J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.

), 2010, 15(1): 6-12

DOI: 10.1007/s12204-010-7186-y

Review of Pixel-Level Image Fusion

YANG Bo 1∗ ( ), JING Zhong-liang 2 (), ZHAO Hai-tao 2 ()

(1. College of Information and Electrical Engineering, Shandong University of Science and
Technology, Qingdao 266510, Shandong, China;
2. Institute of Aerospace Science and Technology, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

© Shanghai Jiaotong University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Abstract: Image fusion can be performed at different levels: signal, pixel, feature and symbol levels. Almost
all image fusion algorithms developed to date fall into pixel level. This paper provides an overview of the most
widely used pixel-level image fusion algorithms and some comments about their relative strengths and weaknesses.
Particular emphasis is placed on multiscale-based methods. Some performance measures practicable for pixel-level
image fusion are also discussed. At last, prospects of pixel-level image fusion are made.
Key words: image fusion, pixel-level, wavelets, performance evaluation
CLC number: TP 391 Document code: A

1 Introduction In pixel-level image fusion, some general

In recent years, multi-sensor image fusion has re-
ceived significant attention for both military and non-
military applications. Image fusion techniques intelli-
gently combine multi-modality sensor imagery of the
same scene for the purpose of providing an enhanced
single view of a scene with extended information con-
tent. In Ref. [1], a framework for the field of image
fusion was proposed. Fusion process was performed at
different levels of information representation, which is
sorted in ascending order of abstraction: signal, pixel,
feature, and symbol levels. This paper focuses on the
pixel-level fusion. At this level the fused result, a single
gray or chromatic image, is created by fusing individual
pixels, usually after some forms of processing have been
applied to the source images (e.g. extraction of edges
or texture). The fused image should be more useful for
human visual or machine perception. Almost all image
fusion algorithms, from the simplest weighted averag-
ing to more advanced multiscale methods, belong to
this level[2] . Currently, pixel-level image fusion systems
are used extensively in the fields of military[3-4] , med-
ical imaging[5-6] , remote sensing[7] , and security and
surveillance[8] . The benefits of image fusion include im-
proved spatial awareness, increased accuracy in target
detection and recognition, reduced operator workload,
and increased system reliability[9-11] .
Received date: 2007-09-01
Foundation item: the National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (Nos. 60775022 and 60705006)
∗E-mail: yangbo.sd@gmail.com
requirements[12] are imposed on the fused result:
 the fusion process should preserve (as far as pos-
sible) all salient information in the source images; 
the fusion process should not introduce any artifacts
or inconsistencies;  the fusion process should be
shift-invariant. Even if all requirements listed above
have been fully satisfied so that perfect fused images
are yielded, there remains one fundamental and
overriding system-level issue to be considered: real
time. The large input data generated by multisensor
arrays make the realization of a real-time fusion system
very difficult. An algorithm designer runs the risk of
the benefits of an excellent fusion algorithm not being
realized if the latency is unacceptable high[12] . Speed
improvement has become one of the main drivers for
developing image fusion algorithms.
2 Pixel-Level Image Fusion System
Architecture
A typical pixel-level image fusion system can be di-
vided into six subsystems: imaging, registration, pre-
processing, fusion, post-processing and displaying, as
shown in Fig. 1. Fusion subsystem that combines infor-
mation from source images and produces a single fused
image is, of course, the core of the system. Further
details of pixel-level fusion algorithms are given in the
next section. Five non-fusion subsystems should also
be considered systemically at the stage of system re-
quirement and design.
Imaging subsystem is composed of multiple
(normally two) imaging sensors. Typical sensor
J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.), 2010, 15(1): 6-12
Imaging sensors Registered
Image 1 image 1
Registered
Image 2 Image image 2 Pre-
registration processing
Registered
Image N image N
Fig. 1 Generic pixel-level image fusion system architecture
combinations include: visible light (VL) and infrared
(IR), millimeter waves (MMW) and IR, synthetic
aperture radar (SAR) and IR, multispectral (MS) and
panchromatic (Pan), and computerized tomography
(CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Source sensors for most image fusion systems have
different fields of view, resolutions, lens distortions and
frame rates. It is vital to align the input images prop-
erly with each other, both spatially and temporally, and
this is a problem addressed by image registration[13].
To minimize this problem, the imaging sensors in many
practical systems are rigidly mounted side-by-side and
physically aligned as closely as possible. However, in
more complex systems where sensors are mobile, the
registration of input images becomes a very challeng-
ing problem, to some extent, larger than the fusion al-
gorithm itself.
The pre-processing before fusion is generally desir-
able. Most image fusion algorithms will enhance arte-
facts (equivalent to detail information) in input images,
and result in unreliable fused output. Clever appli-
cation of the pre-processing effectively removes known
artefacts (e.g. lining) introduced by input sensors, and
significantly improves system performance[2] . In addi-
tion, the noise characteristics, sensitivity and dynamic
range of each imaging sensor are different in most cases.
All those issues can be solved by pre-processing.
The post-processing will depend on the type of dis-
play and the purpose of the fusion system. The most
basic post-processing would be automatic gain and off-
set correction for the fused image. However, more sub-
tle or display-specific processing might also be required,
such as formatting of data for compatibility with a par-
ticular type of display and adding symbols to the fused
image[2] .
Display subsystem shows the fused image to ob-
servers. The quality of the final output image is to
some extend decided by the display. Proper selection
of display can take the best advantages of system and
avoid nugatory processing.
3 Pixel-Level Image Fusion Algorithms
Many fusion algorithms for the pixel-level fusion have
been proposed, from the simplest weighted averaging
7
Processed
image 1
Processed
Processed Fused fused
image 2
Image image Post- image Displaying
fusion processing device
Processed
image N
(WA) to more advanced multiscale methods. For con-
venience, we assume two source images A(x, y) and
B(x, y), and a fused image C(x, y) produced by them,
where x, y denote pixel coordinates; correspondingly,
two decomposed sub-images SA (x, y) and SB (x, y), and
the fused sub-image SC (x, y).
3.1 Weighted Averaging
The simplest image fusion method is to take the av-
erage of the source images pixel by pixel
C(x, y) = αA A(x, y) + αB B(x, y), (1)
where αA , αB are scalar weights. The WA method is
easy to implement and fast to execute. In addition, the
WA is able to suppress noises existing in the source im-
ages. Unfortunately it also suppresses salient features
that should be preserved for the fused image, produc-
ing a low contrast result. This can be reduced to some
extent through the selection of “optimal” weights. One
popular approach to finding such weights is principal
component analysis (PCA)[14] .
3.2 Multiscale-Based Schemes
The limitations of the WA led to the development
of multiscale schemes. Multiscale decomposition is
very useful for extracting the salient features of im-
ages for the purpose of fusion. Originally, pyrami-
dal decomposition methods were applied to image fu-
sion. Recently, the developments of wavelet theory
provided a new tool to fusion problems. Multiscale-
based schemes generally produce sharp, high-contrast
images that have more information content than the
WA method. Figure 2 illustrates a generic multiscale-
based image fusion scheme[9] , which can be divided into
three steps. Firstly, both source images A and B are
decomposed using a multiscale decomposition method,
which may be a pyramidal transform or a wavelet trans-
form. Secondly, the decomposed sub-images {SA } and
{SB } are fused using a fusion rule θ. Finally, the fused
image C is reconstructed by applying the inverse trans-
form to the fused sub-images {SC }.
3.2.1 Multiscale Decomposition
(1) Pyramidal decomposition. The concept of an im-
age pyramid was discussed in the early 1980s. Marr[15]
and Burt et al [16] showed that pyramidal decomposition
can be useful in a number of image processing applica-
tions, as a fast method of representing the multiscale
8 J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.), 2010, 15(1): 6-12
Multiscale
decomposition Decomposed
Image A sub-images
{SA}
Multiscale
decomposition Decomposed
Image B sub-images
{SB}
Fig. 2 Generic multiscale-based image fusion scheme
information that simulates multiple scales of processing
in the human visual systems. The most basic example
is the Gaussian pyramid constructed using a Gaussian
kernel ω and a 2D downsampler. Let g (i) be the ith
level of the Gaussian pyramid for a source image g (0) .
Then for i > 0 there is
g (i) (x, y) = [ω(x, y) ∗ g (i−1) (x, y)]↓2 ,
where “∗” is the convolution operator and [·]↓2 is down-
sampling operator by a factor of 2 along both row and
column. The convolution and downsampling operations
result in a loss of high-frequency information from one
level to the next higher level. Accordingly, the Lapla-
cian pyramid (LP) is defined to represent the lost infor-
mation between adjacent levels of the Gaussian pyra-
mid. As shown in Fig. 3, the LP is calculated by
l(i−1) (x, y) = g (i−1) (x, y) − 4ω(x, y) ∗ [g (i) (x, y)]↑2 , (3)
where [·]↑2 denotes upsampling operator and the factor
4 is chosen to offset the power loss led by downsampling.
It is clear that the original image can be perfectly con-
structed by its LP and the top level (assuming n) of
Gaussian pyramid {l(0) , l(1) , · · ·, l(n−1) , g (n) }. This
structure was initially used by Burt and Adelson for
image compression, but its applicability to the image
fusion task was soon realized and the LP fusion scheme
was proposed in 1985[17].
Fig. 3 One stage of the Laplacian pyramid decomposition
There are also some alternative pyramidal decom-
position methods for image fusion, such as the gradi-
ent pyramid (GP)[18] and the ratio-of-low-pass (RoLP)
pyramid[19] . The GP can be obtained by applying a
gradient operator to each level of the Gaussian pyra-
mid. Four gradient pyramids were generated, repre-
senting horizontal, vertical and two diagonal directions.
Multiscale
Fusing Fused reconstruction Fused
using sub-images
image C
rule {SC}
The RoLP pyramid introduced by Toet is very similar
to the LP. Instead of subtraction, division is performed
between adjacent levels of the Gaussian pyramid.
(2) Wavelet decomposition. The wavelet representa-
tion introduced by Mallat[20] was used in image cod-
ing, pattern matching and texture analysis in the late
(2) 1980s. The wavelet representation provides a way for
analyzing signals in both time and frequency domains.
