Image and Vision Computing 25 (2007) 523–530

www.elsevier.com/locate/imavis

q
Cloud covering denoising through image fusion
Salvador Gabarda, Gabriel Cristóbal *

Instituto de Óptica ‘‘Daza de Valdés’’ (CSIC), Serrano 121, Madrid 28006, Spain

Received 12 March 2004; received in revised form 27 October 2005; accepted 27 March 2006

Abstract

This paper presents a solution to the cloud removal problem, based in a recently developed image fusion methodology consisting in
applying a 1-D pseudo-Wigner distribution (PWD) transformation to the source images and on the use of a pixel-wise cloud model. Both
features could also be interpreted as a denoising method centered in a pixel-level measure. Such procedure is able to process sequences of
multi-temporal registered images affected with spatial-variant noise. The goal consists in providing a 2-D clean image, after removing the
spatial-variant noise disturbing the set of multi-temporal registered source images. This is achieved by taking as reference a statistically
parameterized model of a cloud prototype. Using this model, a pixel-wise measure of the noise degree of the source images can be cal-
culated through their PWDs. This denoising procedure enables to choose the noise-free pixels from the set of given source images. The
applicability of the method to the cloud removal paradigm is illustrated with different sets of artificial and natural cloudy or foggy
images, partially occluded by clouds in different regions. Another advantage of the present approach is its reduced computational cost,
once the 1-D case has been preferred instead of a full 2-D implementation of the PWD.
 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wigner distribution; Image fusion; Image enhancement

1. Introduction describes a fusion algorithm based in transforming the

The recovering of an image from a degraded realization
has been the subject of many contributions in the area of
image restoration, under the name of image deblurring or
image deconvolution [1]. When image restoration is accom-
plished without any ‘‘a priori’’ knowledge about the degra-
dation process, we are dealing with blind image
deconvolution methods [2]. If the blurring is not homoge-
neously distributed, the defocusing process will affect differ-
ent regions of the image with different strength. This
scenario is referred to as space-variant blurring [3]. A spe-
cial case of space-variant degradation occurs when multi-fo-
cus or multi-temporal images are available and therefore
image fusion methods [4,5] can be applied. The method pre-
sented in this paper applies to multi-temporal images and
q
Submitted to Image and Vision Computing, Elsevier Science, 2004 (in
revision).
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 91 561 6800x2305; fax: +34 91 564
5557.
source images by a pseudo-Wigner distribution (PWD),
following a methodology recently developed by the
authors. In a previous paper [6] the theoretical background
of this fusion methodology was described and experimen-
tally validated for defocused images coming from digital
camera. Later on, the method was successfully applied to
multi-focus microscopic images [7]. However, the main
contribution of this paper consists in extending the method
to multi-temporal images for cloud removing purposes,
under a similar fusion scenario. This case is formally differ-
ent from the others previously treated, where the origin of
degradation was image blurring. Out-of-focus affects digital
camera images segmenting the view generally in two
regions, foreground and background. Microscopic images
present a very narrow focus depth, originating a continu-
ous changing of the in-focus regions on equally spaced real-
izations. Now, the origin is occluding noise, ranging from a
light haze to a dense cloud. Therefore, this case has funda-
mental differences that require to be treated separately.
Several experiments with artificial and realistic images are

