|
From: | David Squire |
Subject: | Re: [help-GIFT] 'Re: Ups. |
Date: | Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:56:33 +0100 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5 (Macintosh/20051201) |
Wolfgang Müller wrote: [snip]
Yes, with rewritten feature extraction code, this should be fine. The current code in GIFT has '256' hard-coded into it though.BTW, I do think that not rescaling will cause serious problems, since the feature extraction code is premised on 16x16 blocks at the lowest level, and using images of different sizes will result in the same block feature ID being used to refer to different image locations for different images. IDs are assigned simply by counting.Yes, this is clear. To translate: all images of one collection are to be resized to the same size. However, changing this size is not a problem (within limits). Right?
The best solution would probably be to rewrite the code so that it used a fixed depth quadtree, but tolerated non-square blocks. This would also have the advantage the texture distortions through the rescaling of non-square images would be avoided.
Regards and Happy Easter, David
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |