2016
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-28854-3_2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Image Features Detection, Description and Matching

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
102
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 193 publications
(105 citation statements)
references
References 72 publications
1
102
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The predicted result in terms of semantic segmentation is illustrated by an error map in Figure 4b, where the colored pixels represent the errors; the result was in good agreement with the ground truth data, though the crack width was overestimated by one or two pixels. The statistical scores for this case are shown in Table 3, wherein the results for SegNet are also listed for comparison, and the overall mean value of the five classes is calculated from Equation (6). The advantage of the proposed models was not apparent although a slightly better result is foreseen.…”
Section: Application Of Proposed Models To Thick Cracksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The predicted result in terms of semantic segmentation is illustrated by an error map in Figure 4b, where the colored pixels represent the errors; the result was in good agreement with the ground truth data, though the crack width was overestimated by one or two pixels. The statistical scores for this case are shown in Table 3, wherein the results for SegNet are also listed for comparison, and the overall mean value of the five classes is calculated from Equation (6). The advantage of the proposed models was not apparent although a slightly better result is foreseen.…”
Section: Application Of Proposed Models To Thick Cracksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this work, we considered a total of 30 candidate features, shown in Table 2. The features were chosen based on previous image classification work [21] e.g. edge based features (more edges lead to a more complex image), as well as intuition based on our motivation (Section 2.1), e.g.…”
Section: Featuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SIFT is invariant to scale change, rotation, affine transformation and rescaling of images, but not good in case of illumination change. Whereas, the SUFT is not fully affine invariant, unstable under extreme rotation and illumination changes (Juan and Gwun, 2009, Hassaballah et al, 2016, Vedaldi and Fulkerson, 2008.…”
Section: Comparison Of Sift and Surfmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From the last few years, image feature detectors and descriptors are most widely used techniques for such applications which includes 3D scene reconstruction, panoramic mosaicking/stitching, image classification, object recognition and robot localization etc., all are depends upon the presence of stable and representative features in an image space. Thus, the image features detection and extraction are important steps for these applications (Hassaballah et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%