Phase correlation vs. normalized cross-correlation

I asked this over at Mathematics Stack Exchange, but since this sort of lies on the border of the questions normally asked over there and the questions you see over here I'll ask it here as well. (As of now, there's been no activity on my question over there.)

In 2-dimensional discrete signal analysis (specifically image processing), a definition I found for the normalized cross-correlation between two images, both of size $M\times N$ $g_1(x, y)$ and $g_2(x, y)$ is:

$$r_1 = (g_1 \star g_2)(x, y)_{\rm Normalized} = \frac{\sum\limits_{m=0}^{M-1} \sum\limits_{n=0}^{N-1}\left[g_1(m, n) - \overline{g_1}\right]\left[g_2(x + m, y + n) - \overline{g_2}\right]}{\sqrt{\sum\limits_{m=0}^{M-1} \sum\limits_{n=0}^{N-1} \left[g_1(m, n) - \overline{g_1}\right]^2 \left[g_2(x + m, y + n) - \overline{g_2}\right]^2}}$$

This is supposedly performed by the function normxcorr2 in the Signal Processing Toolbox in MATLAB, although using the Fast Normalized Cross-correlation algorithm by J. P. Lewis. Compared to the Phase Correlation method (with normalized cross-power spectrum) suggested by Kuglin and Hines:

\begin{align} G_1(u, v) &= \mathcal{F}\left\{g_1(x, y)\right\}\\ G_2(u, v) &= \mathcal{F}\left\{g_2(x, y)\right\}\\ r_2 &= \mathcal{F}^{-1}\left\{\frac{G_1^\ast (u, v) G_2(u, v)}{\lvert G_1^\ast (u, v) G_2(u, v) \rvert}\right\} \end{align}

Without the element-wise normalization before the inverse Fourier transform, $r_2$ is the same as non-normalized cross-correlation, with the exception that the Fourier transform assumes that the signal repeats in the spatial domain. It is clear that $r_1 \neq r_2$ by looking at the resulting correlation "images" in MATLAB, which I expected, but $r_2$ almost seems discontinuous from the images I am testing the method on, while $r_1$ always turns out much smoother (the resulting $r_2$ images are always "spotty", $r_1$ are not). Why is this? I assume it has something to do with the element-wise normalization in the Fourier domain, which I suppose is basically like cropping the signal in a way, but I don't know how to conclude this from any known properties of the (inverse) Fourier transform, if this is even a correct assumption.

Here are examples of the differences ($r_2$ has been amplified to clearer show the difference in characteristics of the images). They are performed on the same 2 images.

• $r_1$: Normalized cross-correlation

• $r_2$: Phase correlation

Summarizing my question: Why is $r_2$ so "spotty", while $r_1$ is not?

• Consider asking your question on one site as cross-posting is not well received on SE. Read here – Gilles Jul 4 '16 at 16:47
• Thank you for pointing that out, I didn't know that was frowned upon here. I am however conflicted. I do not know which site (of the two) would be the most appropriate. In your link the top answer says that "Many questions people have labeled as being applicable cross-site have been proven to be valid on a single site if written properly and thought through.". I do not know how to make my question more fitting for one site or the other without simply withholding information. The only option I can think of is to delete it from one site and move to the other, which seems like a strange solution. – Eric Sep 5 '16 at 12:36
• for r2, try to demean g1 and g2 first then apply the fft. r1 and r2 should be the same. one for space domain and the other for frequency domain, but equivalent except a normalization by the norms. – Lee Mar 26 '18 at 13:53