0262-8856/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.imavis.2006.03.007
524 S. Gabarda, G. Cristóbal / Image and Vision Computing 25 (2007) 523–530
presented here to illustrate the performances of the
method.
This paper is structured as follows. The mathematical
background of the method, including a brief introduction
to the pseudo-Wigner distribution is described in Section
2 as the basis of the fusion process. Section 3 gives an intro-
duction to the cloud removal problem and the particulari-
ties of our method. Some examples of image fusion
are given in Section 4, together with a quantitative fusion
quality assessment study, performed considering some
ground-truth test images. Finally, conclusions are drawn
in Section 5.
2. Mathematical background
Modeling and restoring images affected by spatial-vari-
ant degradation is a challenging problem that still require
further attention in order to achieve a successful solution.
One way of approaching the spatial-variant degradation
case is by means of the conjoint spatial/spatial-frequency
representations [8]. One of the most representative method
is the Wigner Distribution (WD), which is a bilinear (qua-
dratic) signal representation introduced by Wigner [9]. A
comprehensive discussion of the WD properties can be
found in a series of classical articles by Claasen and Mec-
klenbräuker [10]. Originally, the WD was applied to con-
tinuous variables as follows. Consider an arbitrary 1-D
function z (x). The WD of z (x) is given by
Z 1 
a  a
W ðx; uÞ ¼ z x þ z x  eiðuaÞ da; ð1Þ
1 2 2
where ‘‘*’’ denotes complex conjugate.
By considering the shifting parameter a as a variable,
Eq. (1) represents the Fourier Transform (FT) of the prod-
uct z (x + a/2)z* (x  a/2), where u denotes the spatial-fre-
quency variable and, hence, the WD can be interpreted
as the local spectrum of the signal z (x). The Wigner Distri-
bution satisfies many desirable mathematical properties [8].
Although the WD was initially defined for continuous var-
iable functions, Claasen and Mecklenbrauker proposed at
the beginning of the eighties a first definition for discrete
variable functions. However, some attempts to extend def-
initions of the WD to discrete signals have not been yet
completely successful [11]. For this application, we have
selected the following discrete Wigner distribution similar
to the one proposed by Claasen and Mecklembräuker
and also by Brenner [12].
N 1
X
2
 2ið2pm
N Þk
W ðn; mÞ ¼ 2 zðn þ kÞz ðn  kÞe
k¼N2
This equation is limited to a spatial interval [N/2, N/21]
and, it has to be considered as a pseudo-Wigner distribu-
tion (PWD). In Eq. (2), n and m represent the spatial and
space-frequency discrete variables, respectively, and k is
the shifting parameter, which is also discrete. Once the
n ” (x, y) position on a given image is fixed, Eq. (2) origi-
nates a N-component vector. Furthermore, Eq. (2) must
be interpreted as the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) of
product r (n, k) = z (n + k)z* (n  k). It is worth noting that
the discretizing process implies losing of some properties of
the continuous WD. One important property preserved
within the definition given by Eq. (2) is the inversion
property, which is a greatly desirable feature for the
recovering of the original signal and, which allows to per-
form local filtering operations on the images under
consideration.
Quality of the source images can be formulated as fol-
lows. Consider an original image z and a reference degraded
(i.e., by convolution) image g = z * h0. After applying the
PWD to z (n) and g (n) separately, let us identify their
respective transformations as Wz and Wg. From a filtering
point of view, it can be helpful to consider that the PWDs
of the functions z (n) and g (n) are related by the product
W g ðn; mÞ ¼ W z ðn; mÞH 1 ðn; mÞ ð3Þ
where H1 (n, m) can be interpreted as a pseudo-filtering
function, since g might not exists [13,14]. For a thorough
discussion see Ref. [15]. If the Fourier transformation is
represented by F [Æ], Eq. (3) can be rewritten as
F½rz ðn; kÞ  h1 ðn; kÞ ¼ F½rz ðn; kÞ  F½h1 ðn; kÞ ð4Þ
where the convolution affects only to variable k and, the
relationship rg (n, k) = rz (n, k)*h1 (n, k) between their
respective product functions holds, after the convolution
property of the Fourier Transform, where z (n), g (n),
rz (n, k) and rg (n, k) all represent real non-negative func-
tions. On the other hand, according with the energy conser-
vation principle h0 (n), h1 (n, k) will not present negative
coefficients. Consequently, the following conditions are
satisfied:
N
2 1
X
h0 ðnÞ ¼ 1 and 8n=h0 ðnÞ P 0 ) kh0 ðnÞk 6 1 ð5Þ
n¼N2
N
2 1
X
h1 ðn; kÞ ¼ 1 and 8n; k=h1 ðn; kÞ P 0
k¼N2
) kh1 ðn; kÞkn¼f 6 1 ð6Þ
Then, by applying the properties of the norm iÆi to Eq. (4),
the following expression is achieved:
kF½rz ðn; kÞ  h1 ðn; kÞkn¼f 6 kF½rz ðn; kÞkn¼f ð7Þ
If images to be fused have the same energy, in other words,
Parseval’s theorem tell us that equality holds in Eq. (7).
ð2Þ
Nevertheless, differences between PWDs belonging to dif-
ferent degraded versions of the same image will not neces-
sarily nullify. Consequently, these differences can be used
for measuring the quality of the source images. Thus, dis-
tances {di} can be measured from the same pixel location
n ” f ” (x, y), of the source images {zi} to a worst case ref-
erence. Theoretically, the largest distance corresponds to
the pixel least locally degraded. Then by comparing dis-
 S. Gabarda, G. Cristóbal / Image and Vision Computing 25 (2007) 523–530 525

