## 2 Proposed Fusion Scheme
Images with a left focus and a right focus, respectively, are shown in Figure 15b,\(c\). Left-side focus is referred to as a \"left focused image\", while the right-side focus is referred to as a \"right unfocused image\". The right dominates an image that is right-focused but not left-focused. The approach is put into practice, and the result is the all-in-focus image, as seen in Figure 15d. The proposed methodology's performance is evaluated using the calculations \(AG_{F}\), and \(Q^{AB/F}\). The proposed strategy's performance is then compared to that of other approaches already published in the literature. The comparison's findings are displayed in Table 9 of the report. The best results are highlighted in bold, and the literature [4] indicates that the proposed strategy is more effective than existing methods. ### Comparison of Flowerpot Image Fusion with the Literature

The flowerpot, depicted in Figure 16, is the ninth multi-focus image being evaluated. In Figure 16, the original image is depicted in (a). Images with a left focus and a right focus,

Figure 14: Multi-focus image of a leaf from various perspectives. Original Image: (**a**), Multi-focus Input Images: (**b**,**c**), and Proposed Fusion: (**d**). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**MIF-Methods** & \(\mathbf{Q_{E}}\) & \(\mathbf{CC}\) & \(\mathbf{E(F)}\) & \(\mathbf{Q^{AB/F}}\) & \(\mathbf{AG_{F}}\) & \(\mathbf{SSIM}\) \\ \hline PA-DCPCNN & 0.8122 & **0.9366** & 7.4064 & 0.8874 & 19.1755 & 0.7587 \\ Proposed Method & **0.8478** & 0.9237 & **7.4216** & **0.9745** & **25.6660** & **0.8225** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: The results and comparisons for leaf image ([20]). Figure 15: Multi-focus image of a Pepsi from various perspectives. Original Image: (**a**), Multi-focus Input Images: (**b**,**c**), and Proposed Fusion: (**d**). respectively, are shown in Figure 16b,c. Left-side focus is referred to as a \"left focused image\", while the right-side focus is referred to as a \"right unfocused image\". A right-focused image has only its right side considered; the left side has not been taken into consideration. After the technique has been used effectively, Figure 16d illustrates the process of producing the all-in-focus image. The proposed methodology's performance is evaluated using the following parameters: \(Q_{W}\) and \(Q_{E}\). The proposed strategy's performance is then compared to that of other approaches already published in the literature. In Table 10 of the report, the comparison's outcomes are displayed. The best results are highlighted in bold, and the literature [21] indicates that the proposed strategy is more successful than the existing methods. ### Comparison on More Multi-Focus Image Pairs

Optimal subjective and objective results cannot be achieved with a single method for all possible image pairs. In order to demonstrate the average performance of different methods, the flowing experiment uses eight and ten multi-focus image pairings, respectively (Figures 17 and 18). Image pairs shown in Figures 17 and 18 were processed using the proposed method to create the fused images shown in Figures 19 and 20. As can be seen in Figures 19 and 20, the proposed technique yields satisfactory fusion results for all the examined image pairs. Tables 11



Figure 17: Some multi-focus image pairs. Figure 18: Some multi-focus image pairs. Figure 19: Fusion results of the proposed method for the multi-focus image pairs shown in Figure 17. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Evaluation Metric** & \(\mathbf{Q_{E}}\) & \(\mathbf{Q^{AB/F}}\) & \(\mathbf{AG_{F}}\) & \(\mathbf{CC}\) & \(\mathbf{E(F)}\) & _SSIM_ \\ \hline PA-DCPCNN & 0.8336 & 0.898 & 15.1203 & **0.9736** & **7.2766** & 0.872 \\ Proposed Method & **0.9098** & **0.9603** & **16.2755** & 0.97 & 7.2607 & **0.9755** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: The average objective evaluation of different techniques on multi-focus image pairs ([20]).