Next: Microtek Scanner: Login name is missing
From: HvdV on 22 Apr 2005 05:23
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
<snip>
>
> Try reading Shannon's original paper - you will find your statement
> inconsistent with his law. You can *estimate* what the lost or
> corrupted data may have been but you cannot recover it - other than by
> an oversampling process, such as the sloping edge produces. Since we
> are discussing measurements, not approximations, that is what is necessary.
You think you can measure something without dealing with uncertainties?
>
>> There is quite an amount of literature on the topic. For example
>> 'Introduction to inverse problems in imaging' by Bertero & Boccacci is
>> quite accessible.
>> But I'm afraid nothing short of me producing a piece of software which
>> does the job will convince you.
>
>
> That is probably the first thing you have said I agree with.
But you wouldn't trust it, right?
You might order that book though. One could say its central idea is that in
order to interpret an image you always need to estimate 'restore' the object
from the available data. You are welcome to object against that, saying that
one cannot measure anything that way.
> When you have done it, submit it to ISO as a replacement for their
> clearly inadequate test methodology!
I didn't say it was 'inadequate', merely that the choice to use an edge is
probably more driven by the need to have an easy to manufacture test object
than anything else. As soon as it is easy to obtain bright point or line
objects the standard tests can indeed be updated.

-- hans
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Next: Microtek Scanner: Login name is missing