tances {di} a decision map can be obtained, which provides
an indexed matrix of noise-free regions. Therefore, the
noise-free pixels from the source images can be assigned
to a clean resulting image.
3. The cloud removal problem
Optical remote sensing, as typical satellite applications,
has to cope with the so-called cloud cover problem that
can be pictured as an important difficulty affecting the
observation of the earth surface. Diverse techniques have
been proposed including different methods such as thresh-
olding [16] or wavelet decomposition [17] to solve the prob-
lem. Typically, a clean image can be produced by creating a
cloud-free mosaic from several multi-temporal images
related to the same area of interest [18]. There are inherent
difficulties to this matter when radiance variations are used
as the main feature to discriminate cloudy and clear condi-
tions, given that the intensity of the cloud can occasionally
match the intensity of the earth. In this paper we propose a
method insensible to the intensity of image pixels, based on
characterizing the frequency content of the cloud by a
PWD pattern discernible solely from the earth’s pattern.
A set of multi-temporal images, containing partial cloud-
covered views, are processed together to build an entirely
clear image of the site. The cloudy areas in the input images
are discarded and substituted by cloud-free areas from
other images of the same set acquired at different time.
The whole procedure can be considered as an automatic
‘‘cut-and-paste’’ method. The method operates in a pixel-
wise scheme, allowing dealing with so diverse cloudy cases
such as fogs or mists.
Fig. 1A and B show two images that present artificially
generated cloudy regions, located in different parts of the
image. Fig. 1C and D, to the right, represent the PWDs
of the same given pixel position in both images. As it has
been explained in the previous section, the 1-D PWD is a
pixel-wise vector with the same number of components as
the window used in its calculation. Namely,
PWDðx; yÞ ¼ w ¼ ½wN =2 ; . . . ; wN =21  ð8Þ
represents the PWD of a pixel located at position (x, y) of a
given image, calculated with a window of N pixels.
On the other hand, some multi-temporal images, such as
satellite images, are often corrupted by clouds and studies
of the statistics of clouds, considered as noise, can be found
in the literature [19]. According to this, the cloudy spots on
multi-temporal images can be modeled by generating frac-
tal noise through the midpoint displacement algorithm or
by generating a noise image with 1/f power spectra [19].
An averaged prototype of cloud was synthesized from a
collection of randomly generated clouds and, used to define

