The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.01 - January (1985 vol.7)
pp: 127-129
R. M. Haralick , Machine Vision International, Ann Arbor, MI 48104.
ABSTRACT
We present evidence that the Laplacian zero-crossing operator does not use neighborhood information as effectively as the second directional derivative edge operator. We show that the use of a Gaussian smoother with standard deviation 5.0 for the Laplacian of a Gaussian edge operator with a neighborhood size of 50 ? 50 both misses and misplaces edges on an aerial image of a mobile home park. Contrary to Grimson and Hildreth's results, our results of the Laplacian edge detector on a noisy test checkerboard image are also not as good as the second directional derivative edge operator. We conclude by discussing a number of open issues on edge operator evaluation.
CITATION
R. M. Haralick, "Author's Reply", IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, vol.7, no. 1, pp. 127-129, January 1985, doi:10.1109/TPAMI.1985.4767629
6 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool