2019
DOI: 10.3788/co.20191206.1329
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automatic extraction of speckle area in digital image correlation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The original image is shown in Figure 1, and the experimental results are shown in Figures 2-5 (b-f). The error rate and PSNR of the segmentation results are shown in Tables 1 and 2, and the iteration time and the number of iterations are shown in Table 3 [40,41]. The efficiency of the algorithms was compared using the running time after convergence and the number of iterations n. A Dell OptiPlex 360 (Intel Core 4, 8 GB of memory) running a Windows 7 system with the MATLAB 2013a (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA)programming environment comprised the evaluation platform.…”
Section: Segmentation Performance Testmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The original image is shown in Figure 1, and the experimental results are shown in Figures 2-5 (b-f). The error rate and PSNR of the segmentation results are shown in Tables 1 and 2, and the iteration time and the number of iterations are shown in Table 3 [40,41]. The efficiency of the algorithms was compared using the running time after convergence and the number of iterations n. A Dell OptiPlex 360 (Intel Core 4, 8 GB of memory) running a Windows 7 system with the MATLAB 2013a (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA)programming environment comprised the evaluation platform.…”
Section: Segmentation Performance Testmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The original image is shown in Figure 1, and the experimental results are shown in Figures 2-5 (b-f). The error rate and PSNR of the segmentation results are shown in Tables 1 and 2, and the iteration time and the number of iterations are shown in Table 3 [40,41]. Comparing the segmentation results of the five algorithms in Figures 2-5 for four images with different degrees of Gaussian noise interference, we can see that the segmentation results of the FCM_S, FLICM, and LDMREFCM algorithms still contained many noise points; the KWFLICM algorithm contained fewer noise points; while the improved algorithm has the fewest noise points.…”
Section: Segmentation Performance Testmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The remote sensing images of wheat fields, canyons and forests had multiplicative noise added with a mean value of 0 and mean squared deviations of 90, 121 and 61, respectively [50][51][52]. The numbers of clusters were 2, 2 and 3, respectively.…”
Section: Image Segmentation Test With Multiplicative Noisementioning
confidence: 99%