 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Image Processing Forum » New free source image processing code... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Filip Rooms... |
 Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear image processors,
Just checking if some people could be interested in the following: I
wrote a small 1 person package that contains several image processing
algorithms. It was designed in C++ to be as independant from external
libraries as possible.
It contains several algorithms for deconvolution, denoising, contrast
enhancement (histogram, wavelet-based, Retinex), color manipulation,
image analysis (edge detection, segmentation), image filters (Gauss,
Kuwahara, bilateral, local and non-local, anisotropic diffusion and so
on), ...
The software was written using Kdevelop on a 64bit Kubuntu system, but
was written with as little dependancies as possible, so the biggest
effort to run it on other platforms would be setting up the project.
Also, a simple Qt based GUI is available already. Screenshots and
image processed examples are available at http://www.filiprooms.be/research/software/
under first section "New". Doxygen-generated docs and some screenshots
can be seen there (more examples will follow soon).
I would like to make this open source, but need some feedback and
finishing help polishing some rough edges first.
No need to react if not serious.
Kind regards,
Filip Rooms |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| aruzinsky... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 15, 5:05 pm, Filip Rooms <filip.ro... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:3feedf3ba1]Dear image processors,
Just checking if some people could be interested in the following: I
wrote a small 1 person package that contains several image processing
algorithms. It was designed in C++ to be as independant from external
libraries as possible.
It contains several algorithms for deconvolution, denoising, contrast
enhancement (histogram, wavelet-based, Retinex), color manipulation,
image analysis (edge detection, segmentation), image filters (Gauss,
Kuwahara, bilateral, local and non-local, anisotropic diffusion and so
on), ...
The software was written using Kdevelop on a 64bit Kubuntu system, but
was written with as little dependancies as possible, so the biggest
effort to run it on other platforms would be setting up the project.
Also, a simple Qt based GUI is available already. Screenshots and
image processed examples are available at http://www.filiprooms.be/research/software/
under first section "New". Doxygen-generated docs and some screenshots
can be seen there (more examples will follow soon).
I would like to make this open source, but need some feedback and
finishing help polishing some rough edges first.
No need to react if not serious.
Kind regards,
Filip Rooms
[/quote:3feedf3ba1]
On http://telin.ugent.be/~frooms/friep/screenshots/ you are using full
sized PNG files of approximately 1 MB each as THUMBNAILS! That is
grossly inconsiderate of people with dial up modems. Width or height
specifiers should almost never be used in <img> tags. For thumbnails,
you should resize the images and save as JPEG. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Leese... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
aruzinsky wrote:
[quote:79e0217964]On http://telin.ugent.be/~frooms/friep/screenshots/ you are using full
sized PNG files of approximately 1 MB each as THUMBNAILS! That is
grossly inconsiderate of people with dial up modems. Width or height
specifiers should almost never be used in <img> tags. For thumbnails,
you should resize the images and save as JPEG.
[/quote:79e0217964]
I agree that large images on a Web page
are inconsiderate (I, too, am on dial-up),
however, width and height attributes should
*always* be used.
If width and height attributes are not used,
the browser will pause until the image has
been downloaded before displaying the rest
of the page. With width and height the
browser leaves a gap, which is filled in
later, and continues displaying the page.
I make thumbnails of the actual size I want
to display, and then specify this in the
width and height.
Whether JPEG or PNG should be used depends
on which one compresses better. This
depends on the image content, particularly
on the noise level. However, I agree most
of the screenshots displayed would almost
certainly compress better with JPEG than
PNG.
--
Regards,
Martin Leese
E-mail: please at (no spam) see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| aruzinsky... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 15, 7:17 pm, Martin Leese <ple... at (no spam) see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID>
wrote:
[quote:0337a807b7]aruzinsky wrote:
Onhttp://telin.ugent.be/~frooms/friep/screenshots/you are using full
sized PNG files of approximately 1 MB each as THUMBNAILS! That is
grossly inconsiderate of people with dial up modems. Width or height
specifiers should almost never be used in <img> tags. For thumbnails,
you should resize the images and save as JPEG.
I agree that large images on a Web page
are inconsiderate (I, too, am on dial-up),
however, width and height attributes should
*always* be used.
If width and height attributes are not used,
the browser will pause until the image has
been downloaded before displaying the rest
of the page. With width and height the
browser leaves a gap, which is filled in
later, and continues displaying the page.
I make thumbnails of the actual size I want
to display, and then specify this in the
width and height.
Whether JPEG or PNG should be used depends
on which one compresses better. This
depends on the image content, particularly
on the noise level. However, I agree most
of the screenshots displayed would almost
certainly compress better with JPEG than
PNG.
--
Regards,
Martin Leese
E-mail: ple... at (no spam) see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID
Web:http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
[/quote:0337a807b7]
You mean that the rest of the page will display out of place until the
images are downloaded which is a good point. The OP only used height
specifiers, so I guess it should be, "width or height."
There is a better reason to not resize an image display with HTML
height or with specifiers. The interpolation done by most browsers is
very bad. I suspect that most PC browsers use the Microsoft SDK for
resizing, something like CDC::SetStretchBltMode followed by
CImage::StretchBlt. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Filip Rooms... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:fff8f2c6ac]I agree that large images on a Web page
are inconsiderate (I, too, am on dial-up),
BTW I agree it is antisocial to use large images scaled down by the
WIDTH & HEIGHT specifiers,
[/quote:fff8f2c6ac]
Sorry for being an inconsiderate and antisocial person...
Page has now thumbs that are really separate scaled-down jpg's.
No offence meant: I was so used to use broadband at work and at home
that I forgot to consider people with other connection types: it was
just a
very quickly built page with images generated on the fly with my
software and
put as is on the page (which was also written on the fly just using
plain
simple HTML)...
Regards,
Filip |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:34 pm
|
|