I have been experimenting with the microsoft reader for a while now and have been getting a lot of false rejections. Cleaning the reader and more care in pressing help, but not that much. The minutiae are not very consistant in position or number. I was puzzled that Daniel reported such good results.
Comparing my image to the sample image on the wiki shows that mine is much "muddier". I have gaps in the ridges, smeary areas, and various unclear spots. Many of these make for minutiae that are really artifacts rather than true ridge patterns. I considered that my reader was defective and captured a blurry image. Then I got my son (age 22) to try it. His fingerprint is as clear as the sample on the wiki! I could clearly see all of the true minutiae on his print. I hate to think that I am getting old and my fingerprint is getting soft, but I guess so. The windows software works well for me, but it captures the same finger 4 times to enroll a print. We could do the same and just enroll the subset of minutiae that consistantly match. For verification, we would consider the proportion of enrolled minutiae that matched. It is easy to make suggestions like this, but not so easy to do the implementation work. Looking at the code, I can see that you would have to bring some match data out of the bozorth library routines or add some functionality to them to generate this subset and use it. As it is now, the main match function just returns a score. _______________________________________________ fprint mailing list [email protected] http://lists.reactivated.net/mailman/listinfo/fprint