This makes it ideal for representing non-stationary sig-
nals, to which most real-world signals belong. It is well
known that the discrete wavelet transform (DWT) can
be implemented by iterating a perfect reconstruction
filter bank {h0 , h1 , k0 , k1 }[21] . Here h0 , h1 denote low-
pass and bandpass analysis filters respectively, and k0 ,
(0)
k1 are corresponding synthesis filters. Let W00 be the
original image. As shown in Fig. 4, a set of four sub-
(j) (j) (j) (j)
images {W00 , W10 , W01 , W11 } is generated at the
(j)
jth step of iteration, where W00 (j = 1, 2, · · · ) con-
tains low-frequency content and other sub-images are
high-frequency contents at three (horizontal, vertical
and diagonal) directions. The reconstruction process
of the DWT, opposite to the decomposition, is based
on the synthesis filters and upsamplers[21] .
The first wavelet based image fusion schemes[22-23]
emerged in the mid-1990s and reported both qualita-
tive and quantitative superior to the standard pyra-
midal methods. Unfortunately, the DWT is not shift-
invariant because of the downsampling used in its cal-
culation. This results in ringing artifacts in intraframe
and moving artifacts in interframe. Rockinger et al [12]
overcome this problem by using the undecimated DWT
(UDWT)[24] , which achieved exact shift invariance by
discarding the downsampling and upsampling opera-
tions. However, the UDWT method is much more ex-
pensive in computation and storage due to the high de-
gree of redundancy, making it impractical for very large
data sets (such as image sequences). This method also
presents a significant challenge when real-time imple-
mentation is considered.
Hill et al [25] further developed the wavelet fusion
scheme by introducing the dual-tree complex wavelet
transform (DTCWT)[26] , which is nearly shift-invariant
but has lower redundancy than the UDWT. The fil-
ters used by the DTCWT must be designed strictly
J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.), 2010, 15(1): 6-12
Fig. 4 One stage of the 2D DWT
to achieve appropriate delay such that the frequency
aliases from different trees can be mainly cancelled each
other. However, short finite impulse response (FIR)
filters are difficult to satisfy these extra constraints
besides such usual constraints as orthogonality, linear
phase (symmetry), and regularity. In addition, the de-
composition coefficients from different trees, serving as
the real or imaginary parts of complexes, should be
combined together to form a shift-invariant magnitude
representation. This increases the burden of subse-
quent processing. The situation becomes rather com-
plex in multidimensional cases, though good directional
selectivity is achieved. Therefore, Yang et al [27] devel-
oped another low-redundant and nearly shift-invariant
wavelet transform, which was related to the concept of
frames and regarded as an optimal combination of the
DWT and UDWT.
3.2.2 Fusion Rules
In addition to the selection of image decomposition
methods, there is a great deal of flexibility in the selec-
tion of fusion rule that is applied at each level of the
decomposed pyramid or sub-images. Generally, there
are three categories of rules to fuse decomposed images.
(1) Point-based rules. The point-based rules consider
each pixel-point separately in the decomposition do-
main. The simplest point-based rule is choose-max[28]
rule, which can be depicted by
 camera, which have different focus. Figure 5(c) shows
SA (x, y), |SA (x, y)| > |SB (x, y)|
SC (x, y) = . (4)
SB (x, y), else
(2) Area-based rules. It is unstable to depend on only
single pixel to determine a fused coefficient. Therefore,
area-based (or window-based) rules are proposed. In
this case, the decomposed sub-images are filtered by a
small fixed window. One area-based rule is developed
by Burt et al [18] . A normalized correlation between
sub-images that generated by different source images
9
over a small local area is computed firstly. The fused
coefficient is then calculated based on this measure via
a weighted average of the two sub-images. Another
famous rule is the window based verification rule pro-
posed by Li et al [22] , where a binary decision map for
the selection of coefficients is created using a majority
filter.
(3) Region-based rules. The most applications of a
fusion scheme are interested in features within the im-
age, not in the actual pixels or a fixed window. It seems
reasonable to incorporate feature information into the
fusion process[29] . Therefore, a number of region-based
fusion schemes have been proposed[29-31] . Edge detec-
tion and region segmentation are the most important
steps for these rules. The development of edge detec-
tion technique and region labeling algorithms makes it
possible to fuse coefficients more intelligently.
4 Application Examples
4.1 Digital Camera Application
It is difficulty to get an image that contains all rel-
evant objects “in focus” due to the limited depth-of-
focus of cameras. The pixel-level image fusion tech-
niques have already been shown to be useful to solve
this problem[9] . Figure 5 shows an example. Figures
5(a) and (b) are two original images, taken by a digital
a fused image using the wavelet-based method. In ad-
dition, there are other applications of pixel-level image
fusion, such as deblurring and cloud removal[9] .
4.2 Medical Imaging
With the increasing of clinic application demanding,
researchers pay more attention to medical image fu-
sion. Medical diagnosis often benefits from the com-
plementary information in images obtained by different
medical imaging devices. For example, CT image pro-
vides the best information on denser tissue with less
10 J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.), 2010, 15(1): 6-12

distortion, while MRI image provides better informa-
tion on soft tissue with more distortion. The combi-
nation of the two images with different modalities can
provide a more precise and sound information on pa-
tient. Figure 6 shows an example in medical image
fusion.
4.3 Surveillance and Navigation
Image fusion technique is increasingly being em-
ployed in the fields of surveillance and navigation. Two
most common sensors in these fields are IR and VL.
The IR sensor provides less detail information in low
thermal contrast area in the scene, whereas the VL
sensor may represent the background in great detail.
The fusion of those two sensors provides a more accu-
rate description of the scene than any of the individual
image. Figure 7 shows an example of IR and VL fusion
for video surveillance.
4.4 Remote Sensing Application
Another significant application of the pixel-level im-
age fusion techniques is in the remote sensing field. In
this field, the color information is provided by MS satel-
lite images with a low spatial resolution. Detailed spa-
tial information can be observed from a Pan image. By
a fusion process a single image can be achieved contain-
ing both high spatial resolution and color information.
Figure 8 shows an example in this case.

Fig. 5 Multifocus image fusion

Fig. 6 Medical image fusion

Fig. 7 IR and VL image fusion

Fig. 8 Remote sensing image fusion

J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.), 2010, 15(1): 6-12 11

5 Performance Evaluation by

There is yet no universally accepted measure for eval- 

M 
N

uating image fusion performance, though algorithmic EI = [QAC (x, y)wA (x, y)+
x=1 y=1
techniques for fusing images are now well known and

understood. Image fusion results were usually evalu-
ated visually. Quantitatively assessing is a complicated
and difficult issue in practical applications because the
ideal fused images are normally unknown. In Ref. [32],
this issue was studied systematically and a quite com-
plete architecture for performance evaluation was de-
veloped. Here, four quantitative measures usually used
in pixel-level image fusion are reviewed.
(1) Root mean square error (RMSE). One way of
assessing performance, especially in multifocus image
fusion, is to synthetically generate a pair of distorted
source images from a known test image, and then com-
pare the fused image with the original test image based
on the RMSE measure. The RMSE between fused im-
age and ideal image is computed by
 along rows and columns respectively and there are
 M N
 