Fig. 1. Simulation of a cloud covering condition. In this example the camera is static, and the aerial images are partially occluded by clouds that change in
shape and position from ‘‘A’’ to ‘‘B’’. (C) PWD of a cloudy pixel. (D) PWD of the same pixel in a ground position. Note the different frequency content of
samples ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’. Horizontal axis in ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’ represents spatial frequency position, whereas vertical axis represents spectral value contents.
526 S. Gabarda, G. Cristóbal / Image and Vision Computing 25 (2007) 523–530
the PWD pattern used as reference. Then, the cloud was
modeled by a vector as
PWDcloud ðx; yÞ ¼ wcloud ¼ ½0; 0; . . . ; 1; . . . ; 0; 0
We use a normalized version for earth and cloud, i.e.,
iwi = iwcloudi = 1. The smooth change of gray-values in
the cloud model originates all elements in (9), except the
central one, to be zero. Normalization makes the algorithm
to be independent of the brightness of the pixels, i.e., dark-
ness or brightness of the cloud is irrelevant, only local
space-frequency content counts.
Considering the frequency contents of the 1-D pixel-wise
PWD, it is possible to process the data of a set of source
images to identify the cloudy pixels. The method proposed
herein involves scanning the original images by a sliding
window of N pixels in a row and assigning to each pixel
its N-component PWD vector. In such way, we are gather-
ing both spatial and spatial-frequency information in every
pixel of the image. If we have a multi-temporal information
of the same area of observation, it is possible to compare
the PWDs of homologous pixels with the PWD cloud
model, given by expression (9) for identifying the cloudy
pixels. A clean image is obtainable if the cloudy pixels
are substituted by cloud-free pixels from other images of
the same sequence.
Our method is based on the idea that every pixel on the
image has a different N-component PWD vector associated
with it; thus, a measure can be taken for determining their
greatest distance to a reference cloud model. This approach
is closely related with shape matching [20]. The selection of
a similarity measure is required in order to take an accurate
decision, since dissimilarity can be coupled with the notion
of distance. Dealing with a distance metric, it is feasible to
set a reference model. In this application, the reference
model is the cloud prototype. In particular, such cloud pro-
totype is obtained by averaging a localized representation
such as the PWD of selected cloud regions. It is well
known, that the more defocused an image is, the more
Fig. 2. Result of processing images from Figs. 1A and B. (A) Decision map. (B) Cloud-free resulting image. Black pixels in (A) represent which pixels from
Fig. 1A have been incorporated to the fused image shown in (B), whereas white pixels represent which pixels from Fig. 1B have been incorporated to fused
image shown in B.
the high frequencies will be diminished and consequently
its PWD will be affected. Cloud is an extreme case where
ð9Þ high frequencies are completely missing (see Fig. 1C).
The main idea behind this reference is to have a worst case
that allows establishing a distance measurement at pixel
level from the PWD of every one of the M source images
to the reference, i.e.,
d i ðx; yÞ ¼ kwi ðx; yÞ  wcloud ðx; yÞk; i 2 f1; 2; . . . ; Mg ð10Þ
The norm operator in Eq. (10) is defined as usual,
0N 112
2 1
X
knk ¼ @ n2 ðiÞA ð11Þ
i¼N2
where n represents any arbitrary vector of real numbers.
The selected distance (Eq. (10)) is an Euclidean distance
and, belongs to the more general family of Minkowsky dis-
tances [20].
The maximum value of d among the M different source
images determines the image where the least cloudy pixel is
located, i.e.,
Iðx; yÞ ¼ argfmax½d i ðx; yÞg ; i 2 f1; 2; . . . ; Mg ð12Þ
i
Here I (x, y) has the form of a decision map, determining
the image from which the gray pixel values have to be
selected. Fig. 2A shows an example of the map obtained
after processing source images from Fig. 1A and B. Black
pixels, labeled as ‘‘1’’ indicate that those pixels were taken
from the image of Fig. 1A and pasted in the resulting clean
image shown in Fig. 2B. Analogously, white pixels are la-
beled as ‘‘2’’ and indicate that pixels were taken from the
image of Fig. 1B and pasted in Fig. 2B.
The whole fusion procedure can be summarized as fol-
lows. First, a 1-D PWD of each pixel is calculated using
a segment of N-pixels, computed according to the proce-
