Talk:Edge detection

message: Lot's of technical "how" but not a lot of explanatory "why" for us non-techies. Just a little would be nice Awotter 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add some "why"?

message: Following the tag marked in October 2007, I have now made a first attempt to restructure this article to be more updated with respect to the topic of edge detection and also to give more technical details of basic edge detectors. Question to those of you who have tagged this article, do you find it appropriate to remove the tag? Tpl (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major restructuring of this article 

message: Why is there a link to "atomic line filter" in the "See Also" section? I skimmed through the article, and I don't see that it really has anything at all to do with edge or line detection. Anyone? 65.183.135.231 (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atomic line filter 

message: The "Why edge detection is a non-trivial task" section is a total failure. It shows a trivial example and then says "but most of it is not this trivial". Come on! Give a non-trivial example! Obviously!! Don't lead off with an easy one and then just wave your hands around saying that there are others that are harder. That's not explanation! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the text can be misunderstood if not read with a positive spirit. Now, I have added an additional sentence to explain where the problem is. Probably a better illustration would help, but the current illustration is used for of historical reasons (because it is available). If you know how to set the grey-levels in the presumable hexadecimal (?) notation used by previous authors, please help to generate a better illustration Tpl (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivial

message: The article seems to have been written by a group of pompous intellectuals who are out of touch with their readers. Hyperlinking to articles like "shading" as though we've never heard of it, then just mentioning formulas without explaining them properly... The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to teach people about detailed areas of interest. I've studied computer vision myself at university and I find most of this article to be too vague, intellectual and just unhelpful.
Specifically, the most notable things are that the explanation of non-maximum suppression is unhelpful and the illustration with the grey pixels should have the rows labelled (it's unclear for a while as to what the numbers mean) and it's not even necessary anyway - you could just refer to the image of the girl.Owen214 (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of touch 

message: This is a fast algorithm that has been used to acquire data about the shapes of cells (1981).  It has also been used by 3-D surface feature laser scanners to detect the location of a laser line.  It has also been called the CG (1994) and CM (2002) algorithm because the calculation is the same.  I think it would be good to include a description of this algorithm, along with a few references.  However since I haven't been a contributor to this page I thought it would be good to have a discussion first.   Zen-in (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Center of Luminance feature detection 

message: I removed the weasel words tag for "we" in the section "Why edge detection is a non-trivial task" as this is clearly an editoral we or author's we, and does not refer to a person or group of people in particular, but rather could be compared to a generic "one", as in "one may assume", ... 91.176.185.58 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unnecessary "weasel words" tag. 

message: I suggest that the definition (the first paragraph of the article) should be changed. The edge is not a collection of points but rather a line or a curve that separates the two differently colored regions. So that the vectorization methods like those used in the OutlinerOutliner, the edge detection utility utility should be classified as edge detection too.
--Wladik Derevianko (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edges should be defined as lines or curves 

message: The article says nothing about how edge detection works in human vision.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0042698989900060
http://www.physorg.com/news174147986.html
http://www.jstor.org/pss/36246 --78.48.72.169 (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edge detection in humans 

message: The recently added description of CORF edge detection looks like undesirable promo of specific work,
probably by the authors of the work?
Quite unmodestly, this new operator is even listed before the Canny operator.
A similar entry COSFIRE as an interest point detector has been inserted in the template on feature detection.
For an edge detector to be included in this edge detection article, it should established in the field.
Therefore, I would suggest removal of CORF from this article. Tpl (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that it is too prominent.  I don't have the expertise to say that it should be removed  but that could also be the case.  North8000 (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undesirable self promo of CORF 

message: IanOverington posted talk page material into the article. I moved it here:  North8000 (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: I moved this from the article