## 5 Results and Observations
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **DM** & **NV** & **5** & **10** & **20** & **30** & **40** \\ \cline{2-7}  & [PERSON] [14] & 25.6368 & 23.3813 & 20.7865 & 19.3181 & 18.6036 \\ \cline{2-7}  & HFLF [11] & 26.2356 & 24.4012 & 20.5902 & 19.9802 & 18.7045 \\ \cline{2-7}  & Kuan [12] & 25.7593 & 27.7388 & 21.0624 & 19.4925 & 18.4037 \\ \cline{2-7}  & Median [13] & 24.1786 & 22.5844 & 19.8368 & 18.5394 & 17.9238 \\ \cline{2-7}  & Lee [10] & 26.3439 & 23.3799 & 20.6817 & 19.1269 & 18.5341 \\ \cline{2-7}  & Log Compression [15] & 25.1220 & 24.2312 & 20.1575 & 19.8520 & 18.4231 \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Proposed** & **29.3698** & **25.5246** & **22.1235** & **22.3698** & **20.3654** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: PSNR of despeckling methods for SAR-2 at \(\sigma=\) from 5 to 40. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **DM** & **NV** & **5** & **10** & **20** & **30** & **40** \\ \cline{2-7}  & Frost [14] & 0.4560 & 0.4576 & 0.3405 & 0.4567 & 0.4668 \\ \cline{2-7}  & HFLF [11] & 0.4132 & 0.4012 & 0.2951 & 0.4280 & 0.3112 \\ \cline{2-7}  & Kuan [12] & 0.4507 & 0.4466 & 0.2997 & 0.4270 & 0.4285 \\ \cline{2-7}  & Median [13] & 0.3399 & 0.3315 & 0.2027 & 0.3078 & 0.3080 \\ \cline{2-7}  & [PERSON] [10] & 0.4517 & 0.4491 & 0.3010 & 0.4285 & 0.4293 \\ \cline{2-7}  & Log Compression [15] & 0.4216 & 0.3546 & 0.3612 & 0.4015 & 0.4851 \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Proposed** & **0.6213** & **0.5987** & **0.5213** & **0.6987** & **0.5897** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: UIQI of despeckling methods for SAR-1 at \(\sigma=\) from 5 to 40. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **DM** & **NV** & **5** & **10** & **20** & **30** & **40** \\ \cline{2-6}  & Frost [14] & 0.4893 & 0.4586 & 0.3210 & 0.4310 & 0.4385 \\ \cline{2-6}  & HFLF [11] & 0.4878 & 0.4356 & 0.2945 & 0.4021 & 0.4216 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Kuan [12] & 0.4847 & 0.4493 & 0.2809 & 0.4018 & 0.4002 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Median [13] & 0.4064 & 0.3584 & 0.2004 & 0.3002 & 0.2949 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Lee [10] & 0.4847 & 0.4494 & 0.2810 & 0.4018 & 0.4002 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Log Compression [15] & 0.4719 & 0.4298 & 0.2897 & 0.4137 & 0.4598 \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Proposed** & **0.5823** & **0.6388** & **0.5169** & **0.5998** & **0.5762** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: SSIM of despeckling methods for SAR-1 at \(\sigma=\) from 5 to 40. Figure 4: Results of SAR-1 at \(\sigma=20\) for the (**a**) frost filter, (**b**) HFLF filter, (**c**) Kuan filter, (**d**) Median filter, (**e**) Lee filter, (**f**) Log Compression filter, and the (**g**) Proposed Method. The experimental results of SAR-1 and SAR-2 at \(\sigma=20\) are illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. The Frost filter effectively reduces speckles but has the potential to blur fine details. The HFLF filter reduces noise and enhances edges but may introduce artifacts. The Kuan filter effectively balances speckle reduction and detail less in preservation. The Median filter effectively reduces impulsive noise but may compromise edge sharpness. The Lee filter is good at noise reduction and edge preservation, although it may smooth fine details. The Log Compression filter boosts contrast but has the potential to amplify noise. The proposed method significantly reduces noise while maintaining structural details and edge sharpness, surpassing other filters in overall performance. Figure 6 presents bar plots illustrating the mean and standard deviation (SD) values for metrics such as SNR, PSNR, UIQI, and SSIM for different despeckling methods across noise variances (\(\sigma\)) for SAR-1 and SAR-2 images. The results demonstrate that the proposed method consistently outperforms traditional despeckling filters across all noise levels. Notably, the mean values for SNR and PSNR are significantly higher for the proposed method, indicating superior noise reduction while preserving image clarity.