|
@K?re
Just a comment about the image size tradeoff. 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, -- My Blog : http://adityabhatt.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
|
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 |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |
