Skip to main content
Log in

A Novel Total Generalized Variation Model for Image Dehazing

  • Published:
Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a new variational model for removing haze from a single input image. The proposed model combines two total generalized variation (TGV) regularizations, which are related to the image intensity and the transmission map, respectively, to build an optimization problem. Actually, TGV functionals are more appropriate for describing a natural color image and its transmission map with slanted plane. By minimizing the energy functional with double-TGV regularizations, we obtain the final haze-free image and the refined transmission map simultaneously instead of the general two-step framework. The existence and uniqueness of solutions to the proposed variational model are further obtained. Moreover, the variational model can be solved in a unified way by realizing a primal–dual method for associated saddle-point problems. A number of experimental results on natural hazy images are presented to demonstrate our superior performance, in comparison with some state-of-the-art methods in terms of the subjective and objective visual quality assessments. Compared with the total variation-based models, the proposed model can generate a haze-free image with less staircasing artifacts in the slanted plane and more details in the remote scene of an input image.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nayar, S.K., Narasimhan, S.G.: Vision in bad weather. Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. 2, 820–827 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Narasimhan, S.G., Nayar, S.K.: Contrast restoration of weather degraded images. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Learn. 25(6), 713–724 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tan, R.T.: Visibility in bad weather from a single image. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1–8 (2008)

  4. Fattal, R.: Single image dehazing. ACM Trans. Graph. 27(3), 72:1–72:10 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tarel, J.-P., Hautière, N.: Fast visibility restoration from a single color or gray level image. In: Proceedings of IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 2201–2208 (2009)

  7. Meng, G., Wang, Y., Duan, J., Xiang, S., Pan, C.: Efficient image dehazing with boundary constraint and contextual regularization. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 617–624 (2013)

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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Fang, F., Li, F., Zeng, T.: Single image dehazing and denoising: a fast variational approach. SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 7(2), 969–996 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen, C., Do, Minh N., Wang, J.: Robust image and video dehazing with visual artifact suppression via gradient residual minimization. ECCV 9906, 576–591 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Ren, W., Liu, S., Zhang, H., Pan, J., Cao, X., Yang, M.: Single image dehazing via multi-scale convolutional neural networks. Comput. Vision ECCV 9906, 154–169 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bredies, K.: Recovering piecewise smooth multichannel images by minimization of convex functionals with total generalized variation penalty. Lecture Notes Comput. Sci. 8293, 44–77 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Berman, D., Avidan, S., Treibitz, T.: Non-local image dehazing. In: CVPR, pp. 1674–1682 (2016)

  15. Li, B., Peng, X., Wang, Z., Xu, J., Feng, D.: An all-in-one network for dehazing and beyond. In: ICCV (2017)

  16. Zhang, H., Patel, V.M.: Densely connected pyramid dehazing network. In: CVPR (2018)

  17. Xu, Y., Wen, J., Fei, L., Zhang, Z.: Review of video and image defogging algorithms and related studies on image restoration and enhancement. IEEE Access 4, 165–188 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yu, X., Xiao, C., Deng, M., Peng, L.: A classification algorithm to distinguish image as haze or non-haze. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Image Graphics, pp. 286–289 (2011)

  19. Jobson, D.J., Rahman, Z.-U., Woodell, G.A., Hines, G.D.: A comparison of visual statistics for the image enhancement of FORESITE aerial images with those of major image classes. In: Proceedings of SPIE, pp. 624601-1–624601-8 (2006)

  20. Ma, Z., Jie, W.: Single-scale retinex sea fog removal algorithm fused the edge information. J. Comput. Aided Des. Comput. Graph. 27(2), 217–225 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tripathi, A.K., Mukhopadhyay, S.: Removal of fog from images: a review. IETE Tech. Rev. 29(2), 148–156 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The funding was provided by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11531005, 91330101).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanan Gu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix: Image Quality Assessment

Appendix: Image Quality Assessment

The criteria of objective image quality assessment we used are described in detail in [17].

Yu et al. [18] presented an image visibility measurement method based on the visible edge segmentation. The IVM is defined as

$$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{IVM}=\frac{n_r}{n_{\mathrm{total}}} \log \sum _{x\in A}C(x). \end{aligned}$$

where \(n_r\) is the number of visible edges, \(n_{\mathrm{total}}\) is the number of edges, C(x) is the mean contrast and A denotes the image area of visible edges.

Jobson et al. [19] proposed a visual contrast measure (VCM) to quantify the degree of visibility of the image which is calculated as follows:

$$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{VCM}=100*\frac{R_v}{R_\mathrm{t}}, \end{aligned}$$

where \(R_v\) is the number of local areas, the standard deviation of which is larger than the given threshold and \(R_\mathrm{t}\) is the total number of local areas. The VCM uses the local standard deviation which denotes the contrast of the image to measure the visibility. In general, the higher the VCM, the clearer the enhanced image.

The contrast of a clear image is usually much higher than that of a hazy image, so image contrast can be used to compare different dehazing algorithms. The higher the contrast of the enhanced image, the better the dehazing algorithm. Ma and Wen [20] used the image global contrast to compare the performance of different dehazing algorithms. Tripathi et al. [21] used contrast gain to compare different dehazing algorithms. Contrast gain denotes the mean contrast difference between the enhanced image and original hazy image and is calculated by

$$\begin{aligned} C_{\mathrm{gain}}={\bar{C}}_J-{\bar{C}}_I, \end{aligned}$$

where \({\bar{C}}_J\) and \({\bar{C}}_I\) represent the mean contrast of the enhanced image and hazy image, respectively. And C is the local contrast of the image in a small window and is calculated by

$$\begin{aligned} C(x,y)=\frac{S(x,y)}{m(x,y)}, \end{aligned}$$

where

$$\begin{aligned} S(x,y)= & {} \frac{1}{(2r+1)^2}\sum _j\sum _i(I(x+i,y+j)-m(x,y))^2,\\ m(x,y)= & {} \frac{1}{(2r+1)^2}\sum _j\sum _i I(x+i,y+j), \end{aligned}$$

and r is the radius of the local area. The larger the contrast gain, the better the result of the dehazing algorithm.

Yu et al. thought that a good dehazing algorithm should allow the original hazy image and enhanced image to have similar histogram distributions. They used the histogram correlation coefficient (HCC) of the two color images as a criterion to assess the performance of color restoration.

Wu and Zhu used the image structural similarity (SSIM) and universal quality index (UQI) to assess the performance of the structural similarity between the original hazy image and the enhanced image.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gu, Y., Yang, X. & Gao, Y. A Novel Total Generalized Variation Model for Image Dehazing. J Math Imaging Vis 61, 1329–1341 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10851-019-00909-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10851-019-00909-9

Keywords

Navigation