On Jul 29, 4:24=A0am, illywhacker <illywac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 9:20 pm, slus...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > On Jul 25, 2:15 pm,illywhacker<illywac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On Jul 23, 11:12 pm, slus...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > > > On Jul 23, 12:01 pm,illywhacker<illywac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 17, 7:54 pm, slus...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > You said: "If you know all the relevant
> > parameters, your life will be much easier, otherwise you will have to
> > infer these too."
>
> > Indeed! =A0Thanks very much for your time and advice.
>
> Dear Spencer,
>
> I am afraid that the problem you seem to think is relatively trivial
> is far
> from being so. You have the air of someone who thinks they know more
> than
> the people they are talking to, but alas a little knowledge is a
> dangerous
> thing.
>
> > You said: "If you know all the relevant
> > parameters, your life will be much easier, otherwise you will have to
> > infer these too."
>
> > Indeed! =A0Thanks very much for your time and advice.
>
> You seem to find this flippant or amusing, but it is the heart of the
> problem. How much information do you think you will need to predict
> the
> image using physics? First of all, you need to define 'edge' more
> precisely. Then you need to know the geometry of the particular edge
> you
> are dealing with, which may not boil down to a mere 'position', you
> need to
> know the illumination, its spectral content, etc., and you need to
> know the
> properties of the camera. How much of this information are you
> assuming you
> know? Are you assuming a simplified toy example, or some conditions
> related
> to a particular type of experiment? Which approximations are you going
> to
> make? Not geometric optics, obviously, since you speak of diffraction.
> Which of these parameters do you imagine will not affect the image
> formed
> by the edge?
>
> If some of the parameters are unknown, then you will have to deal with
> them
> in addition to the edge 'position'. There are well-defined
> mathematical
> ways of attacking this problem with probability theory, apparently
> unknown
> to you. If you can get over the idea that you are talking to a bunch
> of
> hick image processors, then I will say more.
>
> illywhacker;
Wow. Another fine example of how text-only communication can be
misconstrued. For this case, I'm honestly at a loss for how you came
to the conclusion that I have the idea that I'm "...talking to a bunch
of hick image processors..." I came to this newsgroup asking
questions because I knew I was ignorant, the topic was complex, and I
wanted to learn.
I've been off-line for a week and so just saw this. The point may be
moot to you now, but regarding my most recent note, here is a
breakdown of what I meant:
> > You said: "If you know all the relevant
> > parameters, your life will be much easier, otherwise you will have to
> > infer these too."
[Spencer quoting illywhacker]
Spencer's comment:
> > Indeed! [Meaning: I recognize that indeed this is a complex problem.
=
The solution is no doubt complex and (to me) difficult. Equivalent
respons=
es might have been: "You said it!" or "You ain't kidding!" or even
"Argghh=
.. I was hoping there was an easier solution, but my suspicion that this
is=
a daunting problem appear confirmed."]
Thanks very much for your time and advice. [Meaning: Thank you very
much for the time you've taken to reply to my query, and thank you for
your advice. I sincerely mean this.]
There may be a world of wise guys and assholes out there, but I try
not to be one of them.
Spencer
|
