Hello Andras, sorry for the delayed answer.... No better idea as working with a fixed ir threshold....but I do not know if different films need different thresholds, did not much tests yet with different material......
Fixed a minor bug in my code (missed some pixels of the border around the ir threshold area). Now the interpolation of the sky region is a little bit improved..... Peter On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 05:22:10PM +0100, Major A wrote: > > > Hello Andras, > > > > did some test with your 'duster' and with a very similar own algorithm, see > > http://www.ciselant.de/projects/antidust/ > > > > Your duster seems to miss some pixels and/or areas of dust. > > Maybe test if you hit enough random choosen pixel to calcuate the > > interpolation and iterate some times over the nx,ny loops (rembering the > > already interpolated pixels). > > Great! Yes, I should make the radius larger as well. To be honest, > I've never actually tested the code with slides taken out of a dog's > mouth... the defects I have are usually quite small. > > It seems mine gives fewer artefacts in smooth regions (sky) why yours > looks better in detailed areas (buildings), where mine tends to create > random noise. > > Have you got any ideas as to how we can detect obscured pixels more > reliably? > > Andras > > =========================================================================== > Major Andras > e-mail: [email protected] > www: http://andras.webhop.org/ > =========================================================================== > _______________________________________________ > Sane-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.mostang.com/mailman/listinfo/sane-devel -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Seiderer E-Mail: [email protected]
