This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]

On: 16 January 2015, At: 04:46

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Modern Optics

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmop20

Image contrast enhancement with brightness

Click for updates
preservation using an optimal gamma correction and
weighted sum approach
a a a a a ad b
G. Jiang , C.Y. Wong , S.C.F. Lin , M.A. Rahman , T.R. Ren , Ngaiming Kwok , Haiyan Shi ,
c d
Ying-Hao Yu & Tonghai Wu
a
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, The University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia.
b
School of Computer Science and Technology, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, China.
c
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Chung Cheng University, Min-Hsiung
Township, Taiwan.
d
Key Laboratory of Modern Design and Rotor Bearing System of Ministry, Xi’an Jiaotong
University, Xi’an, China.
Published online: 12 Jan 2015.

To cite this article: G. Jiang, C.Y. Wong, S.C.F. Lin, M.A. Rahman, T.R. Ren, Ngaiming Kwok, Haiyan Shi, Ying-Hao Yu &
Tonghai Wu (2015): Image contrast enhancement with brightness preservation using an optimal gamma correction and
weighted sum approach, Journal of Modern Optics, DOI: 10.1080/09500340.2014.991358

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500340.2014.991358

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Modern Optics, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500340.2014.991358

Image contrast enhancement with brightness preservation using an optimal gamma correction
and weighted sum approach
G. Jianga , C.Y. Wonga , S.C.F. Lina , M.A. Rahmana , T.R. Rena , Ngaiming Kwokad∗ , Haiyan Shib ,
Ying-Hao Yuc and Tonghai Wud
a School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; b School of Computer
Science and Technology, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, China; c Department of Electrical Engineering, National Chung Cheng
University, Min-Hsiung Township, Taiwan; d Key Laboratory of Modern Design and Rotor Bearing System of Ministry, Xi’an Jiaotong
University, Xi’an, China
(Received 8 October 2014; accepted 17 November 2014)

The enhancement of image contrast and preservation of image brightness are two important but conflicting objectives in
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:46 16 January 2015

image restoration. Previous attempts based on linear histogram equalization had achieved contrast enhancement, but exact
preservation of brightness was not accomplished. A new perspective is taken here to provide balanced performance of
contrast enhancement and brightness preservation simultaneously by casting the quest of such solution to an optimization
problem. Specifically, the non-linear gamma correction method is adopted to enhance the contrast, while a weighted sum
approach is employed for brightness preservation. In addition, the efficient golden search algorithm is exploited to
determine the required optimal parameters to produce the enhanced images. Experiments are conducted on natural colour
images captured under various indoor, outdoor and illumination conditions. Results have shown that the proposed method
outperforms currently available methods in contrast to enhancement and brightness preservation.
Keywords: image contrast enhancement; gamma correction; weighted sum averaging; brightness preservation

1. Introduction for a true representation of the objects of interest and their

Since the rapid advancement of electronic imaging devices,
digital images had become one of the major medium in
information exchange. On the other hand, images are also
widely used in many engineering applications where a pas-
sive and non-contact perception of the working environment
is needed. In order to realize the benefits available from the
applications of imaging technology, computer-based image
processing techniques are indispensable assets [1,2].
Application examples of imaging can be found in many
areas. For example, remote sensing images are captured
and analysed for land utilization [3,4]. In the health and
medical fields, images can be used for illness diagnosis
[5,6]. In industries, images can be used to monitor ma-
chine operation conditions by inspecting the wear particle
characteristics [7]. Images are also attractive candidates in
human–computer interaction processes where user gestures
are tracked and interpreted [8]. Furthermore, in electronic
devices, image processing has become a mandatory com-
ponent of a high-performance product [9].
In the context of obtaining a good-quality image for use
in these applications, one of the fundamental requirements
is to have an image of high contrast to convey the scene
information as much as possible [10]. At the meantime,
environment, the preservation of the brightness is of equal
importance [11].
There are a number of possible approaches for the con-
trast enhancement of images, which are either aimed at a
generic application or designed for a specific purpose. For
instance, colour correction and contrast enhancement were
considered simultaneously to produce a high-quality image
[12]. A popular choice of image enhancement technique
is the histogram equalization (HE) method which is de-
signed to reallocate pixel intensity levels towards a uniform
distribution such that maximum scene information can be
restored [13].
For the class of HE-based contrast enhancement meth-
ods, they can be broadly categorized as global and local
approaches. The classification depends on whether the en-
hancement process is initiated from or applied to the whole
image or individual regions of interest [14,15]. Although
both classes of approaches can produce satisfactory results
according to their design objectives, the global approach is
considered simpler in the implementation.
For the preservation of brightness between the input and
enhanced images, early works had focused on the use of
HE techniques for contrast enhancement while making