dure shown in Sections 2 and 3. A small value of such anal-
ysis mask (e.g., N = 8) permits higher computational
 S. Gabarda, G. Cristóbal / Image and Vision Computing 25 (2007) 523–530
savings and a localized spectral analysis. This procedure is
repeated for every image row up to cover the full image.
Then, the Euclidean distance to the reference cloud model
was obtained pixel-by-pixel using Eq. (10). The highest dis-
tance according with such criteria allows extracting the less
noisy pixels of the referred images. Since the source images
(Fig. 1A and B) can be considered non-overlapping
degraded versions of an unknown ground-truth image, the
decision map shown in Fig. 2A allows computing the fused
image (Fig. 2B). This decision map is an indexing matrix
whose elements are related one-to-one with the pixels from
the images. In the example, they have a value of ‘‘1’’ when
d1 (x, y) > d2 (x, y) and a value of ‘‘2’’ otherwise.
4. Experimental results
A realistic example is presented in Fig. 3. Here the cam-
era is fixed looking at a city landscape, taking multi-tempo-
ral photographs through different foggy situations, ranging
from a clear weather to a thick mist. The method produces
a cloud-free result as shown in Fig. 4B.
The results in the examples presented in Figs. 1–4 illus-
trate the performances of the method presented here. It is
worth noting that an area of the resulting image cannot
be better than the best view of the same area in the source
images. This is due to the fact that this method is actually a
cut-and-paste method, and not an image enhancement
method. For instance, the result shown in Fig. 2B, has
the same quality level as the source undegraded image
areas. The only benefit being that the cloud has been
removed. It corresponds to the way the picture should look
if there were no cloud when the pictures were taken.
In order to objectively quantify the quality of the
method a numerical test was performed using the six views
and the six clouds shown in Fig. 5. Hence, 36 examples,
similar to the one shown at the bottom of this figure, are
Fig. 3. Ten frames corresponding to different realistic weather situations (April 2002). Source: WILD (Weather and Illumination Database), Columbia
University, Computer Science Dept. In this example the camera is static in all the frames and therefore the registration process between them is not needed.
527
possible. The method had to discriminate cloud from earth.
The activity map generated by the process indicates the ori-
gin of the pixels used in the final cut-and-paste process
which produces the estimated clean output. Black pixels
in the decision map indicate that pixels must be taken from
input labeled as B, whereas white pixels indicate that they
must be taken from input 3. In other words, white pixels
indicate misclassified pixels. This special case have a per-
centage of correct decisions (PCD) of 95.41, i.e., the per-
centage of earth identified as earth (here equal to the
percentage of cloud identified as cloud). The numerical
results with the 36 examples elaborated with the images
shown in Fig. 5 are summarized in Table 1. The results
shown in the table indicate that quality is highly depending
on morphological contain of the earth (see differences in
the values from images A to F in Table 1). One observable
consequence is that earth spots having a smooth surface
morphology resulted misclassified (image F). This effect
can be justified thinking that some earth patterns are much
alike to the cloud pattern used as model, preventing from
obtaining an accurate discrimination.
To illustrate the above explanation, a new example is
presented in Fig. 6, where nine multi-temporal MODIS
views of the Mississippi River Plume are shown. Here the
cloud and the sea have similar spatial frequency contents.
The meaning of this is that it is impossible to discriminate
water from cloud surfaces simply using spatial frequency
information of the source images. More information is
required, as brightness differences between water and
cloud. To process the images of this example, expression
(10) was applied without a previous normalization of the
vectors, keeping the intensity information active. As clouds
in the images appear as the brightest areas, the model of
the cloud was here restricted to be a white surface with
its corresponding PWD. The result is shown in Fig. 7. A
simple observation of such figure indicates that a good
528 S. Gabarda, G. Cristóbal / Image and Vision Computing 25 (2007) 523–530

Fig. 4. (A) Decision map corresponding to images of Fig. 3. Every gray-value encodes from which image the pixels should be taken, i.e., black from top
left frame of Fig. 3, white from bottom right frame of Fig. 3. (B) Fused image. Not all input images are necessarily represented in the fused output.

Fig. 5. Top: six views and six artificially generated clouds. Bottom: Particular example when processing image B against cloud 3. The activity map
generated by the process indicates the origin of the pixels to be used in the final cut-and-paste step. Black pixels in the decision map indicate that pixels must
be taken from input labeled as B, whereas white pixels indicate that they must be taken from input 3. In other words, white pixels indicate misclassified
pixels. PCD is standing for the percentage of correct decisions and indicates the percentage of earth identified as earth.

Table 1
Quality measurements
Image A vs. Image B vs. Image C vs. Image D vs. Image E vs. Image F vs. Total average
clouds 1–6 clouds 1–6 clouds 1–6 clouds 1–6 clouds 1–6 clouds 1–6
98.9890 93.3954 99.5539 99.3882 99.4233 83.2171 95.6612
Percentage of correct decisions (PCD). Values represent the PCD averaged after processing every image with the six cloud realizations shown in Fig. 5. The
average of the 36 possible cases appears in the last column of the table.

approximation of the whole area under a perfect cloud-free
condition.
Finally, to put the results of Table 1 in perspective with
other results published elsewhere, they can be compared
with measurements performed by Warner et al. [21] with
images originated by Measurement of Pollution in the Tro-
posphere (MOPITT) instrument, aboard the Earth Observ-
ing System (EOS) Terra spacecraft. The validation results
showed that their MOPITT cloud detection threshold work
well for scenes covered with more than 5–10% cloud cover,
 S. Gabarda, G. Cristóbal / Image and Vision Computing 25 (2007) 523–530 529

Fig. 6. Nine frames corresponding to multi-temporal MODIS views of the Mississippi River Plume (photographs from the Institute for Marine Remote
Sensing of the University of South Florida).

Fig. 7. (A) Decision map corresponding to images of Fig. 6. Every gray-value encodes from which image the pixels should be taken, i.e., black from top
left frame of Fig. 6, white from bottom right frame of Fig. 6. (B) Fused image. Not all input images are necessarily represented in the fused output.

the PCD ranging from 99.11 to 99.89 and poorly when
cloud cover is less than 5%. The method used for cloud
detection procedure will be a thresholding method by com-
paring the observed radiance against a model-calculated
cloud free radiance. Jedlovec and Laws [22] propose a
new method called new bi-spectral threshold (BTH) based
on a modification of the bi-spectral spatial coherence
(BSC) method developed by Guillory et al. [23] and present
some results with GOES imagery. Results range from 87.76
to 96.34 for the PCD related to the cloud detection.
5. Conclusions
considered in the process. One remarkable feature of the
present method is its reduced computational cost. The
use of a small 1-D window for the PWD analysis greatly
decreases its computational time.
Acknowledgements
This work has been partially supported by the following
Grants: TEC2004-00834; TEC2005-24739-E; TEC2005-
24046-E; 2004CZ0009 from the Spanish Ministry of Edu-
cation and Science and the PI040765 project from the
Spanish Ministry of Health.

