<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lookup tables for binary image processing&#8212;makelut and applylut</title>
	<link>http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/05/13/lookup-tables-makelut-applylut/</link>
	<description>Steve Eddins manages the Image &#38; Geospatial development team at &#60;a href="http://www.mathworks.com/"&#62;The MathWorks&#60;/a&#62; and coauthored &#60;a href="http://www.mathworks.com/support/books/book5291.html?category=-1&#38;language=-1"&#62;Digital Image Processing Using MATLAB&#60;/a&#62;. He writes here about image processing concepts, algorithm implementations, and MATLAB.&#60;br&#62;&#60;br&#62;&#60;img&#62;</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:52:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/05/13/lookup-tables-makelut-applylut/#comment-20802</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/05/13/lookup-tables-makelut-applylut/#comment-20802</guid>
		<description>Pete&#8212;I don't think the lookup table optimization made in R2007b would make any difference for the operations you describe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pete&mdash;I don&#8217;t think the lookup table optimization made in R2007b would make any difference for the operations you describe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete</title>
		<link>http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/05/13/lookup-tables-makelut-applylut/#comment-20796</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:10:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/05/13/lookup-tables-makelut-applylut/#comment-20796</guid>
		<description>Interesting.  I haven't made much use of lookup tables.  Although rather more limited, where possible I convert binary images to uint8 and use imfilter to add up the number of pixels in the neighborhood.

Therefore, for example, to compute end-points in a thinned/skeletonised binary image (bw) I have used,

bwEnds = imfilter(uint8(bw), ones(3)) == 2 &#38; bw;

Crossover points might be,

bwCrossover = imfilter(uint8(bw), ones(3)) &#62; 3) &#38; bw;

My decidedly untrustworthy memory had told me that I compared both methods once upon a time and found imfilter to be faster, but when I tried them tonight (to locate end points in 768x768 pixel binary images) they each took almost exactly the same length of time (around 0.06 s).  I wish to believe this is due to the R2007b optimisations rather than that I was mistaken, although I can't be sure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting.  I haven&#8217;t made much use of lookup tables.  Although rather more limited, where possible I convert binary images to uint8 and use imfilter to add up the number of pixels in the neighborhood.</p>
<p>Therefore, for example, to compute end-points in a thinned/skeletonised binary image (bw) I have used,</p>
<p>bwEnds = imfilter(uint8(bw), ones(3)) == 2 &amp; bw;</p>
<p>Crossover points might be,</p>
<p>bwCrossover = imfilter(uint8(bw), ones(3)) &gt; 3) &amp; bw;</p>
<p>My decidedly untrustworthy memory had told me that I compared both methods once upon a time and found imfilter to be faster, but when I tried them tonight (to locate end points in 768&#215;768 pixel binary images) they each took almost exactly the same length of time (around 0.06 s).  I wish to believe this is due to the R2007b optimisations rather than that I was mistaken, although I can&#8217;t be sure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/05/13/lookup-tables-makelut-applylut/#comment-20769</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:32:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/05/13/lookup-tables-makelut-applylut/#comment-20769</guid>
		<description>Mark&#8212;The lut method would probably be faster than what you are currently doing to detect end points.  If a crossing configuration can be determined using only a 3-by-3 neighborhood, then that also could be done using &lt;tt&gt;applylut&lt;/tt&gt;.  Your suggestion about about adding these options to &lt;tt&gt;bwmorph&lt;/tt&gt; is a good one; I'll follow up with you by e-mail about that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark&mdash;The lut method would probably be faster than what you are currently doing to detect end points.  If a crossing configuration can be determined using only a 3-by-3 neighborhood, then that also could be done using <tt>applylut</tt>.  Your suggestion about about adding these options to <tt>bwmorph</tt> is a good one; I&#8217;ll follow up with you by e-mail about that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Hayworth</title>
		<link>http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/05/13/lookup-tables-makelut-applylut/#comment-20768</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Hayworth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/05/13/lookup-tables-makelut-applylut/#comment-20768</guid>
		<description>Steve, it looks like this could be used to do two operations that are missing from bwmorph, and they are to identify crossings (triple and quad branch points) and (like you said) end points.  Right now I'm getting end points by computing the spur and subtracting it from the original (is the lut method better than that method?).  I have no way of computing crossings of skeleton lines where the shape is a "Y" or a "+" so maybe this could be used for that purpose.  Even better would be to add these in to bwmorph as options - any chance of that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve, it looks like this could be used to do two operations that are missing from bwmorph, and they are to identify crossings (triple and quad branch points) and (like you said) end points.  Right now I&#8217;m getting end points by computing the spur and subtracting it from the original (is the lut method better than that method?).  I have no way of computing crossings of skeleton lines where the shape is a &#8220;Y&#8221; or a &#8220;+&#8221; so maybe this could be used for that purpose.  Even better would be to add these in to bwmorph as options - any chance of that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