∗ Corresponding author. Email: nmkwok@unsw.edu.au

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 G. Jiang et al.
modifications to cater for minimum brightness error. A pop-
ular method separated the image into two sub-images and
then performed HE on each sub-image independently. The
separation threshold was chosen as the mean brightness [16]
or the median brightness [17]. However, due to the design
limitations, exact brightness preservation was not accom-
plished. Refinements on the image separation concept were
later made where the histogram was modified before con-
ducting the HE process [18,19]. In these works, the peaks in
the histogram were clipped according to either the mean or
the median of individual sub-images. Although additional
control over brightness manipulation was presented, the
algorithms were not designed for optimal settings.
Another class of approaches integrates the above two
strategies aiming at providing a better performance with re-
spect to the goals in contrast to enhancement and brightness
preservation. For instance, in the work reported in [20], the
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:46 16 January 2015
sub-images were separated using the median brightness, and
the histograms were clipped using the corresponding mean
values of the sub-images. On the other hand, the minimum
value among the original histogram element, median and
mean were used to clip the histogram peaks [21]. However,
an exact match of brightness still remains challenging with
these methods.
In this work, the problem of image contrast enhance-
ment and brightness preservation is considered from a new
perspective. Unlike the current approaches using histogram
equalizations to achieve better contrast, the developed
method denoted as the CEGAMMA employs the non-linear
gamma correction principle in order to enlarge the amount
of achievable contrast enhancement. Furthermore, a
weighted sum-based adjustment is adopted to minimize the
brightness error between the input and enhanced images.
Instead of applying ad hoc determined strategies and pa-
rameters, the coefficients used in the proposed method are
optimized by the efficient golden section search algorithm.
By integrating these three design concepts, the algorithm is
able to produce output images with enhanced contrast and
closely maintained brightness.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In
Section 2, the background and previous works in contrast
enhancement with brightness preservation are reviewed.
The development of the proposed method is detailed in
Section 3. Section 4 describes the Experiments, and results
are evaluated. Finally, the conclusion is drawn in Section 5.
2. Background
Image contrast enhancement is the basic pre-requisite in
many image-based applications. Among the available meth-
ods, linear histogram equalization has been the most popu-
lar choice for its implementation simplicity and acceptable
performance, in general. On the other hand, non-linear ap-
proaches such as gamma correction are also attractive can-
didates for better performance. Gamma correction method
imposes a non-linear manipulation of the image intensity
while outperforms histogram equalization with regard to its
ability to steer the mean brightness of the processed image
to a desired value. In the following, some backgrounds and
related work are briefly reviewed.
2.1. Contrast enhancement
Contrast enhancement using the histogram equalization
strategy is a class of global enhancement methods [1]. Firstly,
the statistics of the input image brightness Iin are collected
in the form of a histogram. It is then normalized to give
the probability density function, and a cumulative density
function is further generated. Finally, an output image of
enhanced contrast is obtained from
Ien (i) ← (L − 1) × cd f (i), (1)
where (L − 1) is the maximum brightness and cd f (i) is
the cumulative density function corresponding to the ith
intensity level.
Based on the principle of the histogram equalization
method, the mean brightness of the output image is

