Mikrochim.

Acta 133, 273±278 (2000)

Fusion of 2-D SIMS Images Using the Wavelet Transform

Thomas C. Stubbings1 , Stavri G. Nikolov2, and Herbert Hutter1;

1
Institute for Analytical Chemistry, Vienna University of Technology, Getreidemarkt 9/151, Vienna 1060, Austria
2
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Bristol, Merchant Venturers Building, Woodland Road,
Bristol BS8 1UB, UK

Abstract. Secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) is Key words: SIMS; multispectral images; image fusion; wavelets;
wavelet transform; wavelet transform fusion.
a powerful method for element distribution examina-
tion of conducting and semi-conducting surfaces at
Secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) is a powerful
high spatial resolution and with a high sensitivity.
method for examination of conducting and semi-
Routine surface analysis produces about 8 to 15 images
conducting samples at high spatial resolution. Imaging
in a short time, each of which displays the intensity
SIMS is capable of producing two- and three-
distribution of one mass, thus generating a multispec-
dimensional spatially resolved images of element
tral SIMS image. Formation of occlusions, segrega-
distributions [1, 2]. Due to the high sensitivity of
tions, and the overall location of the elements relative
SIMS, even trace elements (including hydrogen) can be
to each other, are dif®cult to recognise when looking at
imaged [3]. Routine measurements record n images
n separate 2-D images.
simultaneously, each of which displays the intensity
Image fusion is a process whereby images obtained
distribution of one mass, thus generating multispectral,
from various sensors, or at different moments of time,
n-dimensional SIMS images. A common problem with
or under different conditions, are combined together to
the analysis of SIMS images is the channeling of the
provide a more complete picture of the object under
sample information into n images, one for each mass.
investigation. The process of combining SIMS images
This aggravates the interpretation of the element
may be viewed as an attempt to compensate for the
distribution, especially the exact location of occlusions,
inherent effect of SIMS to channel the information
segregations, etc., of certain elements within other
obtained from the sample into different images, corre-
elements, is often hard to determine.
sponding to different element phases.
Image fusion can be de®ned as the process by
The wavelet transform is a powerful method for
which several images, or some of their features, are
fusion of images. This work covers the use of wavelet
combined together to form a single image. The fusion
based fusion algorithms on multispectral SIMS images,
result has to meet certain conditions: (a) the fused
evaluating the performance of different wavelet based
image should preserve, as closely as possible, all
fusion rules on different type of image systems and
relevant information contained in the input images
comparing the results to conventional fusion techniques.
[4]; (b) the fusion process should not introduce any
An aim of this study is to increase the information, i.e.
artifacts or inconsistencies which can distract or
the number of masses, which can be merged into one
mislead a human observer or any subsequent image
image in order to enhance the perception and interpreta-
processing steps [4]; (c) in the fused image, irrelevant
tion of the SIMS surface images.
features and noise should be suppressed to a
maximum extent. Pixel level fusion algorithms vary
from very simple, e.g. image averaging, to more
 To whom correspondence should be addressed complex, e.g. principal component analysis (PCA),
274
pyramid based image fusion [5] and wavelet trans-