 [C(x, y) − I(x, y)]2
 x=1 y=1
RMSE = , (5)
MN
where I(x,y) is the ideal image; M , N denote the sizes
of the image.
(2) Mutual information (MI). Performance analysis
is more complicated for heterogeneous-sensors fusion
problems where the ground truth in the form of an ideal
fused image is unknown. The MI[6] between source im-
ages and fused image is computed to achieve this. The
MI metric is defined as
MI = H(A, B) + H(C) − H(A, B, C), (6)
where H(C) denotes the entropy of the fused image C;
H(A, B) is the joint entropy of the source images A,
B; H(A, B, C) is the joint entropy of source and fused
images. The (joint) entropy can be computed using
the normalized (joint) histogram of the corresponding
image (images). For example, letting hX (i) be gray-
level histogram of an image X, image X entropy is
255
 gorithms urgently demands widely accepted, objective
H(X) = − hX (i) log hX (i). (7)
i=0
(3) Edge information (EI). EI based metric proposed
by Xydeas et al [33] is another quality metric that does
not require ideal image. The EI metric is based on the
idea of measuring the preservation of input edge infor-
mation in the fused image. The metric can be computed
QBC (x, y)wB (x, y)]
M 
 N
[wA (x, y) + wB (x, y)], (8)
x=1 y=1
where QAC is edge preservation value between images A
and C; QBC is the value between B and C; wA and wB
are weight functions defined based on the edge strength
of image A and B, respectively[33] .
(4) Spatial frequency (SF). Evaluation metric based
on SF[34-35] can be computed only depending on the
fused image
2
SF = frow + f2 , (9)
col
where frow and fcol are the spatial frequencies of image


 1  M  N
frow =  [C(x, y) − C(x, y − 1)]2 , (10)
M N x=1 y=1

 M  N
 1 
fcol =  [C(x, y) − C(x − 1, y)]2 . (11)
M N x=1 y=1
6 Conclusion
In this paper, we reviewed the techniques on pixel-
level image fusion. The pixel-level image fusion has
been rapidly developing and gradually becoming ma-
ture. However, there still remain many issues that
deserve to be studied further. The explosive growth
of computing power enables real-time pixel-level im-
age fusion systems to become a reality. Therefore,
system-level issues and practical matters associated
with the implementation of a real-time image fusion
system should be considered seriously. Although the
algorithmic techniques for pixel-level image fusion have
been well studied by researchers in this domain, chal-
lenges remain with regard to developing intelligent fu-
sion methods adapting to vastly different situations. In
addition, the development of pixel-level image fusion al-
quality metrics.
References
[1] Abidi M A, Gonzalez R C. Data fusion in robotics
and machine intelligence [M]. San Diego, CA: Aca-
demic Press, 1992.
[2] Smith M I, Heather J P. Review of image fusion
technology in 2005 [J]. Proc SPIE, 2005, 5783: 29-45.
12
[3] Ferris D D, Mcmillan R W, Currie N C, et al.
Sensors for military special operations and law enforce-
ment applications [J]. Proc SPIE, 1997, 3062: 173-180.
[4] Smith M I, Ball A, Hooper D. Real-time image
fusion: A vision aid for helicopter pilotage [J]. Proc
SPIE, 2002, 4713: 83-94.
[5] Hill D, Edwards P, Hawkes D. Fusing medical im-
ages [J]. Image Processing, 1994, 6(2): 22-24.
[6] Qu G H, Zhang D L, Yan P E. Medical image fu-
sion by wavelet transform modulus maxima [J]. Opt
Express, 2001, 9(4): 184-190.
[7] Daniel M M, Willsky A S. A multiresolution
methodology for signal-level fusion and data assim-
ilation with applications to remote sensing [J]. Proc
IEEE, 1997, 85(1): 164-180.
[8] Slamani M A, Ramac L, Uner M, et al. Enhance-
ment and fusion of data for concealed weapons detec-
tion [J]. Proc SPIE, 1997, 3068: 8-19.
[9] Zhang Z, Blum R S. A categorization of multiscale-
decomposition-based image fusion schemes with a per-
formance study for a digital camera application [J].
Proc IEEE, 1999, 87(8): 1315-1326.
[10] Toet A, Ijspeert J K, Waxman A M, et al. Fu-
sion of visible and thermal imagery improves situa-
tional awareness [J]. Proc SPIE, 1997, 3088: 177-188.
[11] Toet A, Franken E M. Perceptual evaluation of dif-
ferent image fusion schemes [J] Displays, 2003, 24: 25-
37.
[12] Rockinger O, Fechner T. Pixel-level image fusion:
The case of image sequences [J]. Proc SPIE, 1998,
3374: 378-388.
[13] Brown L G. A survey of image registration techniques
[J]. ACM Computing Surveys, 1992, 24(4): 325-376.
[14] Jia Y H. Fusion of landsat TM and SAR images based
on principal component analysis [J]. Remote Sensing
Technology and Application, 1998, 13(1): 46-49.
[15] Marr D. Vision [M]. San Francisco, CA: W H Free-
man Press, 1982.
[16] Burt P J, Adelson E. The Laplacian pyramid as a
compact image code [J]. IEEE Trans Commun, 1983,
31(4): 532-540.
[17] Burt P J, Adelson E H. Merging images through
pattern decomposition [J]. Proc SPIE, 1985, 575: 173-
181.
[18] Burt P J, Kolczynski R J. Enhanced image cap-
ture through fusion [C]// Proc 4th Int Conf Computer
Vision. Berlin, Germany: IEEE Press, 1993: 173-182.
[19] Toet A. Hierarchical image fusion [J]. Mach Vision
Appl, 1990, 3: 1-11.
[20] Mallat S G. A theory for multiresolution signal de-
composition: The wavelet representation [J]. IEEE
Trans Pattern Anal Machine Intell, 1989, 11(7): 674-
693.
J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.), 2010, 15(1): 6-12
[21] Vetterli M, Herley C. Wavelets and filter banks:
Theory and design [J]. IEEE Trans Signal Process,
1992, 40(9): 2207-2232.
[22] Li H, Manjunath B S, Mitra S K. Multisensor im-
age fusion using the wavelet transform [J]. Graph Mod-
els Image Process, 1995, 57(3): 235-245.
[23] Chipman L J, Orr T M, Lewis L N. Wavelets and
image fusion [C]// Proc IEEE ICIP 3. Washington D
C : IEEE Press, 1995: 248-251.
[24] Unser M. Texture classification and segmentation us-
ing wavelet frames [J]. IEEE Trans Image Process,
1995, 4(11): 1549-1560.
[25] Hill P, Canagarajah N, Bull D. Image fusion us-
ing complex wavelets [C]// Proc BMVC. Cardiff, UK:
British Machine Vision Association Press, 2002: 487-
496.
[26] Kingsbury N G. Complex wavelets for shift invariant
analysis and filtering of signals [J]. Applied and Com-
putational Harmonic Analysis, 2001, 10(3): 234-253.
[27] Yang B, Jing Z L. Image fusion using a low-
redundant and nearly shift-invariant discrete wavelet
frame [J]. Optical Engineering, 2007, 46(10): 107002.
[28] Huntsberger T, Jawerth B. Wavelet based sensor
fusion [J]. Proc SPIE, 1993, 2059: 488-498.
[29] Piella G. A region-based multiresolution image fu-
sion algorithm [C]// ISIF Fusion 2002 Conference.
Annapolis: ISIF, 2002: 1557-1564.
[30] Zhang Z, Blum R. Region-based image fusion scheme
for concealed weapon detection [C]// Proc 31st An-
nual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems.
Baltimore, USA: John Hopkins University Press, 1997:
168-173.
[31] Lewis J J, O’callaghan R J, Nikolov S G,
et al. Region based fusion using complex wavelets
[C]//7th International Conference on Information Fu-
sion. Stockholm, Sweden: ISIF, 2004: 555-562.
[32] Xiao G, Jing Z L, Wu J M, et al. Synthetically eval-
uation system for multi-source image fusion and ex-
perimental analysis [J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong
University (Science), 2006, E-11(3): 263-270.
[33] Xydeas C S, Petrović V. Objective image fusion
performance measure [J]. Electronics Lett, 2000, 36(4):
308-309.
[34] Mckeown D M, Cochran S D, Ford S J, et al.
Fusion of HYDlCE hyper spectral data with panchro-
matic imagery for cartographic feature extraction [J].
IEEE Trans Geosciences and Remote Sensing, 1999,
37(3): 1261-1277.
[35] Laliberte F, Gagnon I, Sheng Y I. Registration
and fusion of retinal images:An evaluation study [J].
IEEE Trans Medical Imaging, 2003, 22(5): 661-673.