2020
DOI: 10.1109/tip.2020.2970541
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Notice of Violation of IEEE Publication Principles: Tone Mapping Beyond the Classical Receptive Field

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 72 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this section, we subjectively and objectively compare the effectiveness of the proposed method with those of the other photographic reproduction methods to confirm whether it affords more advantages than these methods. We selected seven classical and state-of-the-art methods for our experiments, including the following global-based reproduction method: Reinhard et al [4] (published in 2005); the following three local-based reproduction methods: Ahn et al [9] (published in 2013), Li et al [13] (published in 2018), and Gao et al [25] (published in 2020); and the following three decomposition-based reproduction methods: Gu et al [14] (published in 2013), Liang et al [17] (published in 2018), and Miao et al [18] (published in 2019). For a comparison of the computational complexity, taking the image memorial (with size of 768 × 512) as an example, the processing time needed to generate a reproduced image is 0.252 s (in [4]), 0.533 s (in [9]), 5.301 s (in [13]), 0.627 s (in [25]), 0.788 s (in [14]), 2.189 s (in [17]), 0.733 s (in [18]), and 2.201 s (in the proposed method).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this section, we subjectively and objectively compare the effectiveness of the proposed method with those of the other photographic reproduction methods to confirm whether it affords more advantages than these methods. We selected seven classical and state-of-the-art methods for our experiments, including the following global-based reproduction method: Reinhard et al [4] (published in 2005); the following three local-based reproduction methods: Ahn et al [9] (published in 2013), Li et al [13] (published in 2018), and Gao et al [25] (published in 2020); and the following three decomposition-based reproduction methods: Gu et al [14] (published in 2013), Liang et al [17] (published in 2018), and Miao et al [18] (published in 2019). For a comparison of the computational complexity, taking the image memorial (with size of 768 × 512) as an example, the processing time needed to generate a reproduced image is 0.252 s (in [4]), 0.533 s (in [9]), 5.301 s (in [13]), 0.627 s (in [25]), 0.788 s (in [14]), 2.189 s (in [17]), 0.733 s (in [18]), and 2.201 s (in the proposed method).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Figure 9b, although the details on the right side are more visible than those in Figure 9a, the regional details of the red rectangle are lost as a result of insufficient brightness. In Figure 9c,e, detailed information is perceptible but the degree [25]. (e) Result of [14].…”
Section: Subjective Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%