Talk:Lucas–Kanade method

message: I've removed the Detailed treatment section because it's misleading, contradicts itself, the reference material and contains original research and dubious claims. Various problems with that section have been noticed by users both in this talk page and on Dawoodmajoka's talk page which seems to be the only author. -- Femmina (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no possible constructive criticism I can offer you for something so badly written. Sorry but the consensus seems to be against your supposed explanation. Issues have been raised by various users and you've failed to take account of any of those while at the same time reverting corrections such as this one:   without even considering. -- Femmina (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Offer your "better " version. I am open to any improvements .Vandalism is to delete without offering any improvements. If you do not agree, offer something better. Deletion is no solution. Therefore, I have to revert once again. Almost all criticism so far was on 3d+t implementation, I considered it valid and have switched to 2d+t now. I have also accomodated your criticm on iterative vs. non-iterative and the least-squares implementation. Shows my willingness to compromise. So come up with new criticim or a better discription. Dawoodmajoka (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text:  BTW: I wont be coming available here for some time.  Dawoodmajoka (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already much better now. Thank you very much for what you've done. However there are still some important aspects missing. The iterative vs non-iterative debate as I understand it revolves around the fact that the concept of optical flow was maybe developed after KLT has been published. What you describe in the article is a method for estimating the optical flow based on some of the concepts published in the paper but there's much more in it. There's a feature detector and an iterative method for estimating the motion of a particular feature between two frames. In my opinion the most interesting part of KLT is the feature tracker and I would like to see it treated in detail rather than the optical flow aspect that, to me, is a bit fuzzy as a concept anyway. -- Femmina (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree on two different articles because as it is now if I search for "KLT" on wikipedia I land on the Principal components analysis article and a disambiguation message directs me here. If I do the same on google I get Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi Feature Tracker as the first result. So (and that's what actually happened to me) I came to this article hoping to find more informations about the feature tracker and I found the method for estimating the optical flow instead. And I got really confused at first. -- Femmina (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed treatment 

message: Large parts of the confusion in the comments here seem to be due to KLT linking here, which is misleading, as it is not the same. The Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi (KLT) method is a method for tracking image features (see link and link). The foundation of KLT feature tracking and the Lucas-Kanade method for optical flow was laid by the same paper by Lucas and Kanade. Note, however, that this original paper is neither about optical flow nor feature tracking but about registering two images. link
Imho, KLT feature tracking deserves its own article! I don't dare writing it myself at the moment, though. --Sbstn (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. KLT should not link here. The original Lucas-Kanade paper was about image registration, Tomasi-Kanade added feature selection and tracking and Shi and Tomasi showed the benefit of adding an affine check. This is "KLT tracking" and none of these 3 papers showed derivation of optical flow as formulated on this page. Kegon (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, I'm starting a page on KLT tracking Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi Feature Tracker, please come and help get it up to a high standard. Kegon (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion: Lucas-Kanade vs KLT 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lucas–Kanade method. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140506113705/http://onera-windtunnel.com/dtim-en/gpu-for-image/folkigpu.php to http://onera-windtunnel.com/dtim-en/gpu-for-image/folkigpu.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The IPA reading doesn't seem right to me. I think it should end in e instead of ɪ. Japanese phonology also says that the Japanese e is an mid front unrounded vowel, and not a Near-close near-front unrounded vowel, which seem like an American mispronounciation. If no citation is added, I will remove the pronounciation in a week. --129.247.247.240 (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation