2956

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 15, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2006

An Optimal Fuzzy System for

Color Image Enhancement
Madasu Hanmandlu, Member, IEEE, and Devendra Jha

AbstractA Gaussian membership function is proposed to

fuzzify the image information in spatial domain. We introduce a
global contrast intensification operator (GINT), which contains
,
three parameters, viz., intensification parameter , fuzzifier
and the crossover point , for enhancement of color images. We
and entropy-based
define fuzzy contrast-based quality factor
quality factor
and the corresponding visual factors for the
desired appearance of images. By minimizing the fuzzy entropy
of the image information with respect to these quality factors, the
, and
are calculated globally. By using the
parameters ,
proposed technique, a visible improvement in the image quality is
observed for under exposed images, as the entropy of the output
image is decreased. The terminating criterion is decided by both
the visual and quality factors. For over exposed and under plus
over exposed images, the proposed fuzzification function needs to
be modified by taking maximum intensity as the fourth parameter.
The type of the images is indicated by the visual factor which is
less than 1 for under exposed images and more than 1 for over
exposed images.
Index TermsEnhancement, entropy, fuzzifier, fuzzy contrast,
image quality, intensification operator, quality factor and visual
factor.

I. INTRODUCTION

MAGE enhancement techniques are used to improve the appearance of the image or to extract the finer details in the
degraded images. Color image enhancement using RGB color
space is found to be inappropriate as it destroys the color composition in the original image.
Image enhancement can be treated as transforming one image
to another so that the look and feel of an image can be improved
for machine analysis or visual perception of human beings. For
grayscale image enhancement, the most popular method is histogram equalization, which is based on the assumption that a
uniformly distributed grayscale histogram will have the best visual contrast. Some other methods are the variants of histogram
equalization. However, generalizing grayscale image enhancement to color image enhancement is not a trivial task. Several
factors, such as selection of a color model, characteristics of
the human visual system, and color contrast sensitivity, must be
considered for color image enhancement.

Manuscript received May 30, 2004; revised December 15, 2006. The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and approving it for publication was Dr. Eli Saber.
M. Hanmandlu is with the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, New Delhi
110016, India (e-mail: mhmandlu@ee.iitd.ac.in).
D. Jha is with Scientific Analysis Group, Defence R&D Organisation,
Metcalfe House, Delhi 110054, India (e-mail: devendrajha@indiatimes.com).
Color versions of Figs. 316 are available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIP.2006.877499

The main objective of image enhancement is to process the

image so that the result is more suitable than the original image.
Image enhancement methods may be categorized into two broad
classes: transform domain methods and spatial domain methods.
The techniques in the first category are based on modifying the
frequency transform of an image. However, computing a twodimensional (2-D) transform for a large array (image) is a very
time consuming task even with fast transformation techniques
and is not suitable for real time processing.
The techniques in the second category directly operate on
the pixels. Contrast enhancement is one of the important image
enhancement techniques in spatial domain. Other than the two
popular methods, histogram equalization and histogram specifications, we have an iterative histogram modification of gray
images [1] and an efficient adaptive neighborhood histogram
equalization [2]. The adaptive method achieves better identification of different gray- level regions by an analysis of histogram in the locality of every pixel. Lindenbaum et al. [3]
have used Gabors technique for image enhancement, edge detection, and segmentation. They have suggested a method for
image deblurring based on directional sensitive filters. Because
of poor and nonuniform lighting conditions of the object and
the nonlinearity of the imaging system, vagueness is introduced
in the acquired image. This vagueness in the image appears in
the form of imprecise boundaries and color values during image
digitization.
Fuzzy sets [4] offer a problem-solving tool between the precision of classical mathematics and the inherent imprecision of
the real world. The imprecision in an image is contained within
the color values and this can be handled using fuzzy sets [5]. The
linguistic variables like good contrast or sharp boundaries,
light red, dark green, etc., called hedges, can be perceived
qualitatively by the human reasoning. As they lack precise quantification, the machine may not understand them. To overcome
this limitation to a great extent, fuzzy logic tools empower a machine to mimic human reasoning.
In the field of image enhancement and smoothing using the
fuzzy framework, two contributions merit an elaboration. The
first one deals with IFTHENELSE fuzzy rules [6] for
image enhancement. Here, a set of neighborhood pixels forms
the antecedent and the consequent clauses that serve as the fuzzy
rule for the pixel to be enhanced. These fuzzy rules give directives much similar to human-like reasoning. The second one
relates to a rule-based smoothing [7] in which different filter
classes are devised on the basis of compatibility with the neighborhood. The above works are confined to gray image enhancement and smoothing. A color enhancement technique described
in [8] stretches iteratively three 2-D histograms, (RG, GB, BR).