L−1
μ(Ien ) = (i × p(i)), (2)
i=0
where p(i) is the element of the probability density function
that is associated with the ith brightness level. In conven-
tional implementations, the target probability for the equal-
ization process is a uniform distribution where p(i) = p
is a constant. Hence, the mean brightness of the output
becomes μ(Ien ) = (L − 1)/2 and is independent of the
input image mean brightness. This outcome, however, is
considered undesirable in most cases as this would cause a
loss in the perception of the scene.
2.2. Brightness preservation
In order to alleviate the above-mentioned drawback of the
histogram equalization scheme, a number of alternatives
were suggested by various researches. Their goals were
to enhance the image contrast and preserve the brightness
level of output image. Generally, attempts were made to
modify the target histogram to some wanted profiles in-
stead of a uniform profile. The available methods can be
broadly classified into three categories. In the first class, the
input image is separated into two sub-images against the
mean brightness and each sub-image is histogram equalized
[16,17]. Given an input image, the mean value μ(Iin ) is
calculated then the two sub-images are obtained as
Ilo = {Iin | Iin < μ(Iin )}, Ihi = {Iin | Iin ≥ μ(Iin )}. (3)
Two associated cumulative distribution densities, cd flo (i)
and cd f hi (i), are further calculated. Then each sub-image
 Journal of Modern Optics
is equalized giving
Ien,lo (i) ← μ(Iin ) × cd flo (i), Ien,hi (i)
← μ(Iin ) + (L − 1 − μ(Iin )) × cd f hi (i). (4)
Finally, the output and enhanced image are obtained as the
union of the sub-images by Ien = Ien,lo ∪ Ien,hi . The mean
brightness is
μ(Ien ) = μ(Ien,lo ) p(lo) + μ(Ien,hi ) p(hi), (5)
where p(lo) and p(hi) are the normalized number of pixels
in the low- and high-brightness sub-image, respectively.
When the sub-images are both equalized to a uniform target
distribution, their mean brightness is
μ(Ien,lo ) = μ(Iin )/2, μ(Ien,hi )
= μ(Iin ) + (L − 1 − μ(Iin ))/2. (6)
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:46 16 January 2015
Clearly, the output image brightness depends on the content
of the input image but the division into sub-images is not
generally possible to provide an exact match of brightness
between the input and output images.
Consider the special case that p(lo) = p(hi) = 1/2,
the dividing threshold becomes the median of the image
brightness [17]. The output mean brightness is
μ(Ien ) = (2μ(Iin ) + L − 1)/4,
(7)
which only holds when μ(Iin ) = (L − 1)/2.
The other class of methods modify the histogram by
clipping the peaks to some chosen threshold in order to
steer the output image brightness to match that of the input
[18,19]. The essence of these methods rests on the modi-
fication of the target histogram to be used in equalization.
When the target histogram is no more a uniform distribution,
the mean brightness can be tailored. The reported works,
however, still adopt the sub-image division approach.
Let the image be divided into two sub-images and their
corresponding histograms are constructed as
h(lo) = {n(i) | 0 < i < μ(Iin )},
h(hi) = {n(i) | μ(Iin ) ≥ i < L}, (8)
where n(i) is the number of pixels having the ith brightness.
Two clipping thresholds are calculated to modify the his-
tograms. The thresholds lo and hi adopted could be the
mean or median of the sub-histograms, then the modified
histograms become
 that an exact match between the input and output mean
h(lo), h(lo) < (lo)
h(lo) ← , brightness is a very challenging task due to the inherent limit
(lo), otherwise.
 of equalization against a predefined intensity distribution.
h(hi), h(hi) < (hi)
h(hi) ← (9)
(hi), otherwise.
These two modified histograms are then used in the calcu-
lation of two cumulative distribution functions as targets in
the histogram equalization process for the sub-images. The
output is again obtained from their union. The output image
brightness is then given by Equation (2). Since the modified
3
distribution may not have a closed-form representation, the
matching of brightness between the input and output images
would be non-trivial.
2.3. Motivation
It can be seen in the above review that contrast enhancement
based on histogram equalization is a simple implementation
process. However, it is difficult to make use of this proce-
dure to maintain the enhanced image brightness. Although
variations based on the idea of histogram equalization to a
uniform distribution had been made, the outcomes can still
be further improved.
The difficulties in maintaining the output image mean
brightness largely rest on the fact that histogram equaliza-
tion is not able to steer the output brightness to a wider
range. On the other hand, non-linear manipulations on the
image brightness could well be employed to steer the mean
brightness to a desired value while enhancing the contrast
[1].
Considering that the input image intensities are normal-
ized in [0 1] and risen to power γ ∈ [0 ∞]. Then we have,
as example, cases,
∞
Ien,0 = Iin
0
= 1, Ien,1 = Iin
1
= Iin , Ien,∞ = Iin ≈ 0.
(10)
If the parameter γ can be properly determined, then each
enhanced pixel brightness can be manipulated to desired
values and contribute to maintaining to overall brightness.
For instance, when γ = 0, then all pixel brightness are
changed to unity, hence, the mean output image brightness
is also unity. When γ = 1, there would be no bright-
ness change. If γ = ∞, then except when Iin = 1, all
brightness are steered to zero and mean image brightness
also tends to zero. Further developments on this idea are
formulated in the proposed method presented below.
3. Proposed approach
In the proposed approach, the objective is to increase the
image contrast and to keep the mean brightness of the en-
hanced image close to the input image. In most of the
reported works, attempts had been made using the linear
histogram equalization strategy. However, it was shown
On the other hand, the objectives are contradicting where
the match of brightness has to be compromised with the
increase in image contrast. The dual problem is tackled from
a new perspective, here, where linear histogram equaliza-
tion is replaced by the non-linear gamma correction scheme
and the choice of algorithm parameters are treated as an
optimization problem.
 4 G. Jiang et al.
3.1. System description
Asystem block diagram for contrast enhancement and bright-
ness preservation is depicted in Figure 1. Given a colour
image in the red–green–blue (RGB) space,
I (u, v) = {R(u, v), G(u, v), B(u, v)}, (11)
where (u, v) is the pixel coordinate u = 1, . . . , U , v =
1, . . . , V and (U, V ) is the image size in width-by-height.
For implementation convenience, the signals are often nor-
malized in [0 1] with 256 intervals matching the common
8-bit resolution. Each colour channel magnitudes are firstly
stretched across the permitted ranges, for example, the red
colour channel magnitude is stretched as
R(u, v) − min{R}
R(u, v) ← , (12)
max{R} − min{R}
where the minimum and maximum values are obtained
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:46 16 January 2015
over all pixels in the image. The green and blue channels
are also stretched in the same way. Figure 2(a) shows the
histogram of the input image brightness, and the stretched
histogram is shown in Figure 2(b). It is noticeable that
brightness has covered the permissible magnitude range.
This process enriches the image colour content and serves
as pre-processing for contrast enhancement.
After magnitude stretching, all colour signals are con-
verted to the Hue–saturation–intensity (HSI) space. The
I-signal representing the intensity or brightness is processed
in the system. The extracted I-signal Iin is fed simulta-
neously into a compressor and an expander, both adopt-
ing the gamma correction approach with the factor γ ,
giving interim outputs Icp and Iex , respectively. An ad-
ditional interim-enhanced image Iˆen is derived from the
compressed and expanded images using a weighting factor
α. This newly obtained image is tested for an objective
function composed of maximum entropy and a penalty term
depending on the brightness error between the input and the
interim-enhanced image. The governing factors, γ and α are
optimized for a highest objective function. The optimization
Figure 1. System block diagram for contrast enhancement with brightness preservation.
is carried out using the efficient golden section search for its
implementation simplicity [22]. When an optimal parameter
set is obtained, the interim image is reconverted to RGB
from HSI as the output for display or for further processing.
3.2. Contrast enhancement with brightness preservation
The principle of contrast enhancement is based on widen-
ing the input image intensities to occupy all the permitted
intensity range. One of the possible strategies is to com-
press the image intensity towards the dark level and si-
multaneously expand the intensity towards the bright level.
The contrast-enhanced image is obtained from the weighted
sum of the two interim-compressed and interim-expanded
images. That is
Iˆen = α Icp + (1 − α)Iex , α ∈ [0 1], (13)
where Icp is the compressed image and Iex is the expanded
image. The weighting factor α is adopted to adjust the
resultant image mean brightness. The compressed interim
image is obtained from
γ
Icp = Iin , γ > 1, (14)
while the expanded interim image is given by
Iex = 1 − (1 − Iin )γ . (15)
By limiting the value of α in the range [0 1], it can be
assured that the magnitudes of the enhanced pixels are con-
fined to the permissible bounds. In the extreme cases, when
α = 0, the compressed interim image has no contribution
to the result. On the other hand, when α = 1, the output
does not contain any contribution from the expansion. The
exponential power factor determines the degree of com-
pression or expansion on the pixel intensities. When the
pixel intensities are normalized to unity as the maximum
value, the gamma-corrected pixel magnitude is reduced for
all γ > 1, thus, providing compression towards the dark
regions. On the contrary, if γ < 1, pixel magnitudes are
 Journal of Modern Optics 5

