Re: Accurate edge detection?

For some reason, my Google Usenet ****tal is not automatically producing
quotes on my reply to your post therefore I have done it manually.

"About the last part: are you sure most of the influence of 'optics,
sensor size and shape,
demosaicing, and size reduction' can be represented by a linear
transformation on acquired values?

I would think you meant not 'represented' but 'estimated'.

I would be really interested in knowing about any existing (published)
proofs in sup****t of your response."

It is not a linear transformation on "acquired values," y, but on x which
represents 
a higher resolution discrete image that  approximates the continuous
(infinite resolution) image falling on the sensors.  x' is an estimate of
x.  Depending on the estimation method, x' may or may not be a linear
function of observations, y.  

The matrix A represents convolution and decimation and is not invertible. 
It is well known that most, if not all, optical effects are convolutions,
a
linear transformation. Possibly the convolution kernel is a function of
spatial coordinate (as in the case of the bad Hubble telescope lens) but
it still can be represented by a linear transformation, A.  The effect of
pixel sensor size and shape is represented by continuous convolution
followed by decimation which again can be incor****ated into A.  Some, but
not all cases of demosaicing are also linear transformations.



  



--
Message posted using
http://www.talkaboutgraphics.com/group/sci.image.processing/
More information at http://www.talkaboutgraphics.com/faq.html