstractWe propose a novel despeckling algorithm for synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images based on the concepts of
nonlocal filtering and wavelet-domain shrinkage. It follows the
structure of the block-matching 3-D algorithm, recently proposed
for additive white Gaussian noise denoising, but modifies its major
processing steps in order to take into account the peculiarities
of SAR images. A probabilistic similarity measure is used for
the block-matching step, while the wavelet shrinkage is developed
using an additive signal-dependent noise model and looking for the
optimum local linear minimum-mean-square-error estimator in
the wavelet domain. The proposed technique compares favorably
w.r.t. several state-of-the-art reference techniques, with better results both in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (on simulated speckled
images) and of perceived image quality.
Index TermsEmpirical Wiener filtering, linear minimummean-square-error (LMMSE) filtering, nonlocal filtering, speckle,
synthetic aperture radar (SAR), undecimated discrete wavelet
transform (UDWT).
I. I NTRODUCTION
Manuscript received November 16, 2010; revised April 28, 2011; accepted
June 12, 2011. Date of publication August 18, 2011; date of current version
January 20, 2012.
S. Parrilli, M. Poderico, and L. Verdoliva are with the Department
of Biomedical, Electronic, and Telecommunication Engineering, University
of Naples Federico II, 80121 Naples, Italy (e-mail: sara.parrilli@unina.it;
mariana.poderico@unina.it; verdoliv@unina.it).
C. V. Angelino is with the Department of Biomedical, Electronic, and
Telecommunication Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, 80121
Naples, Italy, and also with Laboratory I3S, University of NiceSophia
Antipolis/CNRS, 06903 Sophia Antipolis, France (e-mail: cesariovincenzo.
angelino@unina.it).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TGRS.2011.2161586
PARRILLI et al.: NONLOCAL SAR IMAGE DENOISING ALGORITHM BASED ON LLMMSE WAVELET SHRINKAGE
1 Preliminary
607
608
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 50, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2012
block, BM3-D looks (in a suitable search area) for those blocks
which are closest to the reference in terms of Euclidean distance. In the AWGN setting, this makes perfect sense because
a smaller Euclidean distance corresponds to a higher likelihood
that the two signal blocks (without noise) be equal, which is
what the collaborative filtering needs. However, once the noise
statistics change, as what happens with SAR images, the Euclidean distance loses its significance, and we need a different
ad hoc similarity measure in order to keep identifying the signal
blocks that are more likely to be equal to the reference one.
Our second modification stems from the same line of reasoning and concerns the collaborative filtering itself. In fact, hard
thresholding is a reasonable choice in AWGN, since it is the
minimax estimator of the uncorrupted group [33], but this is
no longer true with multiplicative noise where a more suitable
wavelet shrinkage strategy can be devised. In this paper, in
particular, we adopt the LLMMSE solution, discussed in depth
in the next section. Together with this compelling modification, we introduce a further change consisting in the use
of the undecimated discrete WT (UDWT), aimed at obtaining
more reliable estimates in the first step, particularly needed
in the presence of such intense noise. Indeed, by eliminating
the decimation step, UDWT guarantees shift invariance (thus
avoiding artifacts such as Gibbs phenomena after thresholding)
and provides a larger number of samples for subsequent estimates. On the other hand, UDWT is quite data intensive and
gives rise to correlated coefficients, thus uncoupling optimality
in the original and transform domain. Nonetheless, it has been
shown experimentally [38], and justified theoretically [39], to
provide better results than nonredundant WT and has already
been successfully applied to LLMMSE shrinkage in the case of
speckle [20], [40].
III. P ROPOSED SAR-O RIENTED
M ODIFICATIONS IN D ETAIL
In this section, we analyze in some depth the modifications
adopted in BM3-D in order to deal effectively with speckled
SAR images. Under the hypothesis of fully developed speckle,
the observed backscattered signal z(s)3 can be expressed as
z(s) = x(s)u(s)
(1)
(2)
PARRILLI et al.: NONLOCAL SAR IMAGE DENOISING ALGORITHM BASED ON LLMMSE WAVELET SHRINKAGE
609
(3)
where x(s) and x(t) are the corresponding values of the noisefree signal, defined over the domain D, and p() indicates a
probability density function. We have assumed a(s) and a(t) to
be conditionally independent given x. This expression further
simplifies to
p [a(s), a(t)|x(s) = x(t)]
p [a(s)|x(s) = ] p [a(t)|x(t) = ] d
(4)
4L
2L1
a(s)a(t)
(2L 1)
.
2 (L)
a2 (s) + a2 (t)
(7)
d [a(Bs ), a(Bt )]
p [a(s + k), a(t + k)|x(s + k) = x(t + k)]
= log
= log
4L
(2L 1)
2 (L)
a(s + k)a(t + k)
2
a (s + k) + a2 (t + k)
2L1
(8)
a(s + k)
a(t + k)
+
log
d1 [a(Bs ), a(Bt )] = (2L 1)
a(t + k)
a(s + k)
k
(9)
where the subscript 1 indicates that this measure is used in the
first step.
In the second step, in fact, the similarity measure must take
into account the additional information provided by the first
step, which is a coarse estimate of the noiseless signal x
.
Therefore, inspired by the study in [30], where this approach is
used for iterative denoising in a Bayesian framework, we define
the similarity measure in the second step as
a(s+k) a(t+k)
+
(2L1) log
d2 [a(Bs ), a(Bt )] =
a(t+k) a(s+k)
k
|
x(s+k) x
(t+k)|2
(10)
+L
x
(s+k)
x(t+k)
where weighs the relative importance of the data and (loosely
speaking) prior terms. Note that, unlike in [30], there is only
one weight to tune, because we are only interested in ranking
the blocks based on their similarity with the reference and not
in computing any absolute measure.
(4) reads as
4L2L
[a(s)a(t)]2L1
p [a(s), a(t)|x(s) = x(t)]
2 (L)2L
0
L 2
2
a (s) + a (t) d
exp
(6)
B. Group Shrinkage
The hard thresholding used by BM3-D in the first step is
a reasonable choice in the AWGN context, but not anymore
in the presence of SAR speckle. Therefore, we address the
shrinkage problem in the framework of statistical estimation,
with the noise model of (2), and look for the optimum linear
610
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 50, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2012
(11)
where we have used capital letters for the transformed data and
boldface to indicate the vectors formed by all the coefficients of
the group. Under the constraint of linearity, the optimal MMSE
estimator is [43]
= E[X] + (CXZ )(CZ )1 (Z E[Z])
X
(12)
(13)
If we further assume that the covariance matrices are diagonal, the estimation acts separately on each coefficient of the
group
X(i)
= E [X(i)] +
2
X
(i)
2 (i) + 2 (i)
X
V
Z(i)
(15)
X(i) =
E [X 2 (i)] + E [V 2 (i)]
or equivalently
2
2
E
Z
(i)
E
V (i)
X(i)
=
Z(i).
2
E [Z (i)]
(16)
1
|SB(i)|
Z 2 (j)
(17)
jSB(i)
u2
h2 (k)E z 2 (i k)
2
(1 + u )
(18)
u2
z 2 G
(1 + u2 )
(19)
2
u
2
Z 2 SB(i) (1+
2 ) z G
u
1 (i) = max 0,
Z(i) (20)
X
Z 2 SB(i)
where the subscript 1 indicates first step and the max
operator accounts for a possible sign inversion due to
estimation errors.
2) Second step: The collaborative filtering in the second step
also has an LLMMSE nature with the major difference
that now an estimate of the noiseless signal coefficient is
already available. As a first consequence, we can use simpler nonredundant transforms, thus reducing complexity.
In addition, with reference to (15), we estimate E[X 2 (i)]
1 (i) is the coefficient computed
2 (i), where X
simply as X
1
from the partially denoised signal x
1 (n) provided by the
first step. This amounts to using the empirical Wiener
filtering, proposed in [34] for the AWGN context and
also used in the original BM3-D [26]. Finally, to estimate
E[V 2 (i)], we assume that it is constant over the group and
2 (i) carrying out an
exploit again the first-step estimate X
1
PARRILLI et al.: NONLOCAL SAR IMAGE DENOISING ALGORITHM BASED ON LLMMSE WAVELET SHRINKAGE
2 (i)
X
1
2 (i) + V 2 G
X
1
Z(i).
(22)
C. Aggregation
To conclude the description of our algorithm, let us focus on
the aggregation phase. Since a given pixel x(s) can be included
in more than one group, and hence estimated several times,
each time with a possibly different value, such values must be
averaged using suitable weights
1
wG x
G (s).
(23)
x
(s) =
T
GG(s)
Here, x
G (s) is the estimate provided from group G through
G(s) is the
inverse transform, wG is the corresponding weight,
set of all groups comprising x(s), and T = GG(s) wG is a
normalizing factor.
Like in [26], the weights are made to depend on the presumed
reliability of the associated group estimate, related in turn to the
average noise power of the group after shrinkage. In formulas
wG
V
2
1
2
G S (i)G
(24)
611
Such techniques have been chosen because of their competitive performance and (not least) for the availability of software
code to run the experiments. Experimental results have, in
fact, been obtained by using the authors own code available
online or run by the authors themselves on our test images.
We also include in the comparison two state-of-the-art AWGN
techniques used in a homomorphic setting (with mean-bias
correction), the AWGN versions of PPB (H-PPB) and BM3-D
(H-BM3-D), which are particularly interesting for images
with a large number of looks. Finally, we also consider the
well-known Frost filter [7] which, although pretty aged, is a
de facto standard, included in many image processing software
packages, and used routinely by photo interpreters of military
and civil space agencies.
For all these algorithms, if not stated otherwise, the free
parameters are set as suggested in the reference papers. As
for the proposed SAR-BM3-D algorithm, in the first step,
we use a Daubechies-8 UDWT transform with a three-level
decomposition, and fixed groups of dimension 8 8 16. Just
like in BM3-D, the computational burden is reduced by using a
relatively small search area, 39 39, and by selecting reference
blocks only on every third row and column. Similar choices
apply to the second step except for the transform, which is a
spatial DCT followed by a Haar DWT along the blocks with a
maximum-level decomposition, and for the group dimensions
that grow to 8 8 32. Finally, the weight in the similarity
measure of (10) was set equal to one, which was found experimentally to guarantee a good performance.
B. Results With Simulated Speckle
In order to obtain reliable results, we considered a variety
of sources, including some general-purpose images commonly
used in the AWGN denoising literature, some aerial photographs which better resemble SAR images in terms of scene
structure, and a synthetic image, first introduced by Lee in
[48], in order to test structure preservation. SAR-like images
are obtained by multiplying optical images by simulated white
speckle in amplitude format (square-root intensity model) [42]
with pdfs corresponding to the cases of 1, 2, 4, and 16 looks. All
numerical results are obtained as the average over ten different
realizations of the noise process.
The performance is quantified by the peak signal-to-noise
ratio (PSNR)
P SN R = 10 log10
|x|2max
M SE
(25)
612
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 50, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2012
TABLE I
PSNR R ESULTS FOR L ENA , B OAT, AND NAPOLI
Fig. 1.
Original images used in the experiments. (a) Lena. (b) Boat. (c) Napoli.
5 Similar results, with minor variations, are obtained with all the images; they
are not reported in this paper to save space.
PARRILLI et al.: NONLOCAL SAR IMAGE DENOISING ALGORITHM BASED ON LLMMSE WAVELET SHRINKAGE
613
Fig. 4. Filtered images for target corrupted by one-look speckle. (a) Noisy
image. (b) Frost. (c) SA-WBMMAE. (d) MAP-S. (e) Original image. (f) PPB.
(g) H-PPB. (h) SAR-BM3-D. (i) H-BM3-D.
TABLE II
I NDEX FOR NAPOLI
TABLE III
PSNR AND D ETECTION R ESULTS FOR TARGET. D ETECTION R ESULTS
A RE IN T ERMS OF AVERAGE N UMBER OF I DENTIFIED F EATURES
(OVER T EN R EALIZATIONS ) OF THE S INGLE -L OOK I MAGE
(27)
614
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 50, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2012
Fig. 5. Test SAR-X images (Infoterra GmbH) with selected areas for ENL
computation (white box). (a) Rs 1, L = 1. (b) Rs 2, L = 1. (c) Rs 3, L = 1.
(d) Rs 4, L = 1. (e) Tr, L = 1. (f) Tr, L = 6.
TABLE IV
ENL FOR R EAL SAR I MAGES
Fig. 6. Filtered images for Rs 3. (a) SAR image. (b) Frost. (c) SA-WBMMAE.
(d) MAP-S. (f) PPB. (g) H-PPB. (h) SAR-BM3-D. (i) H-BM3-D.
(28)
Fig. 7. Zoom of enhanced ratio between the noisy and denoised images.
(a) SAR image. (b) Frost. (c) SA-WBMMAE. (d) MAP-S. (f) PPB. (g) H-PPB.
(h) SAR-BM3-D. (i) H-BM3-D.
PARRILLI et al.: NONLOCAL SAR IMAGE DENOISING ALGORITHM BASED ON LLMMSE WAVELET SHRINKAGE
615
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank T. Bianchi for processing
data with the MAP-S filter and M. I. H. Bhuiyan for providing
SA-WMMAE code. The authors would also like to thank Prof.
G. Poggi for his helpful comments and suggestions.
R EFERENCES
[1] C. Oliver and S. Quegan, Understanding Synthetic Aperture Radar
Images. Raleigh, NC: SciTech, 2004.
[2] H. H. Arsenault and M. Levesque, Combined homomorphic and localstatistics processing for restoration of images degraded by signaldependent noise, Appl. Opt., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 845850, Mar. 1984.
[3] P. F. Yan and C. H. Chen, An algorithm for filtering multiplicative noise
in wide range, Traitement du Signal, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 9196, 1986.
[4] H. H. Arsenault and G. April, Properties of speckle integrated with
a finite aperture and logarithmically transformed, J. Opt. Soc. Amer.,
vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 11601163, Nov. 1976.
[5] J. S. Lee, Digital image enhancement and noise filtering by use of local
statistics, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. PAMI-2, no. 2,
pp. 165168, Mar. 1980.
[6] J. S. Lee, Refined filtering of image noise using local statistics, Comput.
Graph. Image Process., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 380389, Apr. 1981.
[7] V. S. Frost, J. A. Stiles, K. S. Shanmugan, and J. C. Holtzman, A model
for radar images and its application to adaptive digital filtering of multiplicative noise, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. PAMI-4,
no. 2, pp. 157166, Mar. 1982.
[8] D. T. Kuan, A. A. Sawchuk, T. C. Strand, and P. Chavel, Adaptive noise
smoothing filter for images with signal-dependent noise, IEEE Trans.
Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. PAMI-7, no. 2, pp. 165177, Mar. 1985.
[9] R. Touzi, A. Lopes, and P. Bousquet, A statistical and geometrical edge
detector for SAR images, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 26,
no. 6, pp. 764773, Nov. 1988.
[10] A. Lopes, R. Touzi, and E. Nezry, Adaptive speckle filters and scene
heterogeneity, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 992
1000, Nov. 1990.
[11] D. T. Kuan, A. A. Sawchuk, T. C. Strand, and P. Chavel, Adaptive
restoration of images with speckle, IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal
Process., vol. ASSP-35, no. 3, pp. 373383, Jan. 1987.
[12] A. Lopes, E. Nezry, R. Touzi, and H. Laur, Maximum a posteriori
speckle filtering and first order texture models in SAR images, in Proc.
IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp., May 1990, vol. 3, pp. 24092412.
[13] E. Nezry, A. Lopes, and R. Touzi, Detection of structural and textural
features for SAR image filtering, in Proc. IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote Sens.
Symp., 1991, vol. 3, pp. 21692172.
[14] H. Guo, J. Odegard, M. Lang, R. Gopinath, L. Selesnick, and C. Burrus,
Wavelet based speckle reduction with application to SAR based ATD/R,
in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Image Process., 1994, vol. 1, pp. 7579.
[15] L. Gagnon and A. Jouan, Speckle filtering of SAR images: A comparative study between complex wavelet-based and standard filters, Proc.
SPIE, vol. 3169, pp. 8091, 1997.
[16] A. Achim, P. Tsakalides, and A. Bezarianos, SAR image denoising
via Bayesian wavelet shrinkage based on heavy-tailed modeling, IEEE
Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 17731784, Aug. 2003.
[17] S. Solb and T. Eltoft, Homomorphic wavelet-based statistical despeckling of SAR images, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 42, no. 4,
pp. 711721, Apr. 2004.
[18] M. Bhuiyan, M. Ahmad, and M. Swamy, Spatially adaptive wavelet
based method using the cauchy prior for denoising the SAR images,
IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 500507,
Apr. 2007.
[19] H. Xie, L. Pierce, and F. Ulaby, Despeckling SAR images using a low
complexity wavelet denoising process, in Proc. IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote
Sens. Symp., Nov. 2002, vol. 1, pp. 321324.
[20] F. Argenti and A. Alparone, Speckle removal from SAR images in the undecimated wavelet domain, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 40,
no. 11, pp. 23632374, Nov. 2002.
[21] F. Argenti, T. Bianchi, and A. Alparone, Multiresolution MAP despeckling of SAR images based on locally adaptive generalized Gaussian pdf
modeling, IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 33853399,
Nov. 2006.
[22] F. Argenti, T. Bianchi, and A. Alparone, Segmentation-based MAP despeckling of SAR images in the undecimated wavelet domain, IEEE
Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 27282742, Sep. 2008.
616
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 50, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2012
[23] J. J. Ranjani and S. Thiruvengadan, Dual-tree complex wavelet transform based SAR despeckling using interscale dependence, IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 27232731, Jun. 2010.
[24] D. Gleich, M. Kseneman, and M. Datcu, Despeckling of TerraSAR-X
data using second-generation wavelets, IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett.,
vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 6872, Jan. 2010.
[25] A. Buades, B. Coll, and J. M. Morel, A review of image denoising
algorithms, with a new one, Multiscale Model. Simul., vol. 4, no. 2,
pp. 490530, Jul. 2005.
[26] K. Dabov, A. Foi, V. Katkovnik, and K. Egiazarian, Image denoising by
sparse 3D transform-domain collaborative filtering, IEEE Trans. Image
Process., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 20802095, Aug. 2007.
[27] V. Katkovnik, A. Foi, K. Egiazarian, and J. Astola, From local kernel to
nonlocal multiple-model image denoising, Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 86,
no. 1, pp. 130, Jan. 2010.
[28] P. Coup, P. Hellier, C. Kervrann, and C. Barillot, Bayesian non local
means-based speckle filtering, in Proc. 5th IEEE Int. Symp. Biomed.
Imaging, May 2008, pp. 12911294.
[29] H. Zhong, J. Xu, and L. Jiao, Classification based nonlocal means despeckling for SAR image, Proc. SPIE, vol. 7495, p. 749 50V, Oct. 2009.
[30] C. Deledalle, L. Denis, and F. Tupin, Iterative weighted maximum likelihood denoising with probabilistic patch-based weights, IEEE Trans.
Image Process., vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 26612672, Dec. 2009.
[31] S. Parrilli, M. Poderico, C. Angelino, G. Scarpa, and L. Verdoliva, A
nonlocal approach for SAR image denoising, in Proc. IEEE Int. Geosci.
Remote Sens. Symp., Jul. 2010, pp. 726729.
[32] S. Mallat, A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing. Boston, MA: Academic,
1998.
[33] D. Donoho, De-noising by soft-thresholding, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 613627, May 1995.
[34] S. Ghael, A. Sayeed, and R. Baraniuk, Improved wavelet denoising via
empirical Wiener filtering, Proc. SPIE, vol. 5, pp. 389399, Jul. 1997.
[35] A. Efros and T. Leung, Texture synthesis by non parametric sampling,
in Proc. Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., 1999, vol. 2, pp. 10331038.
[36] L. P. Yaroslavsky, Digital Picture Processing, an Introduction. Berlin,
Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1985.
[37] H. Mkitalo, A. Foi, D. Fevralev, and V. Lukin, Denoising of single-look
SAR images based on variance stabilization and nonlocal filters, in Proc.
Int. Conf. MMET, Sep. 2010, pp. 14.
[38] M. Lang, H. Guo, and J. E. Odegard, Noise reduction using undecimated
discrete wavelet transform, IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 3, no. 1,
pp. 1012, Jan. 1996.
[39] M. Elad, Why simple shrinkage is still relevant for redundant representations?, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 55595569,
Nov. 2006.
[40] L. Zhang, P. Bao, and X. Wu, Multiscale LMMSE-based image denoising with optimal wavelet selection, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video
Technol., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 469481, Apr. 2005.
[41] Y. Matsushita and S. Lin, A probabilistic intensity similarity measure
based on noise distributions, in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern
Recog., 2007, pp. 18.
[42] H. Xie, L. Pierce, and F. Ulaby, Statistical properties of logarithmically
transformed speckle, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 40, no. 3,
pp. 721727, Mar. 2002.
[43] S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation
Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993.
[44] R. ktem and K. Egizarian, Transform domain algorithm for reducing
effect of film-grain noise in image compression, Electron. Lett., vol. 35,
no. 21, pp. 18301831, Oct. 1999.
[45] M. K. Mihcak, I. Kozintsev, and K. Ramchandran, Spatially adaptive
statistical modeling of wavelet image coefficients and its application to
denoising, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process.,
Phoenix, AZ, Mar. 1999, pp. 32533256.
Mariana Poderico was born in Naples, Italy, on January 22, 1984. She received the Laurea Specialistica
(full marks and laude) degree in telecommunications
engineering from the University of Naples Federico
II, Naples, in 2008, where she has been working
toward the Ph.D. degree in electronic and telecommunication engineering since December 2008.
Her study and research activity focuses on the
denoising of SAR images.