Input Stretched
(a) 4500 (b) 4500
4000 4000
3500 3500
No. of pixels

No. of pixels
3000 3000
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Intensity Intensity

Compressed Expanded
(c) 4500 (d) 4500
4000 4000
3500 3500
No. of pixels

No. of pixels
3000 3000
2500 2500
2000 2000
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:46 16 January 2015

1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Intensity Intensity

Weighted

(e) 4500
4000
3500
3000
No. of pixels

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Intensity

Figure 2. Plots of histograms in different processing stages; (a) input; (b) stretched; (c) compressed; (d) expanded; and (e) weighted. (The
colour version of this figure is included in the online version of the journal.)

increased. However, in order to use only one parameter for
both compression and expansion, the latter is obtained from
inverting the pixel magnitudes before rising to power γ and
reinverted to give the desired result.
The brightness distributions of the manipulated image
signals are shown in Figure 2(c)–(e). In Figure 2(c), it can be
seen that the peaks of the histogram had shifted to the lower
end of the brightness spectrum as a result of magnitude
compression. On the other hand, a shift of the peaks to the
higher end can be seen in Figure 2(d) denoting an image of
higher overall brightness. The histogram of weighted sum of
image brightness is illustrated in Figure 2(e). It is observed
that the weighted combination of dark and bright images is
able to produce an image of higher contrast whose mean
brightness can be steered to a given value by adjusting the
gamma correction and weighted sum values.
In the compress–expand process the same amount of non-
linear adjustment is applied to obtain two interim enhance-
ments, referring to Equations (14) and (15). This strategy
ensures that equal modification is applied to both of the
interim images in order to cover a widened region of the
permitted intensity range. In particular, notice that the ex-
panded interim image is first inverted, by which it is treated
as the compression such that the same gamma factor can be
applied.
This secondary interim image Iˆen , from Equation (13),
is checked for maximum contrast, measured by the image
entropy, and penalized by the brightness error between the
input and itself. In order to obtain the best performance with
regard to the dual objectives of contrast enhancement and
brightness preservation, the determination of the parameters
is undertaken as an optimization problem described below.
 6 G. Jiang et al.

3.3. Parameter optimization Algorithm 2 Optimization of gamma correction parameter

From Equations (13) to (15), it can be seen that the gamma γ
factor and the weighting factor both play crucial roles in 1: Input: input image Iin mean brightness μ(Iin ), weighting
producing the enhanced image. To this end, their values parameter α
2: Output: objective function J , interim enhanced image Iˆen
have to be carefully determined. In Figure 1, the param-
3: set gamma correction parameter γ1 , γ√ 2 , range r = γ2 − γ1
eter optimization process is represented in a double loop 4: set golden section parameter ρ = ( (5) − 1)/2 = 0.618,
structure. The inner loop is responsible for choosin the tolerance τ = r/100
weighting factor α. When an optimal α is determined, the 5: calculate objective functions and interim images using
outer loop which searches for the optimal gamma factor γ Algorithm 3;
is invoked. After the parameters converge to the optimal so- 6: [J1 , Iˆen,1 ] = g(Iin , μ(Iin ), γ1 , α), [J2 , Iˆen,2 ] =
g(Iin , μ(Iin ), γ2 , α)
lution, switch SW toggles and an enhanced image is passed 7: while r > τ do
through to the subsequent functional blocks for colour space 8: if J1 > J2 then
conversion to the original RGB format. 9: set γ2 ← γ1 + r × ρ
The search carried out by the golden section algorithm 10: calculate objective function [J2 , Iˆen,2 ] =
employed the objective function, given by g(Iin , μ(Iin ), γ2 , α)
11: else
  set γ1 ← γ1 + r × (1 − ρ)
δ 12:
J =H× 1− , δ = |μ( Iˆen ) − μ(Iin )| (16) calculate objective function [J1 , Iˆen,1 ] =
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:46 16 January 2015