1057-7149/$20.00 2006 IEEE

HANMANDLU AND JHA: OPTIMAL FUZZY SYSTEM FOR COLOR IMAGE ENHANCEMENT

Bockstein [9] has proposed a color image equalization method

for color image enhancement using the LHS color model. Then
equalization is applied on the luminance (L) and the saturation
(S) histograms for the smaller regions whereas the hue value
(H) is preserved. Strickland et al. [10] have applied a specified enhancement algorithm on intensity with S and H being
unchanged. However, this algorithm sometimes over enhances
the image. Soha and Schwartz [11] have enhanced a color image
by stretching the original RGB components along the principal
component axis.
In the fuzzy approach [12], some pixel property, like gray tone
or color intensity, is modeled into a fuzzy set using a membership function. In this, an image can be considered as an array
of fuzzy singletons having a membership value that denotes the
. Applying an
degree of some image property in the range
intensification operator globally modifies the membership function. Hanmandlu et al. [13] have proposed a new intensification
operator, NINT, which is a parametric sigmoid function for the
modification of the Gaussian type of membership on the basis
of optimization of entropy by a parameter involved in the intensification operator. The approach in [14] describes an efficient
enhancement based on the fuzzy relaxation technique. Different
orders of fuzzy membership functions and different statistics
are attempted to improve the enhancement speed and quality,
respectively. These works have been confined to the enhancement of gray images only.
In this paper, we have extended the approach in [13] for the
enhancement of color images. We use histogram as the basis
for fuzzy modeling of color images. The main emphasis has
been laid on the fuzzy entropy measure. The entropy in [12] is
used to derive a measure of image quality in the fuzzy domain,
although the image quality remains subjective in nature.
Histogram equalization and its variants are quite useful for
enhancing the details in grayscale images, but fail when applied
to the three components (R, G, B) of a degraded color image,
since they alter the original color composition by producing
color artifacts. The three R, G, B components are highly correlated. Because of this, the enhanced color image would lose its
original color composition. Therefore, the application of color
image enhancement on the RGB color model is inappropriate
for the human visual system.
A proper color model for the color image enhancement
should decouple the achromatic and chromatic information and
should maintain the color distribution of the original image.
The three main attributes generally used to distinguish one
color from another are hue, saturation and intensity (HSV) and
this model is chosen for the proposed enhancement technique.
In the HSV color model, hue (H), the color content, is separate from saturation (S), which can be used to dilute the color
content and V, the intensity of the color content. By preserving
H and S while changing only V, it is possible to enhance color
images. Therefore, we need to convert RGB to HSV for this purpose. A Gaussian type membership function is used to model V
property of the image. This is suitable for under exposed images. For over exposed and under plus over exposed images, the
maximum intensity has to be taken as the parameter. The contrast of V is stretched globally by changing a parameter in the
global intensification operator (GINT). Since our intention is to

2957

use fuzzy-based approaches for automatic image enhancement,

we find the parameters of GINT by the fuzzy optimization of
entropy. The minimization of entropy leads to enhancement of
the image by stretching V component of the pixels about the
crossover point.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section II,
we introduce fuzzification and intensification of images. In
Section III, we develop a method to determine the parameters
of GINT. In Section IV, we define quality and visual factors
that help achieve the desired enhancement. In Section V, we
present an algorithm for the fuzzy optimization with respect
and . The results and conclusions are
to parameters ,
discussed in Sections VI and VII, respectively.
II. FUZZIFICATION AND INTENSIFICATION
with intensity levels in the range (0
An image of size
to
) can be considered as collection of fuzzy singletons in
the fuzzy set notation

(1)
where
or
represents the membership or
of
,
is the color intensity
grade of some property
at
pixel. For a color image, the membership functions
. For the
are taken for the unions of all colors
transformation of the color in the range (0255) to the fuzzy
property plane in the interval (0,1), a membership function of
the Gaussian type

