## 3 Experimental Results
### Comparison of Multi-Focus Image (i.e., Desk)
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Evaluation Metric** & **AP-** & **NSC-** & **BRW-TS** & **LG-MW** & **GFDF** & **DCT-CV** & **IM** & **CNN** & **GF** & **BF** & **SSDI** & **QT** & **DSIFT** & **CSR** & **MST-SR** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Proposed Method** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline _E(F)_ & 7.346 & 7.298 & 7.284 & 7.296 & 7.279 & 7.272 & 7.284 & 7.280 & 7.309 & 7.270 & 7.308 & 7.280 & 7.291 & 7.294 & 7.311 & **7.388** \\ \(Q_{\text{C}}\) & 0.867 & 0.849 & 0.865 & 0.864 & 0.864 & 0.829 & 0.848 & 0.863 & 0.866 & 0.834 & 0.865 & 0.864 & 0.863 & 0.863 & **0.869** & **0.922** \\ SSIM & 0.869 & 0.860 & 0.858 & 0.853 & 0.856 & 0.855 & 0.868 & 0.862 & 0.886 & 0.857 & 0.855 & 0.860 & 0.867 & **0.945** \\ Q\({}^{4 BF}\) & 0.896 & 0.887 & 0.891 & 0.888 & 0.891 & 0.875 & 0.883 & 0.890 & 0.893 & 0.874 & 0.892 & 0.891 & 0.888 & 0.896 & **0.987** \\ CC & **0.964** & **0.964** & 0.961 & 0.960 & 0.961 & 0.960 & 0.961 & 0.962 & 0.960 & 0.961 & 0.960 & 0.960 & 0.961 & **0.964** & 0.962 \\ _AG_ & 8.215 & 7.822 & 7.973 & 8.057 & 7.995 & 7.953 & 7.956 & 7.957 & 9.721 & 8.879 & 0.853 & 0.808 & 8.071 & 7.570 & 8.122 & **9.423** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: The outcomes for the desk image and comparisons with existing techniques in the literature ([21]). Figure 10: (**c**sk): (**a**) original image; (**b**,**c**) multi-focus input images; and (**d**) proposed fusion. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Evaluation Metric** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al. 5R** & **Proposed Method** \\  & **without 5R** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al. 5R** & **Proposed Method** \\ \hline _AG_ & 6.6 & X & X & X & X & **11.86** & 9.423 \\ _Q\({}^{4 BF}\)_ & 0.84 & 0.71 & 0.68 & 0.73 & 0.71 & 0.88 & **0.987** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: The outcomes for the desk image and comparisons with existing techniques in the literature ([23]). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline
**Methods** & \(\mathbf{Q^{AB/F}}\) \\ \hline [PERSON] et al.—with SR-4 & 0.89 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.72 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.73 \\ [PERSON] et al. & X \\ [PERSON] et al.—with SR-2 & 0.87 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.73 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.73 \\ [PERSON] et al. & X \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.68 \\ [PERSON] et al. & X \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.71 \\ [PERSON] et al. & X \\ [PERSON] et al. & X \\ [PERSON] et al. & X \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.88 \\ [PERSON] et al. & [PERSON] \\ [PERSON] et al.—with SR-3 & 0.88 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.71 \\ Proposed Method & **0.9871** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 14: The outcomes for the desk image and comparisons with existing techniques in the literature ([27]). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Evaluation Metric** & **SA-FC** & **CBF** & **DCHWT** & **MWGF** & **DCTVAR** & **GFF** & **IFM** & **WSSM** & **Proposed Method** \\ \hline \(SF\) & 15.54 & 14.92 & 13.83 & 15.45 & 15.39 & 15.42 & 15.42 & 15.47 & **16.1341** \\ \(Q^{AB/F}\) & 0.739 & 0.699 & 0.655 & 0.728 & 0.732 & 0.726 & 0.725 & 0.702 & **0.9871** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 15: The outcomes for the desk image and comparisons with existing techniques in the literature ([30]).