## 3 Results and Discussion
### Spectral Synthesis  
The spectral synthesis results are shown in Table 9 below. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**BAND \#** & **BAY** & **BRO** & **CNS** & **EHLERS** & **GRS** & **IMVM** & **MIHS** & **PANSHARP** & **PCA** & **RCS** & **WAVELET** \\ \hline
1 & 86.162 & 304.456 & 285.781 & 72.925 & 81.012 & 14.740 & 62.375 & 75.319 & 456.934 & 26.118 & 134.517 \\
2 & 77.854 & 309.398 & 285.298 & 121.456 & 71.688 & 11.840 & 62.955 & 66.371 & 402.044 & 26.444 & 39.359 \\
3 & 58.370 & 293.318 & 271.289 & 107.487 & 51.095 & 8.442 & 60.092 & 49.640 & 283.980 & 25.465 & 29.982 \\ \hline AVERAGE & 74.129 & 302.390 & 280.789 & 100.623 & 67.932 & **11.674** & 61.807 & 63.776 & 380.986 & 26.009 & 67.953 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Spectral consistency: root square mean error (RMSE). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**BAND \#** & **BAY** & **BRO** & **CNS** & **EHLERS** & **GRS** & **IMVM** & **MIHS** & **PANSHARP** & **PCA** & **RCS** & **WAVELET** \\ \hline
1 & 7.538 & 1.286 & 1.475 & 2.983 & 6.768 & 0.676 & 4.921 & 5.468 & 13.377 & 1.053 & 7.142 \\
2 & 6.743 & 1.120 & 1.342 & 2.892 & 5.500 & 0.660 & 4.737 & 4.612 & 10.110 & 1.439 & 2.243 \\
3 & 5.604 & 1.114 & 1.479 & 3.438 & 5.125 & 0.506 & 5.371 & 4.037 & 9.236 & 1.319 & 2.494 \\ \hline AVERAGE & 6.629 & 1.173 & 1.432 & 3.104 & 5.798 & **0.614** & 5.010 & 4.706 & 10.908 & 1.270 & 3.959 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Spectral consistency: difference in variance (DIV). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**BAND \#** & **BAY** & **BRO** & **CNS** & **EHLERS** & **GRS** & **IMVM** & **MIHS** & **PANSHARP** & **PCA** & **RCS** & **WAVELET** \\ \hline
1 & 7.538 & 1.286 & 1.475 & 2.983 & 6.768 & 0.676 & 4.921 & 5.468 & 13.377 & 1.053 & 7.142 \\
2 & 6.743 & 1.120 & 1.342 & 2.892 & 5.500 & 0.660 & 4.737 & 4.612 & 10.110 & 1.439 & 2.243 \\
3 & 5.604 & 1.114 & 1.479 & 3.438 & 5.125 & 0.506 & 5.371 & 4.037 & 9.236 & 1.319 & 2.494 \\ \hline AVERAGE & 6.629 & 1.173 & 1.432 & 3.104 & 5.798 & **0.614** & 5.010 & 4.706 & 10.908 & 1.270 & 3.959 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Spectral consistency: bias. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**BAND \#** & **BAY** & **BRO** & **CNS** & **EHLERS** & **GRS** & **IMVM** & **MIHS** & **PANSHARP** & **PCA** & **RCS** & **WAVELET** \\ \hline
1 & 7.654 & 28.079 & 26.385 & 7.049 & 8.553 & 4.988 & 8.951 & 8.655 & 23.266 & 6.617 & 13.176 \\
2 & 6.432 & 26.975 & 24.875 & 6.819 & 7.092 & 3.726 & 5.808 & 7.139 & 19.217 & 6.113 & 4.341 \\
3 & 4.793 & 25.658 & 23.720 & 6.576 & 5.034 & 2.649 & 6.354 & 5.317 & 13.579 & 5.698 & 4.257 \\ \hline AVERAGE & 6.426 & 27.034 & 25.122 & 6.846 & 7.069 & **3.921** & 7.202 & 7.196 & 19.177 & 6.180 & 8.398 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Spectral synthesis: ERGAS. The best result is indicated by the smallest value. The results indicate that IMVM pansharpening method produced the best spectral synthesis followed by the RCS method. The Brovey method produced the worst synthesis. The best spectral synthesis in IMVM was reflected by ERGAS 3.921, RCS 6.180, BAY 6.426, EHLERS 6.846, and GRS 7.069. The IMVM algorithm produced the best pansharpening results in terms of spectral consistency and synthesis as revealed by the CC, bias, DIV, ERGAS, UIQI, RASE, and RMSE results. In terms of spectral consistency, one of the properties tested under [PERSON]'s criteria, the results of this study also show that the IMVM pansharpening technique had an average high correlation coefficient of 0.969 in the visible bands, the highest among the fusion algorithms tested in the study. The performance of the IMVM algorithm is further shown by the fact that it had the lowest bias and DIV values of 0.004 and 0.616, respectively. The superiority of the IMVM algorithm is further attested to by a very high UIQI value of 0.972.