13:
μ(Iin ) g(Iin , μ(Iin ), γ1 , α)
14: end if
where μ( Iˆen ) is the mean brightness of the interim-enhanced 15: update r = γ2 − γ1
images, μ(Iin ) is the mean brightness of the input image. If 16: end while
there is no brightness error, the image entropy H is restored 17: return objective function J = (J1 + J2 )/2, interim
to its original value. On the contrary, when brightness error enhanced image Iˆen = ( Iˆen,1 + Ien,2 )/2
exists, the entropy is reduced as a penalty. The proposed
contrast enhancement and brightness preservation process
are summarized in the following algorithms. Algorithm 3 is the core process which performs the image
Algorithm 1 is the outer loop responsible for determining enhancement process and produces the objective function. It
the optimal weighting parameter α. It callsAlgorithm 2 in an accepts parameters γ and α from Algorithm 2 and produces
attempt to obtain the optimal gamma correction parameter the interim-enhanced image. The objective function is also
γ . Before entering the inner loop, the mean brightness value calculated in this sub-routine.
of the input image is first calculated as a reference to obtain
the brightness error.
Algorithm 3 Image enhancement
1: Input: input image Iin , mean brightness μ(Iin ), gamma
Algorithm 1 Optimization of weighting parameter α correction parameter γ , weighting parameter α
1: Input: input image Iin 2: Output: objective function J , interim enhanced image Iˆen
γ
2: Output: enhanced image Ien 3: calculate compressed image Icp = Iin
3: calculate input image mean brightness μ(Iin ) 4: calculate expanded image Iex = 1 − (1 − Iin )γ
4: set weighting parameter α1 , α2 , range√r = α2 − α1 5: calculate weighted image Iˆen = α Icp + (1 − α)Iex
5: set golden section parameter ρ = ( (5) − 1)/2 = 0.618, 6: calculate absolute brightness error δ = μ( Iˆen ) − μ(I
tolerance τ = r/100  in )
6: calculate objective functions and interim images using 7: calculate objective function J = H × 1 − μ(Iδ )
in
Algorithm 2; 8: return objective function J , interim enhanced image Iˆen
7: [J1 , Iˆen,1 ] = f(Iin , μ(Iin ), α1 ), [J2 , Iˆen,2 ] =
f(Iin , μ(Iin ), α2 )
8: while r > τ do
9: if J1 > J2 then The golden section search method is basically an iterative
10: set α2 ← α1 + r × ρ process. An initial search region is defined according to
11: calculate objective function [J2 , Iˆen,2 ] = the problem domain, while the search space can be ob-
f(Iin , μ(Iin ), α2 ) tained by carrying out pilot trials. Furthermore, a termina-
12: else
tion condition is defined according to the required solution
13: set α1 ← α1 + r × (1 − ρ)
14: calculate objective function [J1 , Iˆen,1 ] =
precision. In this work, pilot tests had revealed that the
f(Iin , μ(Iin ), α1 ) gamma factor would fall within [1 4], hence, this is the initial
15: end if search region. The termination condition is set to r/100
16: update r = α2 − α1 corresponding to the required solution precision. Higher
17: end while accuracy can be obtained by compromising efficiency with
18: return enhanced image Ien = ( Iˆen,1 + Iˆen,2 )/2
extended iterations.
 Journal of Modern Optics 7

4. Experiments this value tends to zero, good brightness preservation is

Experiments were conducted using 200 colour images of indicated [16].
various contents which were taken from different capturing
environments. Images were delivered from the camera in
4.2.2. Entropy
RGB colour space and in the JPEG format. The size of these
images are 300×400 width-by-height and the enhancement

L−1
algorithm was run in the Matlab platform. Result statistics H=− p(i) log p(i), (18)
were collected and presented in box plots. The optimized i=0
parameters are given in plots of their numerical value dis-
where p(i) is the probability that a pixel has the bright-
tributions. The performance of the proposed method is as-
ness i. A high entropy value denotes a desirable high infor-
sessed both qualitatively and quantitatively. The results are
mation content carried in the image [1,9].
compared against representative methods including the con-
ventional histogram equalization to a uniform distribution
(UNFHE) [1], mean separated bi-histogram equalization 4.2.3. Contrast
(BBHE) [16], dualistic sub-image histogram equalization
(DSIHE) [17], bi-histogram equalization with plateau limit ⎛ ⎞2
1  1 
(BHEPL) [18], bi-histogram equalization with plateau limit C= 2
Ien (u, v)+ ⎝ Ien (u, v)⎠ , (19)
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:46 16 January 2015