(2)
is suggested in [13] and it contains a single fuzzifier, . Here,
is the maximum color value present in the image,
being the number of levels of intensity. Though valid, for
under exposed images, this needs to be modified for under plus
over exposed images. Thus, this is also a design parameter as
will be discussed in the Section VI.
, with
The membership values are restricted to the range
. For computational efficiency, histogram of
is considered for fuzzification. So,
represents
color
for a value , with
the membership function of color
, defined by

(3)
replaced by the
This function is the same as in (2), with
index , the intensity of the color components having the fre. As outlined in the introduction, we
quency occurrence,
to modify its membership function without
will consider
disturbing the membership functions of other two components.
are higher for a brighter image.
It is observed that values of
The membership values are transformed back to the spatial domain after the desired operator is applied in the fuzzy domain.

2958

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 15, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2006

The corresponding inverse operator from the fuzzy domain to

the spatial domain is given as

Defining the average fuzzy contrast

by

(8)

(4)
and are the modified membership function and
where
intensity value, respectively.
We restrict the enhancement of the image by whatever is possible with the fuzzy contrast intensification operator. The original contrast intensification operator, INT [4] depends on the
membership function only. It needs to be applied successively
on an image for obtaining the desired enhancement. This limitation is removed in the new intensification (NINT) operator
proposed in [13]. This is a parametric sigmoid function given
by

(5)
Here, we propose a general intensification operator (GINT) by
replacing 0.5 by
in (5) leading to

would allow us to define the quality factor.

Definition: The quality factor of an image is defined as the
ratio of absolute average fuzzy contrast to the fuzzy contrast

(9)
In the above definition, the fuzzy average contrast gives the
overall intensity of the image whereas the fuzzy contrast gives
the spread of the gradient with respect to the reference (the
cross over point). Their ratio is found to give the quality of the
image. The amount of enhancement will be indicated by the visual factor to be defined later.
by
in (7) and (8), we obtain the
If we replace
fuzzy contrast and average contrast for the original image. These
are given by
(10)

(6)
The unknown parameters in the above equation are intensification parameter, and crossover membership function or
simply crossover point, .

(11)
In view of the above definition, the image quality of the original
image is given by

III. ENHANCEMENT BY FUZZY OPTIMIZATION

We propose three solutions to the fuzzy optimization for enhancement. The first solution is based on the optimization of
fuzzy contrast . The second solution is based on the optimization of fuzzy entropy function, . Here, the optimization is unconstrained. The third solution arises from the optimization of
with respect to some equality constraints. For example, if we
know the desired fuzzy contrast, we can use this constraint to
solve the constrained fuzzy optimization problem.

(12)
The change in image quality is now given by

(13)

B. Fuzzy Optimization Using Entropy

A. Fuzzy Image Quality

We introduce here the concept of fuzzy contrast that depends
on how far the membership functions are stretched by an operator with respect to the crossover point . This turns out to be
the cumulative variance of the difference between the membership function and the crossover point over all pixels. Thus, the
fuzzy contrast is written as

Entropy that makes use of Shanons function is regarded

as a measure of quality of information in an image in the fuzzy
domain. It gives the value of indefiniteness of an image. This
quantity is defined by the following equation:

(14)
(7)

where

satisfies the constraint

Since provides the useful information about the extent to

which the information can be retrieved from the image, optimization of this should pave the way for the determination of

HANMANDLU AND JHA: OPTIMAL FUZZY SYSTEM FOR COLOR IMAGE ENHANCEMENT

the parameters ,
and
spect to ,

, and . So, the derivatives of

are obtained as

with re-

2959

In view of (23), we can combine (20) and (22) into the following:

(24)

(15)
Then (24) can be written as
(16)

(25)
The change in the image quality is given by

(17)

(26)

where
is defined in Appendix I as (A15). The above
and
derivatives are used in the learning of the parameters ,
. Before presenting the algorithm for learning, we need to
introduce certain constraints for generating aesthetic images.
These constraints are discussed in Section IV. The initial value
is taken from [15]
of

Constrained Fuzzy Optimization

If we know the desired quality factor
corresponding to
and the desired entropy-based quality factor,
corresponding to , then it possible to satisfy these desired quality
factors treated as constraints by the constrained fuzzy optimization. However, we need to set up the objective functions as under

(18)

(27)
(28)
(29)
The optimization of the above objective functions is given in
Appendix I.

