On Mar 14, 10:59 am, "Daniel Fetchinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > Since you seem to know quite a bit about this topic, what is your
> > > opinion on the apparently 'generic' algorithm described here:
> > >http://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/query/?
> > > So far it seems to me that it do
> > Since you seem to know quite a bit about this topic, what is your
> > opinion on the apparently 'generic' algorithm described here:
> > http://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/query/ ?
> > So far it seems to me that it does what I'm asking for, it does even
> > more because it can take a hand d
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
> Since you seem to know quite a bit about this topic, what is your
> opinion on the apparently 'generic' algorithm described here:
> http://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/query/ ?
> So far it seems to me that it does what I'm asking for, it does even
> more because it ca
> > The photos are just coming straight from my digital camera. Same
> > format (JPEG), varying size (6-10 megapixel) and I would like to be
> > able to pick one and then query the database for similar ones. For
> > example: I pick a photo which is more or less a portrait of someone,
> > the query
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
> The photos are just coming straight from my digital camera. Same
> format (JPEG), varying size (6-10 megapixel) and I would like to be
> able to pick one and then query the database for similar ones. For
> example: I pick a photo which is more or less a portrait of someon
> > Thanks for the info! SIFT really looks like a heavy weight solution,
> > but do you think the whole concept can be simplified if all I needed
> > was: given a photo, find similar ones? I mean SIFT first detects
> > objects on the image and find similarities, but I don't need the
> > detection p
> The second thing I'll try (after trying
> your suggestion) is based on this paper which I found in the meantime:
> http://salesin.cs.washington.edu/abstracts.html#MultiresQuery
> In case anyone is interested, it describes a multiresolution querying
> algorithm and best of all, it has pseudo code
> | The various free tools differ by their chosen optimization paths and
> | their degree of specialization. My preference would be,
> |
> | 1. Doesn't really matter how long it takes to compute the N numbers per
> image
>
> Your problem here is that there is really no such thing as 'general
> feat
"Daniel Fetchinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The various free tools differ by their chosen optimization paths and
| their degree of specialization. My preference would be,
|
| 1. Doesn't really matter how long it takes to compute the N numbers per
image
Your
> >>> There are a number of free tools for image matching but it's not very
> >>> easy to decipher the actual algorithm from the code that includes db
> >>> management, GUI, etc, etc. I have my own image database and GUI so all
> >>> I need is the actual algorithm preferably in pseudo code and not
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
>>> There are a number of free tools for image matching but it's not very
>>> easy to decipher the actual algorithm from the code that includes db
>>> management, GUI, etc, etc. I have my own image database and GUI so all
>>> I need is the actual algorithm preferably in pse
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
> Thanks for the info! SIFT really looks like a heavy weight solution,
> but do you think the whole concept can be simplified if all I needed
> was: given a photo, find similar ones? I mean SIFT first detects
> objects on the image and find similarities, but I don't need t
> > There are a number of free tools for image matching but it's not very
> > easy to decipher the actual algorithm from the code that includes db
> > management, GUI, etc, etc. I have my own image database and GUI so all
> > I need is the actual algorithm preferably in pseudo code and not in
> > t
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
> There are a number of free tools for image matching but it's not very
> easy to decipher the actual algorithm from the code that includes db
> management, GUI, etc, etc. I have my own image database and GUI so all
> I need is the actual algorithm preferably in pseudo code
On Mar 10, 1:32 am, "Daniel Fetchinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There are a number of free tools for image matching but it's not very
> easy to decipher the actual algorithm from the code that includes db
> management, GUI, etc, etc. I have my own image database and GUI so all
> I
Hi all,
There are a number of free tools for image matching but it's not very
easy to decipher the actual algorithm from the code that includes db
management, GUI, etc, etc. I have my own image database and GUI so all
I need is the actual algorithm preferably in pseudo code and not in
the form of
16 matches
Mail list logo
