Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Teknoif Teknik Informatika Institut Teknologi Padang
Yuhendra
Padang Institute of Technology
Computer Science & IT Control & Systems Engineering

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

 1 
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS THE EFFECT OF FUSION ALGORITHM ON HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES Yuhendra
Jurnal Teknoif Teknik Informatika Institut Teknologi Padang Vol 1 No 1 (2013): JURNAL TEKNOIF ITP
Publisher : ITP Press

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (569.695 KB) | DOI: 10.21063/jtif.2013.V1.1.1-5

Abstract

Fusi citra telah banyak diterapkan untuk berbagai keperluan salah satunya digunakan untuk penggabungan dua buah citra atau lebih baik dengan menggunakan data fusi multi sensor. Penggabungan citra fusi dilakukan dengan menyatukan citra yang mempunyai resolusi rendah (multispektral ) dengan citra spasial yang beresolusi tinggi (pankromatik). Pada penelitian ini dilakukan pengujian dan analisis citra satelit dengan menggunakan berbagai metode fusi untuk menentukan kualitas suatu citra secara visual , spekral dan akurasi klasifikasi . Teknik klasifikasi citra fusi menggunakan metode Support Vector Machines (SVMs). Images fusion has been widely applied to imaging sensors for the purpose of resolution merge, image integration, and multi sensor data fusion. In image fusion, a low spatial resolution multispectral image is fused with a higher resolution panchromatic image to produce an image with higher spectral and spatial resolution. In this paper, we investigate the existing fusion methods based on visual ,spectral analyse and classification acuracy. The accuracy of classification result is assessed by means of the support vector machine based on radial basis function kernel. Comparing the performance of various fusion methods, it is shown that the Gram-Schmidt (GS) method yields the best accuracy, followed by the principal component analysis (PCA). The producer’s and user’s accuracies of the GS method are 91.8% and 91.1%, respectively, followed by 90.8% and 90.0% of the PCA method.
Co-Authors