on sub-image medians (BHEPLD) [19], adaptive image N N

(u,v)∈ (u,v)∈
enhancement based on bi-histogram equalization with a
clipping limit (AIEBHE) [21], median–mean-based sub- where  is the image spatial domain consisting of N pixels.
image-clipped histogram equalization (MMSICHE) [20] A large value represents a high contrast image [21].
and smoothed histogram equalization (SMHEQ) [23].
4.2.4. Gradient
4.1. Test images
The 200 test images collected by the authors include both
indoor and outdoor natural scenes which were captured
under different illumination and environmental conditions.
Figure 3 shows examples of the test samples of various
feature contents. Images in Figure 3(a) were taken in over-
cast days and objects are not clear to a human viewer. In
Figure 3(b), the images were captured in an environment
containing haze or fog, and objects are hardly identifiable.
Images shown in Figure 3(c) were taken under normal
weather condition but objects were covered by shadows.
Figure 3(d) illustrates test image of indoor scenes. Due
to illumination colour casting, objects are difficult to be
distinguished. These test images were chosen to illustrate
the source of difficulties that the proposed algorithm is able
to overcome.
4.2. Assessment criteria
The most prominent assessment criteria adopted when com-
paring performance among available methods are the
brightness error and the entropy. Other common metrics for
image-quality measures in terms of contrast and sharpness
are also used.
4.2.1. Brightness error
E = μ(Ien ) − μ(Iin ), (17)
where μ(Ien ) is the mean brightness of the enhanced image,
μ(Iin ) is the mean brightness of the input image. When
1  
G= ∇u2 (u, v) + ∇v2 (u, v), (20)
N
(u,v)∈
where ∇u (u, v) = Ien (u, v) − Ien (u + 1, v), ∇v (u, v) =
Ien (u, v) − Ien (u, v + 1) are the gradients along the hori-
zontal and vertical directions across the image [1]. A high
value quantifies a desirable sharp image.
4.3. Qualitative evaluation
Qualitative comparison of different contrast enhancement
methods is presented in this section. Two input images with
degraded appearance are chosen here to demonstrate the
performance difference among various image contrast en-
hancement methods. The performance differences are
mainly evaluated by subjective viewer perception of how
well brightness is being preserved, how much contrast is
enhanced in the scene, and how sharp every edge around
objects appears.
The input image in Figure 4, as we can see, is affected by
foggy shooting environment. Images from 4(b)–(j) present
different enhanced results using various available methods
mentioned above. Image 4(b)–(d) using UNFHE, BBHE
and DSIHE, respectively, shows greater contrast over the
rest of the images.
On the other hand, these images also greatly distorted
the input image brightness level, leaving unrealistic presen-
tations of the original scene. These brightness distortions
stem from the linear mapping of brightness level when
trying to achieve contrast enhancement in these methods.
Images using BHEPL, BHEPLD, AIEBHE and MMSICHE
 8 G. Jiang et al.
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:46 16 January 2015

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 3. Example test images: (a) outdoor – insufficient illumination, (b) outdoor – poor environment condition, (c) outdoor – non-ideal
condition and (d) indoor – colour cast. (The colour version of this figure is included in the online version of the journal.)

shown in images 4(e)–(h), respectively, have little success
enhancing the contrast of the input image. This is primarily
as a consequence of the clipping operation these methods
employed to preserve the mean brightness level of the input
image.
Image 4(i) using SMHEG method shows an acceptable
balance between brightness preservation and contrast en-
hancement, while in certain areas such as around the tower,
degradation by a fog-like effect is observed. Image 4(j),
where the proposed CEGAMMA is used, gives a clean
and neutral image without much distortion of the input
brightness level. Furthermore, image contrast is enhanced
with details of image observable in all the areas of the scene,
and the edge around objects are also sharpened with the
boundary of each object clearly shown.
In Figure 5, another hazy input image is presented. Im-
ages from 5(b)–(d) using UNFHE, BBHE and DSIHE suffer
from the same brightness distortion as found in the previous
test image. Image 5(e) and (f) using BHEPL and BHEPLD
has only marginal contrast improvement over the input im-
age while preserving brightness level well. Images in 5(h)–
(j) with AIEBHE, MMSICHE, SMHEQ and CEGAMMA,
respectively, show comparative contrast-enhanced result
with Image (j) having least brightness deviation from the
original input image.
 Journal of Modern Optics 9

(a)

(b) (c) (d)

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:46 16 January 2015

(e) (f) (g)

(h) (i) (j)

Figure 4. Test results – image 1: (a) input; (b) UNFHE; (c) BBHE; (d) DSIHE; (e) BHEPL; (f) BHEPLD; (g) AIEBHE; (h) MMSICHE;
(i) SMHEQ; (j) CEGAMMA. (The colour version of this figure is included in the online version of the journal.)

To sum up, UNFHE, BBHE and DSHIHE are most prone
to brightness distortion due to the way they map input bright-
ness level linearly according to a pre-set distribution.
BHEPL, BHEPLD, AIEBHE and MMSICHE are better at
preserving image brightness level by posing clipping limits
around appropriate brightness levels. However, the contrast
enhancement performance of these methods is not ensured
in all images. Both SMHEQ and CEGAMMAshow good re-
sults with balancing performance of contrast enhancement
and brightness preservation in the example test images by
utilizing different enhancement philosophies.
4.4. Quantitative evaluation
On top of objective viewing, metrics including brightness
error, entropy, contrast and gradient are also examined for
quantitative comparison of performance among the
described methods. With 200 colour images evaluated in
this experiment, box plots of above-mentioned metrics are
selected for clear illustration of the performance difference.
The box plot of brightness error in Figure 6(a) indicates that
the proposed CEGMMA method is preferable over other
approaches. The CEGAMMA performs better in preventing
the generation of viewing artefacts and scene distortions in
the resultant images.
 10 G. Jiang et al.

