2004 International Conference on Image Processing, 2004. ICIP '04.
DOI: 10.1109/icip.2004.1421406
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Towards computer-assisted photo-identification of humpback whales

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
13
0

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Such systems usually require some level of user control, either at the input level (the user must label the features to be matched by hand) or at the output level (the user is asked to select the correct match from a ranked list of images suggested by the algorithm). Where a manual choice must be made from a ranked list of between 3 and 10 potential matches, the correct individual is contained within the image subset in 84% (Ranguelova et al 2004) to 100% of cases (e.g. Kelly 2001).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Such systems usually require some level of user control, either at the input level (the user must label the features to be matched by hand) or at the output level (the user is asked to select the correct match from a ranked list of images suggested by the algorithm). Where a manual choice must be made from a ranked list of between 3 and 10 potential matches, the correct individual is contained within the image subset in 84% (Ranguelova et al 2004) to 100% of cases (e.g. Kelly 2001).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kelly 2001). However, when such systems are asked to find the 1 correct match (with no user choice), as AnimalID is asked to do, the matching accuracy drops to a low of 60.8% (Ranguelova et al 2004) and a high of 92 to 93% (Arzoumanian et al 2005, Van Tienhoven et al 2007.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whenever animals carry individually unique visual markings and an approach for imaging these efficiently is available, biometric computer vision provides an option for non-invasive, partly or fully automated identification [9,12,14,15]. Individual great white sharks, for instance, can be fully automatically re-identified if one can photograph and match silhouettes of their dorsal fin [7], but this requires a precise (and fully automatic) extraction of boundaries as a precursor to matching.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Eakins et al, 1998), medicine, biomonitoring (e.g. Ranguelova et al, 2004), and interior design (discussed below).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%