This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
Author's Reply
January 1985 (vol. 7 no. 1)
pp. 127-129
R. M. Haralick, Machine Vision International, Ann Arbor, MI 48104.
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.
R. M. Haralick, "Author's Reply," IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 127-129, Jan. 1985, doi:10.1109/TPAMI.1985.4767629
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.