In this paper, we conducted a cause analysis on boundary artifacts in image deconvolution. Results of the cause analysis show that boundary artifacts are caused not only by a misuse of boundary conditions but also by no use of the normalized backprojection. Results also showed that the correct use of boundary conditions does not necessarily remove boundary artifacts. Based on these observations, we suggest not to use any specific boundary conditions and to use the normalized backprojector for boundary artifactfree image deconvolution.
1. INTRODUCTION
The image deconvolution is a basic problem in image processing and has many applications. Examples include restoration of astronomical images, microscopy, and medical imaging, etc
[1]
. Many methods have been developed for the image deconvolution. For example, we have the classical Wiener filtering
[2]
, Bayesian based approaches
[3

5]
, wavelet deblurring
[6
,
7]
, variational methods
[8
,
9
,
10]
, etc.
The image deconvolution, however, often produces undesirable artifacts in deconvolved images. The paper
[11]
classifies obstacles of the image deconvolution into following four categories; noise, insufficient deconvolution, boundary artifacts, and incorrect blurring model. In this paper our main concern is the removal of boundary artifacts.
The boundary artifacts in image deconvolution problem are caused by various factors, depending on deconvolution methods. For instance, classical frequency domain filtering methods, which utilize the decoupling property of the circular convolution via fast Fourier transform (FFT), severely suffers from boundary artifacts, due to the mismatch in blurring models; the frequency domain filtering methods assumes a circular convolution as the blurring model, instead of a truncated convolution, which fits more accurately blurring models in many applications.
To remove boundary artifacts, various boundary condition methods have been proposed along with iterative deconvolution methods. The boundary condition (BC) method imposes certain condition on pixels across boundaries. Among them, periodic, reflective, and antireflective BCs have been most popular
[12

15]
. BC methods, however, often do not remove boundary artifacts effectively in case when imposed conditions are greatly mismatched to characteristic of images to be recovered.
In this paper, to investigate what really causes boundary artifacts, we conducted various simulation studies. Through a careful analysis on source of boundary artifacts, we suggest not to impose any specific BCs to avoid imposing mismatched BCs to characteristics of images to be restored. This result was preluded in the work of Calvetti et. al.
[16]
. The main result of the cause analysis is that no use of BC is not sufficient, while the use of the normalized backprojector which is designed to compensate for the nonuniformity in contributions from image pixels to the observation along with no use of BC removes boundary artifacts effectively. Simulation results in this paper will support this claim.
2. BACKGROUNDS
 2.1 Problem of Image Deblurring
The image deconvolution problem is to find the true image
f
from the observed image
g
which is blurred and noised as
where
P
is the linear transform that determines the blurring process and
n
represents a mean zero Gaussian noise. In this paper, we assume that the blurring by
P
is spaceinvariant so that there exists a point spread function (PSF)
k
such that
Pf
=
k
∗
f
the convolution of
k
and
f
. The exact definition of
k
∗
f
will be given in the next section.
In (1), to include every pixel of
f
that affects the observed image
g
through blurring, it is natural to assume that the domain
Ω
of the true image
f
is larger than the domain
∧
of the observed image
g
. The blurring process makes some nearboundary pixels of the observed image
g
to be influenced by ‘unseen pixels’ (pixels in
Ω

∧
). It is often regarded that the existence of unseen pixels causes boundary artifacts
[12]
.
In this paper, we will use following notations and terminologies.

•g=Pf＋n: the observation model, wheregis the observed image,fis the true image to be restored,Pis the projector that represents the spaceinvariant blurring, andnis a mean zero Gaussian noise.

•f= (fj1,j2): the image,f, will be denoted in an alphabet, while its image pixel value,fj1,j2, at (j1,j2), will be denoted in the same alphabet with subscripted indices. With the single pixel index., we will treat imagegandfas one dimensional vectors. The same rule will hold for other images and PSFs throughout this paper.

•∧: the set of image pixels wheregis defined.

•Ω: the set of image pixels wherefis defined.

•Ω∧: the set of "unseen image pixels".

•L2(Ω): the set of images defined onΩ.

•L2(∧): the set of images defined on∧.

•k: the PSF that defines the blurring transformPby
where
S_{k}
= {
v

k_{v}
≠ 0}. The blurring transform
P
will be called projector throughout this paper.
Throughout this paper, we assume that the PSF
k
satisfies following conditions:
 2.2 Iterative Methods
Landweber Method (LM)
For
g
=
Pf
, the Landweber iteration takes
Here,
β
the step length must have the value of
where
σ
_{max}
is the largest singular value of
P
. For details and applications of Landweber method, see, e.g.,
[17]
.
RichardsonLucy (RL)
For
g
=
Pf
, starting from
f
^{0}
= 1
_{Ω}
, where 1
_{Ω}
is the allone image defined on
Ω
, the RichardsonLucy method takes
f
^{n＋1}
=
f^{n}
.
^{∗}
P^{t}s^{n}
./
P^{t}
1
_{∧}
,
s^{n}
=
g
./
Pf^{n}
,
where, .
^{∗}
and ./ are pixelbypixel multiplication and division between two images. and 1
_{∧}
is the allone images defined on
∧
. For details and applications of RichardsonLucy method, see, e.g.,
[4
,
5]
.
Conjugate Gradient Least Square (CGLS)
The conjugate gradient method is designed for the linear system governed by positive definite matrix
[18]
. For (1), we consider the Tikhonov regularization method formulated by
min
_{f}
(║
g

Pf
║
_{2}
＋λ║
f
║
^{2}
_{2}
),
where λ>0 is a regularization parameter and ║・║
_{2}
is the
L
^{2}
norm. This variational problem leads to the following normal equation:
Since the governing matrix
P^{t}P
＋ λ1
_{Ω}
in (5) is positive definite, the conjugate gradient method is applicable to (5). We will denote this method by Conjugate Gradient Least Square (CGLS).
 2.3 Boundary Conditions
In this section, we will explain various BCs such as periodic, reflective, and antireflective boundary conditions.
To simplify the presentation, we assume that
for some positive integers
N
_{1}
,
N
_{2}
and
for some positive integers
L
_{1}
,
L
_{2}
,
M
_{1}
,
M
_{2}
. In this case,
where
ν
= 1,2
We divide the true image
f
into 9 parts as follows
where
f_{c}
= (
f
_{i1}
,
f
_{i2}
), 0 ≤
i_{ν}
<
N_{ν}
(
ν
= 1,2) represents the image part defined on
∧
; the others represent the image part defined on
Ω

∧
, the set of unseen image pixels across the boundary of
∧
. Boundary condition method impose certain restriction on
f_{nw}
,
f_{n}
,
f_{ne}
,
f_{w}
,
f_{e}
,
f_{s}
, and
f_{se}
in (9).
Periodic BC (PBC)
In 2Dimensional, the
i
th row of the periodic boundary condition imposed images is
and similarly for the column.
Reflective BC (RBC)
The reflective boundary condition, in 2dimensional, imposed image is as follows
and similarly for the column.
AntiReflective BC (ABC)
The antireflective boundary condition, in 2dimensional, imposed image is as follows
and similarly for the column.
Any set of BCs introduce an extension operator
E
:
L
^{2}
(
∧
)→
L
^{2}
(
Ω
) such that
where and
f
^{∗}
_{nw}
,
f
^{∗}
_{n}
,
f
^{∗}
_{n}
e,
f
^{∗}
_{w}
,
f
^{∗}
_{e}
,
f
^{∗}
_{sw}
,
f
^{∗}
_{s}
, and
f
^{∗}
_{se}
represent parts of the image imposed by boundary condition. By using extension operator
E
associated with PBC, RBC, and ABC can be defined by (10), (11), and (12), respectively. BC methods use the extension operator
E
to modify (1) to
Iterative deblurring methods described in section 2.3 can be applied to (14) by replacing
f
with
f_{c}
and
P
with
PE
.
One of the main advantage of BC methods is the computational efficiency. For example, PBC, RBC, and ABC based models can be diagonalizable by FFT, discrete cosine transform (DCT), and sine transform (DST), respectively. For details, see. e.g.,
[13

15]
.
Free BC (FBC)
Instead of imposing specific BCs, works in
[15
,
18
,
19]
suggest not to use them. In
[19]
, Calvetti et. al. claim that “In an Aristotelian approach to knowledge, when it is not known a priori which BCs should be chosen, by admitting our lack of information it is possible to let the data itself determine them.” In
[19]
, this no use of BC approach is called free BC (FBC). Thus, FBC does not modify the deconvolution problem (1).
We will use the notation, 'iterative method''BC', to describe the iterative deblurring method and the boundary condition. For example, CGLSRBC and CGLSABC are CGLS iteration with reflective BC and antireflective BC, respectively.
3. PROPOSED METHOD
 3.1 Cause Analysi
To investigate the source of boundary artifacts, we conducted simulations with test images in
Fig. 1
.
Fig. 1
shows images satisfying various BCs ((a) PBC, (b) RBC, (c) ABC, (d) no BC) on 10 pixel rows on the upper boundary and 10 pixel columns on the left boundary. In this paper, we used 11×11 diagonal PSF
k_{D}
whose diagonal elements are
{30,29,...,20} and the first diagonal element
is
k
_{0,0}
. Notice that the location of BCimposed image pixels in
Fig. 1
is determined by the support of the PSF
k_{D}
.
Test images. (a) (upperleft)‘clock’satisfying PBC, (b) (upperright)‘peppers’satisfying RBC, (c) (lowerleft)‘girl’satisfying ABC, (d) (lowerright)‘ bridge’satisfying no BCs. All images are of size 250×250.
Fig. 2
shows blurred versions of images in
Fig. 1
by the 11×11 diagonal PSF
k_{D}
. In this simulation, we did not add noise to exclude noiserelated artifacts in deconvolved images for a better visual comparison on boundary artifact removal.
Blurred images by the 11×11 diagonal PSF k_{D} from images in Fig. 1. All blurred images are of size 240×240.
Fig. 3
shows deconvolved images by LM from images in
Fig. 2
. In
Fig. 3
, we presented restored images on
∧
, if necessary (
Fig. 3
(d)), by cropping out image pixels on
Ω

∧
. Here we note that LMPBC (
Fig. 3
)(a), LMRBC (
Fig. 3
)(b), and LMABC (
Fig. 3
(c)) recover images
f_{c}
defined on
∧
, while LMFBC recovers
f
defined on
Ω
. In
Fig. 3
(c)(lowerleft) satisfying ABC, the boundary artifacts were very severe even though the image was obtained by only 10 iterations. Other images in
Fig. 3
were obtained by 1000 iterations. In this simulation, we used a fixed parameter
β
= 0.25 which is the step length of LM iterations in (6) for all pixels. Smaller step lengths
β
can reduce the artifacts in
Fig. 3
(c), but, at the same time, it decreases the convergence rate.
Deconvolved images by LM from blurred images in Fig. 2 by using (a) (upperleft) PBC, (b) (upperright) RBC, (c) (lowerleft) ABC, and (d) (lowerright) FBC.
In the simulation for
Fig. 3
, original images to be recovered are assumed to satisfy imposed BCs, as seen in
Fig. 1
. Thus, in the simulation for
Fig. 3
, there were no unseen pixels across upper and left boundaries in observed images in
Fig. 2
. Some of restored images ((c), (d)) in
Fig. 3
, however, exhibited boundary artifacts. These simulation results show that correctly imposed BC does not guarantee boundary artifact removal in LM.
Fig. 4
shows deconvolved images by RL from images in
Fig. 2
. Again, in
Fig. 3
, we presented restored images only on
∧
.
Deconvolved images by RL from blurred images in Fig. 2 by using (a) (upperleft) PBC, (b) (upperright) RBC, (c) (lowerleft) ABC, and (d) (lowerright) FBC.
In the simulation for
Fig. 4
, original images to be recovered are also assumed to satisfy imposed BCs, as in the simulation for
Fig. 3
. Thus, again, in the simulation for
Fig. 4
, there were no unseen pixels across upper and left boundaries in observed images in
Fig. 2
.
Fig. 4
(c), however, exhibited severe boundary artifacts.
Restored images by RL showed different implications for ABC (
Fig. 4
(c)) as compared with PBC (
Fig. 4
(a)), RBC (
Fig. 4
(b)), and FBC (
Fig. 4
(d)). Boundary artifacts in RLABC (
Fig. 4
(c)) can be explained by following argument. Notice that RLABC takes the iteration
where
E
is the extension transform associated with ABC. It is well known that RLtype iterations does not provide accurate estimation for pixels
v
where the denominator (
E^{t}P^{t}
1
_{∧}
)
_{v}
= 0. The characteristic of the extension transform
E
associated with ABC, however, makes (
E^{t}P^{t}
1
_{∧}
)
_{v}
= 0 for some pixel
v
. This result shows that RLABC is not a good approach for the image deconvolution.
As compared with LMFBC (
Fig. 3
(d)), RLFBC (
Fig. 4
(d)) did not show boundary artifacts. Since FBC means no use of BCs, this result show that the boundary artifact removal can be archived without using correct BCs.
As seen in
Fig. 3
(d), FBC alone, however, does not remove boundary artifacts
[20]
. Despite the failure of FBC in removing boundary artifacts, we suggest FBC as the first step to avoid boundary artifacts caused by the use of mismatched BCs, by noting that boundary artifacts in FBC can be easily removable by using the normalized backprojector. The exact definition of the normalized backprojector and detailed explanation will be given in the next section.
 3.2 Normalized Backprojector
Simulation results in Section 3.1 show that the use of correct BC does not guarantee boundary artifact removal in LM and RL. Moreover, the result in
Fig. 4
(d) by RLFBC shows that boundary artifacts can be removed without using correct BCs. The comparison of
Fig. 3
(d) by LMFBC with
Fig. 4
(d) by RLFBC indicates that the boundary artifact can be removed not by imposing correct BC but by using special characteristic of RL that is not in LM.
To find out what special characteristic of RL leads to boundary artifact removal, we reformulate the Landweber method (4) in the following generalized form
[21]
:
where
B_{n}
= diag{
β
_{1}
^{(n)}
,
β
_{2}
^{(n)}
,…,
β_{Ω}
^{(n)}
} with positive elements controlling step size of each iteration and positive definite matrices
M_{n}
. Notice that RL also can be written in an addition form (16) with
This shows that the main difference between LM and RL is the use of the normalized term
P^{t}
1
_{∧}
in the denominator. We call 1
_{Ω}
./
P^{t}
1
_{∧}
.
^{∗}
P^{t}
normalized backprojector (NBP) by noting that it backprojects the allone image 1
_{∧}
on
∧
to the allone image 1
_{Ω}
on
Ω
.
We denote the modified LM that uses the normalized backprojector 1
_{Ω}
./
P^{t}
1
_{∧}
.
^{∗}
P^{t}
instead of the standard backprojector
P^{t}
with FBC by LMNFBC. We also use LMNPBC, LMNRBC, LMNABC to refer NBPbased LM with PBC, RBC, and ABC, respectively. With the same argument, we define CGLSNFBC. Here we note that RLNPBC, RLNRBC, RLNABC, RLNFBC are same as RLPBC, RLRBC, RLABC, RLFBC, respectively.
To check whether the normalized backprojector 1
_{Ω}
./
P^{t}
1
_{∧}
.
^{∗}
P^{t}
can remove boundary artifacts in LM, we conducted image deconvolution simulation by NBP based LM.
Fig. 5
shows deconvolved images by NBP based LM from images in
Fig. 2
. As in simulations for
Fig. 3
and
4
, in the simulation for
Fig. 5
, original images to be recovered are assumed to satisfy imposed BCs, as seen in
Fig. 1
, and hence there were no unseen pixels across upper and left boundaries in observed images in
Fig. 2
.
Deconvolved images from blurred images in Fig. 2 by using (a) (upperleft) LMNPBC, (b) (upperright) LMNRBC, (c) (lowerleft) LMNABC, and (d) (lowerright) LMNFBC.
Fig. 5
(a) by LMNPBC was exactly identical to
Fig. 3
(a) by LMPBC. This phenomenon can be explained by the following argument. Notice that the standard backprojector (
PE
)
^{t}
of LMPBC, where
E
is the extension transform associated with PBC, is already normalized, i.e., (
PE
)
^{t}
1
_{∧}
= 1
_{Ω}
because of conditions (3) imposed on the PSF
k
.
Fig. 5
(b) by LMNRBC showed a slight improvement over
Fig. 3
(b) by LMRBC.
Fig. 5
(c) by LMNABC exhibited severe boundary artifacts as in
Fig. 4
(c) by RLABC. Boundary artifacts in LMNABC (
Fig. 5
(c)) can be explained by the same argument used for
Fig. 4
(c) by RLABC, since both methods use
E^{t}P^{t}
1
_{∧}
(here
E
is the extension operator associated with ABC. Notice that this term can be 0 for some pixels) as the normalized term in their backprojectors. This result shows that ABC is not good for NBP.
Fig. 5
(d) by LMNFBC showed a clear improvement over
Fig. 3
(d) by LMFBC. All boundary artifacts were removed. Based on these observations, we suggest not to use any specific BCs and to use the normalized backprojector for boundary artifact removal. In other words, we suggest to use iterative methods based on NFBC.
 3.3 Implementation
To explain how FBC is implemented, we will use commands of Matlab
[1]
. Before we do this, let us recall that if
Ω
=
R
^{M×M}
,
∧
=
R
^{N×N}
, and
k
is a
L
×
L
sized PSF, then
M
=
N
＋
L
 1.
As mentioned earlier, FBC does not use an extension operator
E
. Thus, the implementation of FBC depends on how the projection (the multiplication of the matrix
P
and images on
L
^{2}
(
Ω
)) and the backprojection (the multiplication of the transpose matrix
P^{t}
and images on
L
^{2}
(
∧
)) are computed. For these computations, we first compute optical transfer functions
K
and
K
^{(r)}
of the PSF
k
and its reversely ordered PSF
k
^{(r)}
(i.e.,
=
k
_{_i1,_i2}
) by using following commands:
˃˃
Z
=
Z
^{(r)}
= zeros(
M
,
M
);
˃˃
Z
(1 :
L
, 1:
L
) =
k
;
˃˃
Z
^{(r)}
(1 :
L
, 1:
L
) =
k
;
˃˃
K
= fft2(
Z
);
˃˃
K
^{(r)}
= fft2(
Z
^{(r)}
);
With these optical transfer functions
K
and
K
^{(r)}
, we can compute
y
=
Pf
and
x
=
P^{t}g
respectively by
˃˃
Y
= real(ifft2(
K
.
^{∗}
fft2(
f
)));
˃˃
y
=
Y
(
L
:
M
,
L
:
M
);
(takingout)
and
˃˃
G
= zeros(
M
,
M
);
˃˃
G
(1:
N
, 1:
N
) =
g
;
(zeropadding)
˃˃
x
= real(ifft2(
K
^{(r)}
.
^{∗}
fft2(
G
)));
In case when PBC is used, we uses the extension operator
E
to change the problem
g
=
Pf
＋
n
(1) to
(14), where
For computations of projection and backprojection associated with PBC, we first compute PBCrelated optical transfer functions
K_{p}
and
K_{p}
^{(r)}
of
k
and
k
^{(r)}
, respectively, by using following commands:
˃˃
Z_{p}
=
Z_{p}
^{(r)}
= zeros(
N
,
N
);
˃˃
Z_{p}
(1 :
L
, 1:
L
) =
k
;
˃˃
Z_{p}
^{(r)}
(1 :
L
, 1:
L
) =
k
^{(r)}
;
˃˃
K_{p}
= fft2(
Z_{p}
);
˃˃
K_{p}
^{(r)}
= fft2(
Z_{p}
^{(r)}
);
Here we note that the main difference between
K
,
K
^{(r)}
(in FBC) and
K_{p}
,
K_{p}
^{(r)}
(in PBC) is the size of optical transfer function;
K
and
K
^{(r)}
are of size
M
×
M
, while
K_{p}
and
K_{p}
^{(r)}
are of size
N
×
N
.
With these optical transfer functions
K_{p}
and
K_{p}
^{(r)}
, we can compute
and
x
=
P^{t}g
respectively by
˃˃
y
= real(ifft2(
K_{p}
.
^{∗}
fft2(
f_{c}
)));
and
˃˃
x
= real(ifft2(
K_{p}
^{(r)}
.
^{∗}
fft2(
g
)));
In case when RBC or ABC are used, we can have similar computational efficiencies to PBCrelated one by replacing 'fft2' and 'ifft2' with 'dct2' and 'idct2' for RBC and 'dst2' and 'idst2' for ABC, where 'dct'and 'dst' represent DCT and DST, respectively.
The computational efficiency comparison between FBC and PBC clearly shows that FBC can be implemented with a fast algorithm, which requires only few extra computations for 'bigger sized optical transfer functions', 'takingout' and 'zeropadding' than PBC based algorithms. Simulation results in this paper will show that those extra computations in FBC pay off by removing boundary artifacts more efficiently than PBC, RBC, and ABC.
4. SIMULATION STUDIES
We conducted simulations to test the performance of the proposed method NFBC.
Fig. 6
shows test images (a) ‘moon’ and (b) ‘boat’.
Fig. 7
(a) and (b) show blurred and noised images by 11×11 Gaussian PSF
k
and 11×11 diagonal PSF
k_{D}
, respectively. We added mean zero Gaussian noises to blurred images. Here standard deviations of added noises were set to be 0.5% of means of blurred images
Test images. (a)‘moon’, (b)‘boat’. The size of test images is 250×250.
Blurred, by (a) k and (b) k_{D}, and noised images. The noise term was generated by mean zero Gaussian noise with the standard deviation = 0.5% of the mean of the blurred image. Here, we used 11×11 Gaussian PSF k_{G} with σ = 2.5 pixel unit length and 11×11 diagonal PSF k_{D} which was explained in section 3.1.
In simulations, we chose the image that had the smallest relative square error (RSE) in 500 iterations as the deconvolved image by the tested method. Here the RSE is defined by
where,
and
f
_{i1,i2}
are pixel values of the deconvolved image and the true image, respectively.
Fig. 8
shows deconvoloved images by CGLSPBC. Results showed that boundary artifacts in the Gaussian deconvolution (
Fig. 8
(a)) and more severe ones in the diagonal deconvolution (
Fig. 8
(b)). The relative differences in boundary artifacts are caused by facts that the Gaussian PSF
k_{G}
decays more rapidly than the diagonal PSF
k_{D}
and the ‘moon’ image has boundaries which are relatively more matched to PBC than the ‘boat’ image.
Deconvolved images by CGLSPBC from (a)(left) Fig. 7(a) and (b)(right) Fig. 7(b). The image in (a) was obtained at 7 iterations with RSE = 0.52% and the image in (b) was obtained at 5 iterations with RSE = 3.70%.
CGLSPBC attains the smallest RSE at 7 iterations with RSE = 0.52% for
Fig. 8
(a) and at 5 iterations with RSE = 3.70% for
Fig. 8
(b). These results indicate that boundary artifacts caused by the mismatch of PBC to the image characteristic prevents CGLSPBC from attaining smaller RSE with longer iterations.
Fig. 9
shows deconvoloved images by CGLSRBC. Results showed that severe boundary artifacts in the diagonal deconvolution in
Fig. 9
(b), while boundary artifacts in the Gaussian deconvolution in
Fig. 9
(a) were hardly noticeable. The comparison between
Fig. 8
(a) by CGLSPBC and
Fig. 9
(a) by CGLSRBC indicates that RBC is relatively more matched to the boundary characteristic of the ‘moon’ image than PBC. As seen in
Fig. 9
(b) by CGLSRBC, the mismatch between the boundary characteristic of the ‘boat’ image and RBC caused severe boundary artifacts.
Deconvolved images by CGLSRBC from (a)(left) Fig. 7(a), and (b)(right) Fig. 7(b). The image in (a) was obtained at 29 iterations with RSE = 0.42% and the image in (b) was obtained at 17 iterations with RSE = 1.47%.
CGLSRBC attains the smallest RSE at 29 iterations with RSE = 0.42% for
Fig. 9
(a) and at 17 iterations with RSE = 1.47% for
Fig. 8
(b). The comparison of these results with those in
Fig. 8
also indicates that the mismatch of RBC is less severe than that of PBC.
Fig. 10
shows deconvolved images by CGLSABC. Results showed that both the Gaussian deconvolution (a) and the diagonal deconvolution (b) suffer from boundary artifacts.
Deconvolved images by CGLSABC from (a) (left) Fig. 7(a) and (b)(right) Fig. 7(b). The image in (a) was obtained at 486 iterations with RSE = 0.81% and the image in (b) was obtained at 124 iterations with RSE = 1.10%.
CGLSABC attains the smallest RSE at 486 iterations with RSE = 0.81% for
Fig. 10
(a) and at 124 iterations with RSE = 1.10% for
Fig. 10
(b). The comparison of these results with those in
Fig. 8
and
9
indicates that ABC decreases the convergence rate.
Fig. 11
shows deconvoloved images by CGLSFBC (the first row) and CGLSNFBC (the second row). Results using FBC only showed that both the Gaussian deconvolution (
Fig. 11
(a)) and the diagonal deconvolution (
Fig. 11
(b)) suffer from boundary artifacts. CGLSFBC attains the smallest RSE at 68 iterations with RSE = 0.56% for
Fig. 11
(a) and at 56 iterations with RSE = 0.94% for
Fig. 11
(b).
Deconvolved images by CGLSFBC and CGLSNFBC from (a and c) Fig. 7(a) and (b and d) Fig. 7(b). The image in (a)(upperleft) was obtained at 68 iterations with RSE = 0.56% by CGLSFBC, the image in (b)(upperright) was obtained at 56 iterations with RSE = 0.94% by CGLSFBC, the image in (c)(lowerleft) was obtained at 54 iterations with RSE = 0.41% by CGLSNFBC, and the image in (d)(lowerright) was obtained at 61 iterations with RSE = 0.47% by CGLSNFBC,.
Fig. 11
(c) and
11
(d) show deconvoloved images by CGLSNFBC. Boundary artifacts were effectively removed both in the Gaussian deconvolution (
Fig. 11
(c)) and the diagonal deconvolution (
Fig. 11
(d)). CGLSNFBC attains the smallest RSE at 54 iterations with RSE = 0.41% for
Fig. 11
(c) and at 61 iterations with RSE = 0.47% for
Fig. 11
(d). Thus, CGLSNFBC achieved the smallest RSE in this simulation.
These results show that the use of NFBC removes the chance of using mismatched BCs, as seen in
Fig. 8
(b) and
9
(b), and efficiently removes boundary artifacts by using NBP. The comparison between
Fig. 11
(a) and
11
(b) by FBC only and
Fig. 11
(c) and
11
(d) by FBC+NBP supports the latter claim.
5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
In this paper, based on the cause analysis on boundary artifacts in image deconvolution, we suggest not to use any specific BCs and to use the normalized backprojector for the boundary artifact removal. By not using any specific BCs, the proposed method is immune to impose mismatched BCs on unseen pixels. By using the normalized backprojector, the proposed method can remove boundary artifacts effectively. Simulation results supported described claims by showing that the proposed method removes boundary artifacts more effectively than PBC, RBC, and ABC, with only few extra computations than PBC based methods.
BIO
JiYeon Lee
2011. 3~2014. 8 Inje University, Department of Computer Aided Science, Ph.D.
Research Iterests: Numerical Analysis based Image Processing
NamYong Lee
1992. 9~1997 12 Purdue University, Ph.D.
2002. 9~Current Inje University, Department of Applied Mathematics, Associate Professorr
Research Interests: Image Restoration, Medical Imaging, Contents Protection
Gonzalez R.
,
Woods. R.
2002
Digital Image Processing
PrenticeHall
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Haykin. S.
1986
Adaptive Filtering Theory.
PrenticeHall, Inc
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Calvetti D.
,
Somersalo E.
2005
“Bayesian Image Deblurring and Boundary Effects,”
Proceeding of Society of PhotoOptical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series
Vol. 5910
281 
289
Richardson W. H.
1972
“Baysianbased Iterative Method of Image Restoration,”
Journal of the Optical Society of America
62
(1)
55 
59
DOI : 10.1364/JOSA.62.000055
Lucy L. B.
1974
“An Iterative Technique for The Rectification of Observed Distributions,”
The Astronomical Journal
79
(6)
745 
754
DOI : 10.1086/111605
Donoho D.
1995
“Nonlinear Solution of Linear Inverse Problems by Waveletvagulette Decomposition,”
Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis
2
(2)
101 
126
DOI : 10.1006/acha.1995.1008
Chan R.
,
Chan T.
,
Shen L.
,
Shen Z.
2003
“Wavelet Deblurring Algorithms for Spatially Varying Blur from Highresolution Image Reconstruction,”
Linear Algebra and its Applications
366
(1)
139 
155
DOI : 10.1016/S00243795(02)004974
Rudin R.
,
Osher S.
1994
“Total Variation based Image Restoration with Free Local Constraints,”
Proceeding of IEEE International Conference Image Processing
Vol. 1
31 
35
Welk M.
,
Thesi D.
,
Weickert J.
2005
“Variational Deblurring of Images with Uncertain and Spatially Variant Blurs,”
Pattern Recognition
3663
(1)
485 
492
Yoon S.A.
,
Lee T.G.
,
Lee S.H
,
Son M.K.
,
Kim D.G.
,
Won C.H.
2011
"Image Resolution Enhancement by Improved S&A Method using POCS,"
Journal of Korea Multimedia Society
14
(11)
1392 
1400
DOI : 10.9717/kmms.2011.14.11.1392
Tekalp A.
,
Sezan M.
1990
“Quantitative Analysis of Artifacts in Linear Spaceinvariant Image Restoration,”
Multidimensional Systems and Signal Processing
1
(2)
143 
177
DOI : 10.1007/BF01816547
Ng M.
,
Chan R.
,
Tang W.C.
1999
“A Fast Algorithm for Deblurring Models with Neumann Boundary Donditions,”
SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing
21
(3)
851 
866
DOI : 10.1137/S1064827598341384
Hanke M.
,
Nagy J.
,
Plemmons R.
1993
“Preconditioned Iterative Regularization Methods for Illposed Problems,” in Numerical Linear Algebra and Scientific Computing, eds. L. Reichel
de Gruyter
Berlin, Germany
141 
163
SeraCapizzano S.
2003
“A Note on Antireflective Boundary Conditions and Fast Deblurring Models,”
SIAM Journal of Scientific Computing
25
(4)
1307 
1325
DOI : 10.1137/S1064827502410244
Calvetti D.
,
Kaipio J.
,
Someralo E.
2006
“Aristotelian prior Boundary Conditions,”
International J ournal of Mathematics and Computer Science
1
(1)
63 
81
Engl H. W.
,
Hanke M.
,
Neubauer A.
2000
Regularization of Inverse Problems
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Dordrecht
Hestenes M. R.
,
Stiefel E.
1952
“Methods of Conjugate Gradients for Solving Linear Systems,”
Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards
49
(6)
409 
436
DOI : 10.6028/jres.049.044
Bertero M.
,
Boccacci P.
2005
“A Simple Method for The Reduction of Boundary Effects in The RichardsonLucy Approach to Image Deconvolution,”
Astronomy and Astrophysics
437
(1)
369 
374
DOI : 10.1051/00046361:20052717
Lee N.Y.
,
Lucier B.
2013
Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient Method for Boundary Artifactsfree Image Deblurring
Center for Nonlinear Analysis, Carnegie Mellon University
Technical Report 3CNA011
(Submitted).
Zeng G. L.
,
Gullberg C. T.
2000
“Unmatched Projector/Backprojector Pairs in an Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm,”
IEEE Transaction on Medical Imaging
19
(5)
548 
555
DOI : 10.1109/42.870265