By defining the entropy-based fuzzy contrast

as
IV. VISUAL FACTORS
(19)

For the purpose of judging the entropy-based quality factor,

we define the normalized quality factor called the visual factor

would simplify (15) as

(30)
(20)
Defining the entropy-based average fuzzy contrast

by

(21)
would simplify (16) as

The definition of the visual factor allows us to specify a range

for the desired normalized quality factor such that increasing
beyond this range; the image would start losing the pleasing nature. By experimentation, we have found a value in the range of
0.4 to 0.65 for the visual factor. The visual factor also indicates
whether the images are under exposed if its value is less than 1
or over exposed if its value is more than 1 after enhancement.
Thus, the visual factor justifies the definition of quality factor.
Algorithm for Fuzzy Optimization

(22)
Now, the entropy-based quality factor,
easily follows from
.
the definition of
Definition: The entropy-based quality factor of an image is
defined as the ratio of entropy-based average fuzzy contrast
to the entropy-based fuzzy contrast,

(23)

The problem at hand is optimization of the entropy with respect to the parameters , and with certain constraints. For
a solution of this problem, we adapt the univariate method of
[18] by multiplying the step size, by the derivative,
of the objective function with respect to the base point, .
In this method, we change only one parameter at a time, and
produce a sequence of improved approximations to reach the
minimum point. By starting at a base point
in the th iteration, we fix the values of any one of
parameters and vary the remaining parameter. The purpose is to
. The search is now continued in
produce a new base point

2960

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 15, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2006

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the enhancement technique.

a new direction. The new direction is obtained by changing any

parameters that has been fixed in the previous
one of the
iteration. After all the directions are searched sequentially, the
first cycle is completed and then we repeat the entire process of
sequential minimization till no further improvement is possible
in the objective function in any of the directions. The choice
of the direction and the step length in the modified univariate
method is summarized here.
Modified Univariate Algorithm
1) Choose a starting point
2) Find the search direction

and set

as

. If
,
will be the correct
,
direction for decreasing the value of , and if
will be the correct direction. If both
and
are less than
, we take
as the minimum of the two.
;

4) Set

5)

6) Set
and go to Step 2). Continue this procedure
until no significant change is observed in the value of the
objective function.
We have taken a unit step length for computational simplicity.
The flow chart detailing the enhancement technique is shown in
Fig. 1 and the algorithm for the same is as follows.
Algorithm for Image Enhancement

..
.

3) For the current direction , find whether the function

value decreases in the positive or negative direction. For
, also called learning
this, we take a small probe length
,
, and
factor, and evaluate

1) Input the given image file and convert RGB to HSV.

2) Calculate histogram

where

3) Calculate the initial

using (18).

4) Fuzzify
5) Initialize

to get

using (3).
, and calculate

, and

HANMANDLU AND JHA: OPTIMAL FUZZY SYSTEM FOR COLOR IMAGE ENHANCEMENT

TABLE I
INITIAL PARAMETERS OF TEST IMAGES

TABLE II
OPTIMIZATION OF E WITH Q

= 0:4,  = 0:2

6) Initialize

, and choose any desired factor from

and set it to 0.4 to learn the parameters
iteratively.

7) Optimize the objective function using the Modified

Univariate method. The stopping criteria are: error,
, Lagrange multiplier,
, visual factor,
, and number of iterations,
.
8) Modify the membership function with the optimized
parameters
.
9) Defuzzify for the enhanced value using (4). Display the
enhanced HSV image.
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The RGB image is first converted into HSV domain to preserve the hue and saturation of the image. The fuzzifier, , the
crossover point, and the intensification parameter, for the
component are calculated separately. Throughout the intensification process, the value of hue and saturation are kept constant.
The initial value of the intensification parameter is taken as 5 and
that of the crossover point as 0.5. The values of the fuzzifier ,
the intensification parameter , and the fuzzy domain crossover
point
are optimized by minimizing the entropy of the image
as the constraint.
with quality factor
We have considered many images, viz., Lena, girl, face, water,
timber, doctor, meeting, plane, lab, and fruit. The original images have poor brightness, i.e., under exposed and the details
are not discernable. Also colors are not perceivable to the eye.