A new cloud removal method based in a pixel-wise References

PWD analysis of multi-temporal source images have been
presented and applied to different sequences of multi-tem-
poral images. This method is able to operate under a cut-
and-paste fusion scheme when two or more multi-temporal
registered images are available. Experimental results show
that the method behaves well when earth patterns present
a rich morphological structure. Quality decreases when
earth’s morphology tends to by regular, approaching the
specific characteristics postulated to define the cloud
model. In such cases the intensity information must be taken
in account to define the cloud model, added to its frequency
content. Once the cloud model is defined and parameter-
ized, the images can be processed in an automatic way.
Additionally, based on the performances shown by this
method, new fusion applications for multi-temporal images
can be expected, specially if multi-sensor information is
[1] R.L. Lagendijk, J. Biemond, Basic methods for image restoration and
identification, in: A. Bovik (Ed.), Handbook of Image & Video
Processing, Academic Press, San Diego, 2000, pp. 125–139.
[2] D. Kundur, D. Hatzinakos, Blind image deconvolution, IEEE Signal
Processing Magazine 13 (3) (1996) 43–64.
[3] A.N. Rajagopalan, S. Chaudhuri, Space-variant approaches to
recovery of depth from defocused images, Computer Vision and
Image Understanding 68 (3) (1997) 309–329.
[4] D. Kundur, D. Hatzinakos, H. Leung, A novel approach to
multispectral blind image fusion, in: B.V. Dasarathy (Ed). Sensor
Fusion: Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications, Proceedings of
SPIE, vol. 3067 (1997) pp. 83–93.
[5] Z. Zhang, R.S. Blum, A categorization of multiscale-decomposition-
based image fusion schemes with a performance study for a digital
camera application, Proceedings of IEEE 87 (1999) 1315–1328.
[6] S. Gabarda, G. Cristóbal, Multifocus image fusion through the
pseudo-Wigner distribution, Optical Engineering 44 (4) (2005)
047001-1–047001-9.
530 S. Gabarda, G. Cristóbal / Image and Vision Computing 25 (2007) 523–530
[7] S. Gabarda, G. Cristóbal, F. Sroubek, Image fusion schemes using
local spectral methods, Applications of Computer Vision Workshop,
Prague, 2004.
[8] L.D. Jacobson, H. Wechsler, Joint spatial/spatial-frequency repre-
sentation, Signal Processing 14 (1988) 37–68.
[9] E. Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilib-
rium, Physical Review 40 (1932) 749–759.
[10] T.A.C.M. Claasen, W.F.G. Mecklenbräuker, The Wigner distribu-
tion – a tool for time–frequency analysis, parts I–III, Philips Journal
of Research 35 (1980) 217–250, 276–300, 372–389.
[11] J.C. O’Neill, P. Flandrin, W.J. Williams, On the existence of discrete
Wigner distributions, EDICS Number:SPL. SP. 2.3, Time–Frequency
Signal Analysis, March 1998.
[12] K.H. Brenner, A discrete version of the Wigner distribution function,
Proceedings of EURASIP: Signal Processing II: Theories and
Applications (1983) 307–309.
[13] C. Gonzalo, Filtrado Optico y Digital de Imagenes de Forma
Espacialmente Variante Mediante la Funcion de Distribucion de
Wigner, PhDs Thesis, Instituto de Optica, CSIC, Madrid, 1989.
[14] C. Gonzalo, J. Bescós, L.R. Berriel-Valdós, J. Santamarı́a, Space-
variant filtering through the Wigner distribution function, Applied
Optics 28 (1989) 730–736.
[15] N.S. Subotic, B.E.A. Saleh, Time variant filtering of signals in the
mixed time–frequency domain, IEEE Transactions on Acoustics
Speech and Signal Processing 33 (1985) 1479–1485.
[16] J.X. Warner, J.C. Gille, D.P. Edwards, D.C. Ziskin, W. Smith, Cloud
detection and clearing for the Earth Observing System Terra satellite
Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) experi-
ment, Applied Optics 40 (8) (2001) 1269–1284.
[17] S. Wisetphanichkij, K. Dejhan, F. Cheevasuvit, S. Mitatha, C.
Netbut. Multi-temporal cloud removing based on image fusion with
additive wavelet decomposition, in: Proceeding of the 20th Asian
Conference on Remote Sensing, Hong Kong, China, November 1999,
CD.
[18] M. Li, S.C. Liew, L.K. Kwoh, Automated production of cloud-free
and cloud shadow-free image mosaics from cloudy satellite imagery,
in: Proceedings of the XXth ISPRS Congress, 12–13 July 2004
Istanbul, Turkey.
[19] L. Galleani, L. Cohen, G. Cristóbal, B. Suter, Generation and
denoising of images with clouds, SPIE, Seattle, Washington, USA, 8–
10 July 2002.
[20] R.M. Haralick, L.G. ShapiroComputer and Robot Vision, vol. I,
Addison-Wesley, 1992.
[21] J.X. Warner, J.C. Gille, D.P. Edwards, D.C. Ziskin, M.W. Smith,
P.L. Bailey, L. Rokke, Cloud detection and clearing for the Earth
Observing System Terra satellite Measurements of Pollution in the
Troposphere (MOPITT) Experiment, Applied Optics 40 (8) (2001).
[22] G.J. Jedlovec, K. Laws. Operational cloud detection in GOES imagery,
Preprints, in: 11th Conference on Satellite Meteorology and Oceanog-
raphy, Madison, WI, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 2001, pp. 412–415.
[23] A.R. Guillory, J.M. Lecue, G.J. Jedlovec, B.N. Whitworth. Cloud
filtering using a bi-spectral spatial coherence approach, in: 9th
Conference on Satellite Meteorology and Oceanography, AMS, Paris,
France, 1998, pp. 374–376.