(a)
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:46 16 January 2015

(b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g)

(h) (i) (j)

Figure 5. Test results – image 2: (a) input ; (b) UNFHE; (c) BBHE; (d) DSIHE; (e) BHEPL; (f) BHEPLD; (g) AIEBHE; (h) MMSICHE;
(i) SMHEQ; (j) CEGAMMA. (The colour version of this figure is included in the online version of the journal.)

It also can be clearly seen in the entropy box plot,
Figure 6(b) that CEGAMMA method leads other methods
in maximizing entropy, which is desirable to convey more
scene information. These results demonstrate an obvious
advantage of the proposed method to formulate parameters
quest as an optimization problem.
In the contrast box plot, Figure 6(c), the performance
of CEGAMMA is slightly worse than UNFHE, DSHIHE
and SMHEQ, while better than methods such as BHEPL,
BHEPLD, AIEBHE and MMSICHE that are based on
setting limits around wanted brightness level to ensure
brightness preservation. The proposed method’s ability on
enhancing contrast is deemed well with its above-average
performance.
In the aspect of gradient performance as shown in
Figure 6(d), UNFHE, BBHE and DSIHE give best results
with regards to the mean gradient values. However, this
result is predictable as these three methods tend to cre-
ate large amount of discontinuities in the histogram with
their linear mapping of brightness value. In spite of having
sharper edges around objects in the scene, these methods
also create a lot of viewing discomfort and artefacts. The
proposed CEGAMMA method performs similar to the rest
of discussed methods in this comparison with a mean gra-
dient value of 0.032.
From the above analysis, the proposed CEGAMMA
method demonstrates the best performance in brightness
retention and entropy maximization, which is highly
 Journal of Modern Optics 11
μ= 0.000 0.022 −0.010 −0.004 −0.029 −0.027 −0.045 −0.010 0.028 −0.000 μ= 7.341 7.183 7.199 7.201 7.120 7.120 7.039 7.127 7.175 7.481
(a) (b)
0.2
7.8
0.15
7.6
0.1 7.4

0.05 7.2
Brightness

Entropy
0
6.8
−0.05
6.6
−0.1
6.4
−0.15 6.2

−0.2 6
5.8
−0.25

A
E

E
t

EQ
E

LD
E

A
E

EQ
L

LD

pu
pu

BH
FH

CH
BH

EP
FH

CH
EP

M
M

In
In

BB

SI

H
EP
BB

SI

H
EP

M
M

BH
BH

N
N

IE

SI
IE

SI

SM
SM

D
D

A
BH
A
BH

U
U

M
M

A
A

G
G

M
M

CE
CE
(c) μ= 0.520 0.573 0.518 0.531 0.461 0.466 0.437 0.493 0.578 0.530
(d) μ= 0.030 0.042 0.041 0.041 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.033 0.036 0.032

0.11
1.2
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:46 16 January 2015

0.1

0.09
1
0.08

0.07
0.8 Gradient
Contrast

0.06

0.6 0.05

0.04

0.4 0.03

0.02
0.2 0.01
t

t
E

A
E

E
EQ

EQ
L

LD

LD
pu

pu
H

BH

BH
FH

H
CH

FH

CH
EP

EP
M

M
In

In
BB

SI

BB

SI
H

H
EP

EP
M

M
BH

BH
N

N
IE

IE
SI

SI
SM

SM
D

D
A

A
BH

BH
U

U
M

M
A

A
G

G
M

M
CE

CE
Figure 6. Statistics of test results in box plots: (a) brightness error; (b) entropy; (c) contrast; (d) gradient. (The colour version of this figure
is included in the online version of the journal.)

beneficial in contrast enhancement techniques to avoid scene values, is 0.374. The shift of the mode from the mean value
artefacts and to convey maximum scene information. Fur- may be attributed to the fact that most images require com-
thermore, comparable performance against other referred pression or modification to lower intensities because of the
methods in contrast and gradient is also observed in the box characteristics of the image content. By inspecting the test
plots. Overall, CEGAMMA achieves superior image en- images shown in Figures 4 and 5, it can be seen that images
hancement and brightness preservation performance against captured under foggy or hazy environment tend to cast
compared methods. the scene into white or towards the high-intensity region.
Thus, the proposed algorithm modifies the images toward
the darker intensities as a result of the enhancement process.
4.5. Parameter settings A plot of the distribution of the gamma correction factor
Based on the 200 test images, statistics of the obtained is given in Figure 7. The mean value is 1.365 and the mode
weighting factor α and the gamma correction factor γ are is 1.075 with a second peak located at 1.400. This factor
shown as distributions in Figure 7(a) and (b). For the weight- is responsible for the degree of enhancement produced as
ing factor, Figure 7(a), the average value is 0.491. It can the intensity ranges were compressed or expanded to the
be conjectured that approximately equal efforts had been two ends of the intensity region. We can see that a certain
exerted in increasing image intensities to the higher amount of power law correction is needed to produce an
magnitude region as well as in decreasing the intensities enhanced image. However, this parameter depends largely
to the lower magnitude region. The net effect resulted in on the image content. If the input image has sufficient con-
expanding the intensity range, thus, covering the allowed trast, then a small gamma is needed. On the contrary, when
magnitude range uniformly and increasing the informa- the input image contrast is low, then a larger correction is
tion content. The mode or the largest number of parameter required.
 12 G. Jiang et al.
μ=0.491, η=0.374 μ=1.365, η=1.075
(a) 70 (b) 35
60 30