form (WT) fusion [6, 7]. It has been shown that
wavelet transform [8, 9] has several advantages over
similar pyramid based techniques: (a) the wavelet
transform is a more compact representation than the
image pyramid; (b) the wavelet transform provides
directional information, while the pyramid represen-
tation doesn't introduce any spatial orientation in the
decomposition process [10]; (c) in pyramid based
image fusion the fused images often contain blocking
effects in the regions where the input images are
signi®cantly different. No such artifacts are observed
in similar wavelet based fusion results [10]; (d)
images generated by wavelet image fusion have better
signal to noise ratios (SNR) than pyramid based
fusion images, when the same fusion rules are used
[11]. Additionally, when subject to human observers,
the perception of wavelet fused images is better than
pyramid fused images. Since, to date, the results of
pixel level fusion are primarily intended for presenta-
tion to human observers for easier and enhanced
interpretation, human perception is the most important
quality measure for judging the fusion results.
Besides, only a few measures for quantitative
evaluation of different image fusion schemes have
been proposed so far [10, 11] and their application can
not be generalised to all fusion problems.
Theoretical
The general idea of all wavelet based fusion schemes
is that the wavelet transforms ! [8, 9] of the registered
input images In(x, y) are computed and these trans-
forms are combined utilising some kind of fusion rule
. Then the inverse wavelet transform !ÿ1 is
computed and the fused image I is reconstructed:
I…x; y† ˆ !ÿ1 …‰!…I1 …x; y††; !…I2 …x; y††; . . . ; !…In …x; y††Š†
…1†
The wavelet transform of an image is a multiscale
image representation where the image is convolved
with a set of translated and scaled mother functions
called wavelets. The usual way to compute the discrete
wavelet transform (DWT) of an image !(I1 (x, y)) is to
convolve it with a pair of ®lters, one of which is a
high-pass ®lter H, while the other is a low-pass ®lter
L. The DWT is a fast, linear, pyramidal operation,
which decomposes the image into several bands
(scales) and into four channels. One of these channels
T. C. Stubbings et al.
A0j (the output of the low-pass ®lter L at scale j)
contains the smoothed copies of the image. The other
three channels, Dcj …c ˆ 1; . . . ; 3†, which are the result
of applying the high-pass ®lter H in the horizontal,
vertical, and horizontal-vertical directions, contain the
detail information about the image. The same
convolution is performed on the low-pass channel
A0j at level j in order to compute the next level ( j ‡ 1)
of the decomposition. Thus, a multiscale wavelet
decomposition having J levels is computed.
The fusion rule  in the case of 2-D images is
actually a set of fusion rules cj , where j ˆ 1, . . . , J and
c ˆ 0, . . . ,3, which de®ne the fusion of each set of
corresponding channels c for each band/scale j. There
exist many fusion rules to combine the wavelet
coef®cients of the n input images. Some of them,
which have been used in this work, are described
below.
averaging [12]: for each band of decomposition and
for each channel the wavelet coef®cients of the
images are averaged, i.e.
 Pn c   Pn 
kˆ1 Dj Ik
0
c 0 kˆ1 AJ Ik
Dj I ˆ and AJ I ˆ
n n
…2†
maximum [4, 10, 12]: for each band of decomposition
and for each channel the maximum of absolute values
of the respective wavelet coef®cients is taken, i.e.
Dcj I ˆ max…jDcj Ik j† and A0J I ˆ max…A0J Ik † …3†
k k
hi-maximum: for each band of decomposition and for
each channel the maximum of the respective wavelet
coef®cients is taken, but for the low-pass channels
A0J Ik the average is taken instead
 Pn 0

c c 0 kˆ1 AJ Ik
Dj I ˆ max…jDj Ik j† and AJ I ˆ
k n
…4†
Experimental
Samples
Several different samples were used for evaluation of the wavelet
transform based fusion algorithms. Following is a short description
of the three samples used in this paper:
Sample No. 1 is a steel alloy containing about 1% Al. It was
produced by hot isostatic pressing (HIP); this alloy is intended to
show better high-temperature oxidation resistance as well as a
more homogeneous distribution of all alloy compounds.
Sample No. 2 is a Nb-Zr-W alloy coated with a Si, Cr and Fe
layer by Arc-PVD and following tempering at 1600 K. This
Fusion of 2-D SIMS Images Using the Wavelet Transform
coating is also intended to improve the oxidation behaviour at high
temperatures and therefore was submitted to cyclic oxidation
treatment for testing purposes.
Sample No. 3 is a standard Voest production steel with average
contamination, examined for the distribution of elements and
possible enrichments of some components at the grain boundaries.
Measurement Equipment
For all samples, multispectral SIMS images were recorded
(numerous masses for each sample were recorded simultaneously).
The intensities for each mass were added for a few seconds and
saved as an image. Images were obtained either using an O‡
primary ion beam or by using a Cs‡ primary beam to have the
2
advantage of visualising also the oxygen distribution (primary
energy: 5.5 kV, primary ion current: 2 mA). The rastered area was
150  150 mm. SIMS investigations were performed with a
modi®ed CAMECA ims 3f ion microscope. Secondary ion images
were acquired using a Pulnix TM700 CCD camera system in a
combination with a double micro-channel-plate-phosphor screen
assembly. The camera signal was then digitised by a Matrox Pulsar
image-processor and stored on the hard disc of the controlling
computer.
Evaluation Methods
All sample images were tested in different combinations (fusion
ranging from two to four element images; for better illustration of
the fusion results only fusion results with two images are shown in
this paper) with the following wavelet fusion rules: average,
weighted average, maximum, and hi-maximum. All these rules
were tested with four different wavelets (daubechies 4, symlet 8,
coi¯et 3 and haar) at different decomposition levels (2, 5 and 8).
The results of the tests were compared visually one to each other
and to the simple averaging fusion results.
Computation
Wavelet transform algorithms and fusion rules were implemented
as Interactive Data Language (IDL) [13] scripts as part of the
wavelet fusion toolbox (WFT) [14] for IDL. All computations
were performed on a Dual 233 MHz Pentium II computer with 196
MB RAM working under MS Windows NT 4.0 with multi-
processor kernel.
Results
Image Types
It was found that the images to be fused can be
categorised coarsly into three system types that will
be denoted as types I, II and III. Type I systems consist
of two or more major area phases which are partially
or completely overlapping. Type II systems have one
major area phase, and several isolated minor phases
which may be occlusions [IIa] or border structures
[IIb], sometimes overlapping with the major phase.
Finally, type III systems show two or more isolated
minor phases which may be overlapping. Each type of
275
system has certain characteristics and showed differ-
ent results in the fusion process:
I. Fusion of type I images makes no sense with more
than two images, no matter what fusion method is
chosen; the large overlapping areas make distinc-
tion between more than two images very hard,
even two images are sometimes dif®cult to
interpret. For large area images two wavelet fusion
methods have proven very effective: maximum
wavelet fusion with symlet wavelets and average
wavelet fusion with daubechies wavelets. The
average wavelet fusion generally gives good results
with maximum contrast and resolution of details,
usually slightly better than the simple average
method. The maximum wavelet method has proven
especially effective when fusing non-overlapping
features (see Fig. 1), because it reserves maximum
contrast and resolution for the features of the
corresponding image. The shortcoming of this
fusion rule, on the other hand, is the loss of contrast
in areas where both images show distinct features,
so for large overlapping areas (especially with high
intensities in both images) this method cannot be
recommended.
II. Fusion results of type II images are slightly
different to the ones of type I. First, multiple
images can be fused, though normally two or three
images seem to be a good choice, where one
image may ®ll large areas and the others show
occlusions and/or border structures (IIa and IIb).
When the structures overlap with the main
features, discernment becomes more dif®cult but
with the correct fusion method most of the
information in the input images can be preserved.
In this case the use of maximum wavelet fusion
has shown best results, for this algorithm explicitly
accentuates the main structures of each overlaying
image (see Fig. 2). In the other case, where the
structures are mainly separated, average wavelet
fusion has again proven most effective, sometimes
giving similar results to simple averaging, some-
times signi®cantly outperforming it (see Fig. 3).
The maximum wavelet fusion showed problems
with systems containing very small occlusions,
where blocky effects when fusing very small
features were noticed. This handling of very small
features seems to be a general problem of the
maximum wavelet algorithm, which may be
overcome with more suitable wavelets.
276 T. C. Stubbings et al.

Fig. 1. Image (a) shows a recording of mass 28 (Si) and

image (b) shows mass 109 (NbO) of the Nb-sample. This
is an example of a type I image fusion system with two
large, partly overlapping areas. Image (c) shows the
result of a standard averaging fusion method, whereas
image (d) shows the result of maximum wavelet fusion
with symlet 8 wavelet and decomposition level of 2. The
details of both source images are retained much butter
with the maximum wavelet method while keeping the
overall contrast high

Fig. 2. Image (a) from the Voest steel sample shows Fe (mass
56), where Mn (mass 55, image b) is incorporated. This is an
example of a fusion system of type IIa. The maximum
wavelet fusion method highlights the Mn-occlusions in the
fused image (d) much better than the simple average method
(c), where the occlusions disappear from the base structure of
Fe. Enrichments of Mn at the grain boundaries could not be
found in this sample
Fusion of 2-D SIMS Images Using the Wavelet Transform
III. Fusion of type III images generally did not show
satisfying results in spite of the rather simple task
of combining isolated minor phases. The problem
here is the dif®culty in interpreting the fused
images, where all features seem more or less the
same and mass assignment is nearly impossible.
Therefore, this case has not been further eval-
uated. In order to enable discernment of different
masses, other fusion approaches have to be
considered, e.g. the use of colour schemes.
General Results
Weighted wavelet averaging can be used to improve
perception of weak structures, especially weak border
structures or occlusions; the problem however is
almost always a loss of overall image contrast.
The fusion result very much depends on the correct
choice of the wavelet basis function. It has been
noticed that usually wavelet averaging performs well
with daubechies and coi¯et wavelets, and all sorts of
maximum wavelet fusion rules perform best with
symlet and coi¯et wavelets. Additionally, the nature
of the images to be fused has to be considered and
277
Fig. 3. Image (a) shows mass 12 (C) of the hipped Al-steel
alloy and image (b) shows AlO border structures at the
grain boundaries (mass 43). With simple average fusion
(c) of this type IIb system, the C background structure
nearly completely disappears, whereas the average wave-
let fusion (d) excellently retains the overlaying structure,
as well as the underlying background structure
sometimes several wavelets have to be tested to ®nd
the optimal one for a given problem.
All fusion methods and all systems performed best
with small decomposition levels, i.e. 2 and sometimes
3. Increasing the decomposition level usually
decreases the fusion quality rapidly, due to the fact
that after each smoothing step (low-pass ®ltering) the
output images (the low-frequency channels) become
more and more alike and some small features
disappear from the images.
Conclusion
Different methods of wavelet based images fusion
have been tested on three types of 2-D multispectral
SIMS images. It has been shown that the wavelet
transform is a powerful tool for fusion of images, but
not all methods are equally suitable for all problems.
The wavelet fusion rule, as well as the choice of the
right wavelet and decomposition level, very much
in¯uence the result of the fusion process. In the
optimal case wavelet fusion often signi®cantly out-
performs classic fusion methods such as simple
averaging, though one has to keep in mind that the
278
computational cost of wavelet transform is much
higher than for simple fusion calculations.
It was also shown that there is a limit of information
that can be merged into one image, depending on the
type of image system and that there exist fusion
problems which cannot be solved at all with greyscale
fusion approaches. Although the test images used in
this study are multispectral SIMS images, the obtained
results can be applied to similar registered multi-
spectral greyscale images of the denoted types,
obtained by other analytical techniques.
Acknowledgements. This work was ®nancially supported by the
Austrian Fund for Science and Research (FWF Project P13160-
CHE).
References
[1] H. Hutter, C. Brunner, S. G. Nikolov, C. Mittermayr, M.
Grasserbauer, Fresenius J. Anal. Chem. 1996, 355, 585±590.
[2] H. Hutter, M. Grasserbauer, Mikrochim. Acta 1992, 107, 137 ff.
[3] H. Hutter, C. Brunner, P. Wilhartitz, M. Grasserbauer,
Mikrochim. Acta 1996, 122, 195±202.
Fusion of 2-D SIMS Images Using the Wavelet Transform
[4] O. Rockinger, Pixel-Level Fusion of Image Sequences Using
Wavelet Frames. In: K. V. Mardia, C. A. Gill, I. L. Dryden
(Eds.) Proceedings in Image Fusion and Shape Variability
Techniques. Leeds University Press, Leeds, UK, 1996, pp.
149±154.
[5] A. Toet, Pattern Recognition Letters 1989, 9, 245±253.
[6] I. Koren, A. Laine, F. Taylor, Proceedings 1995 IEEE Inter-
national Conference on Image Processing. IEEE, Washington
D.C., 1995, pp. 232±235.
[7] L. J. Chipman, T. M. Orr, Proceedings 1995 IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Image Processing. Washington D. C.,
IEEE, 1995, pp. 248±251.
[8] S. Mallat, IEEE Trans. on Pattern and Machine Intelligence
1989, 11(7), 674±693.
[9] S. Mallat, S. Zhong, Wavelet Transform Maxima and Multi-
scale Edges. In: Coifman et al. (Eds.) Bartlett and Jones, 1990.
[10] H. Li, B. S. Manjunath, S. K. Mitra, Graphical Models and
Image Processing 1995, 57(3), 235±245.
[11] T. A. Wilson, S. K. Rogers, L. R. Myers, Optical Engineering
1995, 34(11), 3154±3164.
[12] J. Le Moigne, R. F. Cromp, The Use of Wavelets for
Remote Sensing Image Registration and Fusion Technical
Report TR-96-171, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,
1996.
[13] IDL, Research Systems Inc., Boulder, CO 80301, USA.
[14] The Wavelet Fusion Toolbox for IDL, Dept. of Electrical
and Electronic Engineering, University of Bristol, UK.