## 3 Experimental Results
### Comparison of Multi-Focus Image (i.e., Desk)  
The evaluation of the second multi-focus image is the desk, illustrated in Figure 10. Figure 10a represents the original image. Figure 10b,c illustrates left-focused and right-focused images, respectively. The term \"left-focused image\" refers to the fact that the image's left side is focused while the right side is not. An image with a right focus indicates that it has been focused on its right side only, while its left side has not been focused on. Figure 10d shows the process of creating the all-in-focus image after the method has been successfully implemented. The following parameters are computed to evaluate the proposed methodology performance: \(E(F)\), \(AG\), \(CC\), \(Q^{AB/F}\), \(SSIM\), \(Q_{E}\), \(FMI\), \(SD\), \(QW\), \(L^{AB/F}\), \(N^{AB/F}\), and \(SF\). Finally, the performance of the proposed approach is compared to that of other methods previously published in the literature. The results of the comparison are shown in Tables 9-15 of the report. The letter X indicates that metrics are not calculated for the article depicted in the image. According to the literature [21; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 30], the proposed method is more successful than those approaches, and the best outcomes of methods are indicated in bold. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**Methods** & \(\mathbf{Q^{AB/F}}\) \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. & 0.72 \\ [PERSON] et al.—with SR-2 & 0.87 \\ [PERSON] et al. & X \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.71 \\ [PERSON] et al.—with SR-4 & 0.89 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.68 \\ [PERSON] et al. & X \\ [PERSON] et al. & X \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.65 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.73 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.69 \\ [PERSON] et al. & X \\ [PERSON] et al.—with SR-3 & 0.88 \\ [PERSON] et al. & X \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.9 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.71 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.71 \\ [PERSON] et al. & 0.74 \\ Proposed Method & \(\mathbf{0.984}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: The outcomes for the clock 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** & **PCNN** & **N5 CT** & **DCNN** & **SR** & **DSIFT** & **MWG** & **NSCT-SR** & **GF** & **WDCNN** & **Proposed** & **Method** \\ \hline \(AG\) & 5.57 & 4.53 & 4.56 & 4.34 & 4.44 & 4.44 & 4.55 & 4.58 & \(\mathbf{6.52}\) & 6.130 \\ \(SSIM\) & 0.65 & 0.54 & 0.65 & 0.53 & 0.58 & 0.60 & 0.53 & 0.61 & 0.69 & \(\mathbf{0.958}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: The outcomes for the clock image and comparisons with existing techniques in the literature ([28]). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Evaluation** & **CBF** & **DCHWT** & **DCTVAR** & **GFF** & **IFM** & **MWGF** & **WSSM** & **SA-FC** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Proposed** \\ **Method** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \(SF\) & 12.87 & 12.28 & 13.52 & 13.43 & 13.29 & 13.42 & 13.6 & **13.65** & 9.224 \\ \(QAB/F\) & 0.726 & 0.694 & 0.735 & 0.733 & 0.735 & 0.731 & 0.709 & 0.74 & \(\mathbf{0.984}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: The outcomes for the clock image and comparisons with existing techniques in the literature ([30]). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Evaluation Metric** & **CF** & **SR** & **CVT** & **CNN** & **N5 CT** & **GF** & **N5 CT** & **GF** & **NSC-5R** & **Proposed Method** \\ \hline _SD_ & 46.800 & 46.899 & 46.766 & 46.817 & 46.869 & 46.860 & 46.860 & 46.576 & **47.642** \\ _FMI_ & **0.675** & 0.579 & 0.533 & 0.674 & 0.575 & 0.592 & 0.574 & 0.390 \\ Q\({}^{4 BF}\) & 0.734 & 0.702 & 0.686 & 0.734 & 0.702 & 0.711 & 0.702 & 0.987 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: The outcomes for the desk image and comparisons with existing techniques in the literature ([24]).