50 25
No. of images

No. of images
40 20

30 15

20 10

10 5

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Factor α Factor γ

Figure 7. Distribution of algorithm parameters: (a) weighted-sum parameter α; (b) gamma correction parameter γ . (The colour version
of this figure is included in the online version of the journal.)
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 04:46 16 January 2015

5. Conclusion
Anew procedure for image contrast enhancement and bright-
ness preservation had been presented. The proposed method
was designed aiming at overcoming the limitations of his-
togram equalization-based approaches in providing close
matches of input image brightness. Unlike the currently
available techniques, this work adopted the gamma cor-
rection strategy together with weighted sum to derive
high-contrast images with a significant improvement in
brightness preservation. In particular, image intensity mag-
nitudes were compressed, expanded and then aggregated.
High-performance results were accomplished by casting
the problem into an optimization context where algorithmic
parameters were iteratively searched and optimally deter-
mined. The effectiveness of the proposed method was veri-
fied using a collection of a large number of images captured
in natural scenes under various illumination and environ-
ments. Results had shown that the developed algorithm
outperformed others in terms of brightness preservation,
information content increment as well as the reduction in
viewing artefacts produced.
References
[1] Gonzalez, R.C.; Woods, R.E. Digital Image Processing, 3rd
ed.; Prentice-Hall Inc, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006.
[2] Sun, W.; Han, L.; Guo, B.; Jia, W.; Sun, M. J. Mod. Optic
2014, 61, 1–12.
[3] Zhang, G.; Jia, X.; Kwok, N. Super Pixel Based Remote
Sensing Image Classification with Histogram Descriptors
on Spectral and Spatial Data. In International Geoscience
and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), Munich; 2012,
pp 4335–4338.
[4] Guo, W.; Xia, X.; Xiaofei. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 6446–
6458.
[5] Sundaram, M.; Ramar, K.; Arumugam, N.; Prabin, G. Appl.
Soft. Comput. 2011, 11, 5809–5816.
[6] Wang, X.; Zhang, D. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013, 40, 5854–
5866.
[7] Wu, T.; Wu, H.; Du, Y.; Kwok, N.; Peng, Z. Wear 2014, 316,
19–29.
[8] Su, F.; Fang, G.; Kwok, N. Shadow Removal Using
Background Reconstruction. In 5th International Congress
on Image and Signal Processing (CISP), 2012, Chongqing,
pp 154–158.
[9] Yao, Y.; Abidi, B.; Doggaz, N.; Abidi, M. Evaluation of
Sharpness Measures and Search Algorithms for the Auto
Focusing of High-Magnification Images. In Defense and
Security Symposium, Orlando, FL, 2006, pp 62460G-1–
62460G-12.
[10] Tanaka, G.; Suetake, N.; Uchino, E. Opt. Rev. 2010, 17, 130–
138.
[11] Choi, H.H.; Yun, B.J. Opt. Rev. 2011, 18, 389–393.
[12] Kwok, N.; Shi, H.; Ha, Q.; Fang, G.; Chen, S.; Jai, X. Eng.
Appl. Artif. Intell. 2013, 26, 2356–2371.
[13] Yoon, B.W.; Song, W.J.J. Electron. Imag. 2007, 16, 033005–
033005.
[14] Kong, N.S.P.; Ibrahim, H. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2011, 37,
631–643.
[15] Kwok, N.; Shi, H.; Fang, G.; Ha, Q.P. Intensity-Based
Masking Gain Adaptive Unsharp for Image Contrast
Enhancement. In 5th International Congress on Image and
Signal Processing (CISP), 2012, Chongqing, pp 529–533.
[16] Kim, Y.T. IEEE Trans. Consum. Electron. 1997, 43(1), 1–8.
[17] Wang, Y.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, B. IEEE Trans. Consum.
Electron. 1999, 45, 68–75.
[18] Ooi, C.H.; Kong, N.S.P. IEEE Trans. Consum. Electron.
2009, 55, 2072–2080.
[19] Ooi, C.H.; Isa, N.A.M. IEEE Trans. Consum. Electron. 2010,
56, 2543–2551.
[20] Singh, K.; Kapoor, R. Optik Int. J. Light Electron Opt. 2014,
125, 4646–4651.
[21] Tang, J.R.; Isa, N.A.M. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2014, 21,
86–103.
[22] Chong, E.K.P.; Zak, S.H. An Introduction to Optimization,
John Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, 2013.
[23] Kwok, N.M.; Jia, X.; Wang, D.; Chen, S.Y.; Fang, G.; Ha,
Q.P. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2011, 37, 681–694.