2018 15th International Joint Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (JCSSE) 2018
DOI: 10.1109/jcsse.2018.8457375
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Fast Algorithm to Approximate the Pith Location of Rubberwood Timber from a Normal Camera Image

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We also evaluated the trained models using detection rate and average location error. The results of our study reveal that both DNN pith detectors are superior to the most recently proposed non-DNN algorithm (Kurdthongmee et al, 2018). This is because the non-DNN pith location algorithm relies heavily on the quality of the cross-sectional surface of parawood.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 80%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…We also evaluated the trained models using detection rate and average location error. The results of our study reveal that both DNN pith detectors are superior to the most recently proposed non-DNN algorithm (Kurdthongmee et al, 2018). This is because the non-DNN pith location algorithm relies heavily on the quality of the cross-sectional surface of parawood.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…However, when the location error is considered, the YOLO pith detector outperforms the SSD MobileNet pith detector because it has half the average location error. Both DNN pith detectors significantly outperform the non-DNN algorithm (Kurdthongmee et al, 2018). Table 2 also shows the average detection times of all three algorithms.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Recently, there have been some efforts to develop pith detection methods on RGB images of cross sections from tree logs [12,13,19,21]. Contrary to CT images, RGB images exhibit disturbances like sawing marks, dirt or ambient light variations, which make the detection more challenging (see Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%