Issue No. 01 - January (1985 vol. 7)
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 Ã- 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," in IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, vol. 7, no. , pp. 127-129, 1985.