2961

TABLE III
OPTIMIZATION OF E WITH Q

= 0 :4 ,  = 0 :2

TABLE IV
OPTIMIZATION OF E WITH C = 0:4,  = 0:3

The initial parameters required for fuzzy optimization are

given in Table I. The results of constrained optimization for the
and for an initial value of Lagrange
desired quality factor
coefficient are given in Table II. Table III gives the results for
. Table IV correthe desired entropy-based quality factor
sponds to the results of optimization with the desired contrast
. The original images and the enhanced images are shown
in Figs. 211, and the images correspond to results of Table II.
The enhanced images corresponding to Tables III and IV do not
show much difference, hence, they are not shown. A clear improvement is seen as far as the details are concerned after the
application of the proposed enhancement method.
From the tables, we note that as the parameter is increased
for the enhancement of under exposed image the entropy dedoes not change much after escreases. The initial value of
timation with optimization. The quality factor depends on all
. The quality factor before
the three parameters, viz.,
and after enhancement may be more or less depending on the
gray level distribution of the image. For under-exposed images,
it decreases while it increases for over exposed images after enhancement. This can be seen from different case studies, from
which we can say it is nonlinear. Note that the pleasing nature
arises from proper stretching of the membership values. The visual factor gives an idea of pleasing nature. From our simulation studies, we have found a value of visual factor in the range
0.40.8 to yield the pleasing image for under exposed images.
For over exposed images like the one in Fig. 16 (i.e., natural
scene) the visual factor is more than 1. For the mixed image
that has both under and over exposed pixels, the visual factor

2962

Fig. 2. Top to bottom: (a) Original image and (b) enhanced image of doctor.

Fig. 3. Top to bottom: (a) Original image and (b) enhanced image of face.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 15, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2006

Fig. 4. Top to bottom: (a) Original image and (b) enhanced image of timber.

When it comes to the over exposed images, this function fails to

perform properly. However, by changing the maximum value in
the fuzzification function, which serves then as a fourth parameter we can achieve a significant enhancement of both over-exposed and mixed images. For over exposed images the maximum must be increased by a suitable value so that the membership values are decreased. Alternatively, we can reduce the
fuzzifier or increase the cross over point. For mixed type the
maximum value must be decreased by a suitable value. Thus,
a proper choice of four parameters is essential for the enhancement of all types of images. We have not taken recourse to optimization in case of over and mixed type images. This will require an overhaul of our optimization technique.
The results of this technique have been compared with those
of Histogram Equalization for a fruit image in Fig. 11. The RGB
histograms of fruit image are shown in Fig. 12 and the corresponding histograms due to the proposed approach and histogram equalization are shown in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively.
The proposed technique preserves the histogram modes of the
original image at the same time intensifying the color composition whereas the histogram equalization makes the image more
brighter. The values of quality factor after histogram equalization are given in Table V for all images.
VI. CONCLUSION

depends on the relative dominance of one over another. For example in Fig. 15 (the cougar) the under exposed portion dominates the over exposed portion. Hence, it is treated as the under
exposed, thus giving the visual factor below 1.
The proposed approach works better; in other words it is well
suited for the enhancement of under exposed images because of
the choice of the fuzzification function, in which we are taking
the difference of gray levels with respect to maximum gray level
and because of the property of global intensification operator.

Fuzzy logic-based image enhancement method is presented

by fuzzifying the color intensity property of the image using
Gaussian membership function, which is suitable for under exposed images. Enhancement of the fuzzified image is carried
out using a general intensification operator GINT of sigmoid
and the intensitype, which depends on the crossover point
fication parameter . The optimum values of these parameters
are obtained by the constrained fuzzy optimization. A modified
univariate method involving gradient descent learning is used

HANMANDLU AND JHA: OPTIMAL FUZZY SYSTEM FOR COLOR IMAGE ENHANCEMENT

2963

Fig. 5. Top to bottom: (a) Original image and (b) enhanced image of lab.

Fig. 6. Top to bottom: (a) Original image and (b) enhanced image plane.

Fig. 9. Top to bottom: (a) Original image and (b) enhanced image Lena.

Fig. 7. Top to bottom: (a) Original image and (b) enhanced image of meeting.

