Micro-expression recognition is one of the popular researches in analysing expressions on the face. Micro-expression is a facial movement that occurs in a short time and is difficult to identify manually by human eyes. In general research, facial landmarks are used to form a large size ROI for each facial feature for the feature extraction process. In this study, we track the subtle motions of micro expressions by using point features. This approach aims to get feature extraction from tracking results and then analyse micro-expression. We compared the Active Shape Model and Response Map Fitting methods to produce accurate points and fast time on facial features. To measure the subtle motion tracking of facial features in each frame tracking is done using the Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi method. To estimate the rationality of our method, we conducted an experiment on CASME II and SAMM dataset for micro-expressions. The results show that the points on DRMF are more accurate with point-to-point error is 7.9 and the time taken is faster which requires time is 0.02 second. We evaluated the method proposed for evaluation showed that using CASME II - Naive Bayes (79.3%) and SAMM - Naive Bayes (74.6%).

Algorithms developed to identify people with iris image data have been tested in many field and laboratory experiment. This paper analysis some a parameters of iris image used to recognize human. Iris recognition system, which is applied based on segmentation, normalization, encoding, and matching is also describe in this paper. Circle Hough Transform segmentation module used to find the inner and outer boundaries of the iris. The experiment was carried out using CASIA v1 iris database with grayscale images. Shape, intensity, and location information for localizing the pupil or iris and normalizing the iris area a used iris segmentation by unwrapping circular area into a rectangular area. Normalized area will be used to extract the features using Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) and Gabor filter, the feature compared the recognition accuracy using Support Vector Machines (SVM) and Naive Bayes classifiers. GLCM feature test results achieved 95.24% SVM classification accuracy, whereas using achieved 85.71% Naive Bayes. Gabor feature test results achieved 95.24% SVM classification accuracy, whereas using achieved 95.23% Naive Bayes. The classification process based on GLCM and Gabor features show that the SVM method have to highest recognition accuracy compare to Naive Bayes classifier.