Table 2 Quantitative comparison for... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2

Quantitative comparison for enhancing noisy dark videos. The best scores are indicated in bold.

Method	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	AB(Var)↓	MABD↓
LIME [11]	16.43	0.4567	8.29	0.33
Dual [39]	18.38	0.6073	2.14	0.22
MBLLEN [27]	18.38	0.7982	78.76	1.93
RetinexNet [37]	19.56	0.7475	1.45	0.09
SID [7]	22.93	0.9253	4.03	0.39
DRP [24]	5.55	0.4107	15.37	0.34
NATLE [2]	25.55	0.8237	1.48	0.06
MBLLVEN [27]	23.08	0.8839	2.81	1.02
SMOID [14]	23.42	0.9212	0.82	0.17
SFR [9]	22.82	0.9299	2.29	0.12
BLIND [19]	22.94	0.9174	7.86	0.33
StableLLVE [38]	24.01	0.9305	3.00	0.10
SDSD [35]	22.27	0.8051	1.35	0.03
SALVE (Ours)	27.06	0.8202	1.18	0.01

Method	PSNR↑	SSIM↑	AB(Var)↓	MABD↓
LIME [11]	16.43	0.4567	8.29	0.33
Dual [39]	18.38	0.6073	2.14	0.22
MBLLEN [27]	18.38	0.7982	78.76	1.93
RetinexNet [37]	19.56	0.7475	1.45	0.09
SID [7]	22.93	0.9253	4.03	0.39
DRP [24]	5.55	0.4107	15.37	0.34
NATLE [2]	25.55	0.8237	1.48	0.06
MBLLVEN [27]	23.08	0.8839	2.81	1.02
SMOID [14]	23.42	0.9212	0.82	0.17
SFR [9]	22.82	0.9299	2.29	0.12
BLIND [19]	22.94	0.9174	7.86	0.33
StableLLVE [38]	24.01	0.9305	3.00	0.10
SDSD [35]	22.27	0.8051	1.35	0.03
SALVE (Ours)	27.06	0.8202	1.18	0.01