Fig. 10. Top to bottom: (a) Original image and (b) enhanced image of water.

Fig. 8. Top to bottom: (a) Original image and (b) enhanced image of girl.

for the optimization. We have also introduced quality and visual factors as constraints in the optimization of entropy. A visually pleasing image is obtained with the appropriate choice of
quality factors. It may be noted that GINT is guided by these
factors since ultimate enhancement leads to the binarization of
the image. The results of enhancement using fuzzy entropy optimization are compared with those of histogram equalization.

Fig. 11. Comparison of enhancement of fruit image: (a) Original, (b) proposed
approach, and (c) histogram equalization.

For over-exposed and mixed-type images, the maximum intensity of the color in the Gaussian fuzzification function becomes another parameter in addition to the three parameters.

2964

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 15, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2006

Fig. 12. RGB histograms for fruit image: (a) Original, (b) proposed approach, and (c) histogram equalization.

Fig. 13. RGB histograms for fruit image: (a) Original, (b) proposed approach, and (c) histogram equalization.

Fig. 14. RGB histograms for fruit image: (a) Original, (b) proposed approach, and (c) histogram equalization.

Fig. 15. Comparison of enhancement of under

+ over exposed cougar image: (a) Original, (b) proposed approach, and (c) histogram equalization.

Fig. 16. Comparison of enhancement of over exposed natural scene: (a) Original, (b) proposed approach, and (c) histogram equalization.

HANMANDLU AND JHA: OPTIMAL FUZZY SYSTEM FOR COLOR IMAGE ENHANCEMENT

2965

TABLE V
HISTOGRAM EQUALIZATION RESULTS WITH  = 0:5

(A9)
(A10)
(A11)
The derivatives in (A9)(A11) are as follows:
(A12)

We have not determined this by optimization as this parameter has been manipulated by visual assessment without going
through the rigors of optimization procedure. The maximum
value is decreased for mixed type image and increased for over
exposed images. The visual factor provides a clue for knowing
the type of the image. However, this information is available
after enhancement.
APPENDIX I

(A13)
(A14)
but

(A15)
(A16)

Case I: Optimization of With the Image Quality as the Constraint: For this, consider the objective function

(A17)
(A1)
where

(A18)

is the desired image quality. Now, the derivatives are

(A19)
(A2)
(A3)

With the Entropy-Based Image

Case II: Optimization of
Quality as the Constraint: For this, consider the objective
function

(A4)
(A20)
(A5)
is the desired image quality. Differentiating
where
with respect to the unknown parameters yields the following
derivatives:

(A6)
(A21)
where
(A7)
(A22)

(A8)

(A23)

2966

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 15, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2006

(A24)
(A25)
Case III: Optimization Using the Fuzzy Contrast: This definition of fuzzy contrast gives one way for the image enhancement,
with respect to the parameters , , and
when we optimize
. If
is the desired fuzzy contrast, we can find the parameand
by
ters ,

(A26)
The differentiation of
the following:

with respect to these parameters yields

(A27)

(A28)
(A29)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the Director, Scientific
Analysis Group, Defence R&D Organization, Metcalfe House,
Delhi, for allowing them to carry out this work.
REFERENCES
[1] J. M. Gauch, Investigation of image contrast space defined by variation of histogram equalization, Graph. Models Image Process., vol.
54, no. 4, pp. 269280, 1992.
[2] P. Mukherjee and B. N. Chatterji, Note: Adaptive neighborhood extended contrast enhancement and its modifications, Graph. Models
Image Process., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 254265, 1995.
[3] M. Lindenbaum, M. Fischer, and A. Bruckestein, On Gabors contribution to image enhancement, Pattern Recognit., vol. 7, pp. 18, 1994.
[4] L. A. Zadeh, Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex
systems and decision processes, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern., vol.
SMC-3, no. 1, pp. 2844, Jan. 1973.
[5] H. J. Jimmermann, Fuzzy Set Theory and its Applications, Second
ed. Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1991.
[6] M. Russo and G. Ramponi, A fuzzy operator for the enhancement of
blurred and noisy images, IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 4, no. 8,
pp. 11691174, Aug. 1995.
[7] Y. S. Choi and R. Krishnapuram, A robust approach to image enhancement based on fuzzy logic, IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol.
6, no. 6, pp. 808825, Jun. 1997.
[8] W. Niblack, An introduction to Digital Image Processing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986.
[9] I. M. Bockstein, Color equalization method and its application to color
image processing, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. A, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 735737,
1986.
[10] R. N. Strickland, C. S. Kim, and W. F. McDonnel, Digital color image
enhancement based on the saturation component, Opt. Eng., vol. 26,
no. 7, pp. 609616, 1987.

