## 3 Experiment Results and Discussion
### Image Fusion Results of the Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Toy**} & **Proposed** & \multirow{2}{*}{**DctVar**} & **DetVarCv** & **SAIF** & **Optimum** \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{ME}}\) & 1.17 & 1.16 & 1.2 & 1.06 & DctVarCv (4) \(>\) This study (3) \(>\) DctVar (2) \(>\) SAIF (1) \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{TE}}\) & 0.431 & 0.419 & 0.43 & 0.436 & SAIF (4) \(>\) This study (3) \(>\) DctVarCv (2) \(>\) DctVar (1) \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{XCIE}}\) & 0.836 & 0.836 & 0.837 & 0.831 & DctVarCv (4) \(>\) This study (3) \(>\) DctVar (2) \(>\) SAIF (1) \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{G}}\) & 0.63 & 0.62 & 0.65 & 0.63 & DctVarCv (4) \(>\) This study (3) \(>\) SAIF (2) \(>\) DctVar (1) \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{MI}}\) & 1.5 & 2.1 & 2 & 1.7 & DctVar (4) \(>\) DctVarCv (3) \(>\) SAIF (2) \(>\) This study (1) \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{SF}}\) & -0.11 & -0.08 & -0.11 & -0.11 & DctVar (4) \(>\) DctVarCv (3) \(>\) SAIF (2) \(>\) This study (1) \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{P}}\) & 0.771 & 0.695 & 0.824 & 0.821 & DctVarCv (4) \(>\) SAIF (3) \(>\) This study (2) \(>\) DctVar (1) \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{S}}\) & 0.934 & 0.931 & 0.936 & 0.948 & SAIF (4) \(>\) DctVarCv (3) \(>\) This study (2) \(>\) DctVar (1) \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{C}}\) & 0.8 & 0.756 & 0.823 & 0.816 & DctVarCv (4) \(>\) SAIF (3) \(>\) This study (2) \(>\) DctVar (1) \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{Y}}\) & 0.94 & 0.86 & 0.98 & 0.95 & DctVarCv (4) \(>\) SAIF (3) \(>\) This study (2) \(>\) DctVar (1) \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{CV}}\) & 32 & 35 & 31 & 29 & DctVar (4) \(>\) This study (3) \(>\) DctVarCv (2) \(>\) SAIF (1) \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{CS}}\) & 0.73 & 0.66 & 0.77 & 0.76 & DctVarCv (4) \(>\) SAIF (3) \(>\) This study (2) \(>\) DctVar (1) \\ \hline Total score & 27 & 23 & 41 & 29 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: List of toy fusion results and fusion quality indicators. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Lab**} & **Proposed** & \multirow{2}{*}{**DctVar**} & **DetVarCv** & **SAIF** & **Optimum** \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Method** & & & & \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{ME}}\) & 1.26 & 1.22 & 1.27 & 1.18 & DctVarCv (4) \(>\) This study (3) \(>\) DctVar (2) \(>\) SAIF (1) \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{TE}}\) & 0.43 & 0.417 & 0.427 & 0.418 & This study (4) \(>\) DctVarCv (3) \(>\) SAIF (2) \(>\) DctVar (1) \\ \hline \(Q_{\text{XCIE}}  
Overall, the respective methods showed advantageousness. Under the premise that the square effect was not considered, the DctVar and DctVarCv results under various indicator rations produced advantageous results. Moreover, under subjective observations, the image details were also sound. Without taking into account the halo effect, SAIF had the best details. Compared to other methods, the study was almost unaffected by the square effect and the halo effect, while DctVar and DctVarCv showed strong square effect. Under subjective observations, it already severely affected the fusion results. In the subjective rating of details, the study was the same as SAIF. However, in terms of indicator ratings, the study received 18 best ratings, which was superior to SAIF with 15 best ratings. Further, the study was not affected by the halo effect; thus the relatively more stable fusion result. The NVG images in Figure 5m,n were used to test fusion quality. The fusion results of DctVar, DctVarCv, and SAIF methods were as shown in Figure 15a-d. Results showed that the image results using the DctVar method presented many squares that were completely unusable. Hence, the study was significantly superior to the DctVar method. In the surrounding of the focus stripe of DctVarCv, there was a large square, while a circular halo rose in the center for the SAIF. Therefore, the fusion test results of NVG images pointed out the study was also superior to DctVarCv and SAIF. In addition to the night vision goggle image explored above, this study also observed night vision goggle images fusion with different focal lengths. The result were as shown in Figures 16-18.