<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/nlm-dtd/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ISPRS-Archives</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ISPRS-Archives</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">2194-9034</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B3-2022-1241-2022</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title>COMPARISON OF SATELLITE IMAGE DENOISING TECHNIQUES IN SPATIAL AND FREQUENCY DOMAINS</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Oguzhanoglu</surname>
<given-names>S.</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kapucuoglu</surname>
<given-names>I.</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sunar</surname>
<given-names>F.</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
</contrib-group><aff id="aff1">
<label>1</label>
<addr-line>Istanbul Technical University (ITU), Civil Engineering Faculty, 80626, Maslak Istanbul, Turkey</addr-line>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>31</day>
<month>05</month>
<year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>XLIII-B3-2022</volume>
<fpage>1241</fpage>
<lpage>1247</lpage>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2022 S. Oguzhanoglu et al.</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2022</copyright-year>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://isprs-archives.copernicus.org/articles/isprs-archives-XLIII-B3-2022-1241-2022.html">This article is available from https://isprs-archives.copernicus.org/articles/isprs-archives-XLIII-B3-2022-1241-2022.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://isprs-archives.copernicus.org/articles/isprs-archives-XLIII-B3-2022-1241-2022.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://isprs-archives.copernicus.org/articles/isprs-archives-XLIII-B3-2022-1241-2022.pdf</self-uri>
<abstract>
<p>In recent years, remote sensing images have been used for many different applications that require visual analysis and interpretation. In this paper, reducing/removing noise is the basic approach, as it causes loss of information and therefore affects the accuracy of the analyses. Within the scope of the study, two different test areas of land cover/use were applied to examine the effects of noise on optical satellite images. In this context, Landsat 8 and Sentinel 2 satellites were used to study the effects of denoising methods on different spatial resolutions. Due to the lack of raw images of the selected satellites, two different types of noise (i.e. Gaussian and Stripe) were added to the images. In this context, four different denoising methods were compared by using conventional filter techniques commonly used in the spatial domain, while also different methods that used different threshold values in the frequency domain. The first approach is Median, Block Matching and 3D Filtering methods in the spatial domain, applications that depend mainly on the neighborhood relationship of pixels in the image. The second approach is wavelet-based Contourlet and Curvelet methods in the frequency domain. The quality analysis of denoised images were evaluated as qualitative (statistical methods Peak Signal to Noise Ratio, Mean Square Error, standard deviation, min/max value), and quantitative. Finally, Curvelet hard thresholding transform was the selected method as the best algorithm after quality analysis additionally, the method also effectively preserves edges in homogeneous test area and other fine details in the heterogeneous test area.</p>
</abstract>
<counts><page-count count="7"/></counts>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body/>
<back>
</back>
</article>