[11] M. J. Soha and A. A. Schwartz, Multi-dimensional histogram normalization contrast enhancement, in Proc. 5th Canad. Symp.. Remote
Sensing, 1978, pp. 8693.
[12] S. K. Pal and R. A. King, Image enhancement using smoothing with
fuzzy sets, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern., vol. SMC-11, no. 7, pp.
494501, Jul. 1981.
[13] M. Hanmandlu, S. N. Tandon, and A. H. Mir, A new fuzzy logic based
image enhancement, Biomed. Sci. Instrum., vol. 34, pp. 590595,
1997.
[14] H. Li and H. S. Yang, Fast and reliable image enhancement using
fuzzy relaxation technique, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern., vol. 19,
no. 5, pp. 12761281, May 1989.
[15] M. Hanmandlu, M. Jha, and R. Sharma, Color image enhancement
using fuzzification, Pattern Recognit. Lett., vol. 24, no. 13, pp. 8187,
2003.
[16] R. C. Gonzalez and R. E. Woods, Digital Image Processing. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992.
[17] F. Russo, An image enhancement technique combining sharpening
and noise reduction, in Proc. IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement
Technology Conf., 2001, pp. 19211924.
[18] S.S. Rao, Optimization: Theory and Applications, 2nd ed. New
Delhi, India: New Age International, 1995.
Madasu Hanmandlu (M02) received the B.E. degree in electrical engineering from Osmania University, Hyderabad, India, in 1973, the M.Tech degree
in power systems from R.E.C. Warangal, Jawaharlal
Nehru Technological University, India, in 1976, and
the Ph.D. degree in control systems from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi, in 1981.
From 1979 to 1981, he was a Senior Scientific Officer in the Applied Systems Research Program, Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Delhi, where
he joined the Electrical Engineering Department as a
Lecturer in 1981 and became a Professor in 1997. He was with the Machine Vision Group, City University, London, U.K., in 1988, and the Robotics Research
Group, Oxford University, Oxford, U.K., in 1993, as part of the Indo-U.K. research collaboration. He was a Visiting Professor with the Faculty of Engineering, Multimedia University, Malaysia, from March 2001 to March 2003. He
worked in the areas of power systems, control, robotics, and computer vision,
before shifting to fuzzy theory. His current research interests mainly include
fuzzy modeling of dynamic systems and applications of fuzzy logic to image
processing, document processing, bio-medical imaging, and intelligent control.
He has authored a book on computer graphics and also has over 160 publications to his credit.
Dr. Hanmandlu is an Associate Editor of the Pattern Recognition Journal,
as well as a Reviewer for several journals, including the IEEE TRANSACTIONS
ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, and the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS. He is listed in
Reference Asia, Asias Whos Who of Men and Women of Achievement, 5000
Personalities of the World (1998), and the American Biographical Institute.

Devendra Jha was born in Sarhad, Madhubani

(Bihar), India. He received the B.Sc. degree from
B.I.T., Sindri, India, in 1987, the M.E. degree from
the Delhi College of Engineering, Delhi, India, in
1993, both in electronics and communication engineering, and the Ph.D. degree in fuzzy approaches
in image analysis from the Department of Electrical
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT),
Delhi, in 2003.
He joined DRDO as a Scientist in 1989 after
completing his fourth electronics fellowship course
at IAT, Pune, India, and after a brief stay in the fertilizer industry as an
Instrumentation Engineer. He has worked on acousto-optic FH spread spectrum
receivers and secure communication system analysis. Presently, he is working
on a project which aims at analyzing satellite communication signals. Besides
conference papers, he has published in the Defence Science Journal and Pattern
Recognition Letters. His current research includes fuzzy pattern recognition,
secure communication system design and analysis, cognition-based signal and
image processing, steganography, and biometry.
Dr. Jha is a member of IETE, Delhi.