Re: Digikam-devel Digest, Vol 58, Issue 95

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Digikam-devel Digest, Vol 58, Issue 95

Aditya Bhatt
@K?re

Just a comment about the image size tradeoff.

I have just updated the automatic image selection on previews in Skanlite
(actually libksane). What I did was to first do a rough auto selection on a
resized image ~100 * 150 pixels and then refine the selections on the full-
sized preview. It improved the speed dramatically and did not decrease the
accuracy. (actually it removed a lot of false positives)

Just an idea if you needed more :)


Hi, what are you detecting in the image? What are the selections that you talk of?
( I can't checkout code right now, since the firewall in my college is something of a joke ATM, it blocks svn://)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but thanks anyway :)

Actually what I meant was that when I run multiple cascades (5 or 6) , the process is very slow. It would be faster if the image is smaller, but there's of course a limit on how small an image I can make. The sad part is, I can't resize it to 100*150 pixels and expect good detection accuracy, because there are supposed to be a lot of faces in a photo and such a tiny image size will cause a phenomenal loss of information :)

If you can help here, it'd be great :)

Regards,

--
Aditya Bhatt
My Blog : http://adityabhatt.wordpress.com

_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Digikam-devel Digest, Vol 58, Issue 95

Bugzilla from kare.sars@iki.fi
On Tuesday 23 March 2010, Aditya Bhatt wrote:

> @K?re
>
> Just a comment about the image size tradeoff.
>
> > I have just updated the automatic image selection on previews in Skanlite
> > (actually libksane). What I did was to first do a rough auto selection on
> > a resized image ~100 * 150 pixels and then refine the selections on the
> > full- sized preview. It improved the speed dramatically and did not
> > decrease the accuracy. (actually it removed a lot of false positives)
> >
> > Just an idea if you needed more :)
>
> Hi, what are you detecting in the image? What are the selections that you
> talk of?
> ( I can't checkout code right now, since the firewall in my college is
> something of a joke ATM, it blocks svn://)
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but thanks anyway :)

I have a really simple problem compared to recognizing faces :) I try to
detect the square areas around pictures in the preview on a flatbed image
scanner.

>
> Actually what I meant was that when I run multiple cascades (5 or 6) , the
> process is very slow. It would be faster if the image is smaller, but
> there's of course a limit on how small an image I can make. The sad part
> is, I can't resize it to 100*150 pixels and expect good detection
> accuracy, because there are supposed to be a lot of faces in a photo and
> such a tiny image size will cause a phenomenal loss of information :)
>

Yep, as you and Michael noted 100*150 pixels is not enough for a group photo.
The situation is a bit different for the scanner. There you probably do not
want to have more than ~5 different selection and there a small resolution
image is enough.

The main idea could still be valid. The idea being to have a "two phase
detection". The first phase would does a very quick inaccurate search (false
positives?) and the second would only investigate the areas found in the first
phase.


> If you can help here, it'd be great :)

I'm afraid I would not be of much help ;)


Kåre
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel