| Who | When |
Messages | |
|
|
|
Dave Bradley
|
1
|
 |
|
03-08-2006 09:32 AM ET (US)
|
|
Please post your thoughts about SIFT here.
|
| Pete Barnum
|
2
|
|
|
03-19-2006 09:31 PM ET (US)
|
|
SIFT seems like a pretty clever technique, but in reading the paper, I felt like they just pulled a bunch of values out of a hat. They claim invariance to all sorts of phenomena, like rotation and illumination, but they don't really present proofs. I hear that SIFT is popular among some groups, so it's probably worth something. Still, I'd like to have a better understanding of the underlying reasoning for such features, not just values of sigma.
|
| David Thompson
|
3
|
|
|
03-20-2006 09:21 AM ET (US)
|
|
After working with the algorithm for a while now I'm pretty impressed with its performance. Nevertheless there's a sense in which its a bit TOO discriminative for object recognition. Lowe's illumination example aside, a small change in lighting can easily thwart recognition. Is SIFT really summarizing essential characteristics of an object, or simply identifying a few "accidental" points that happen to be descriptive?
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
07-20-2006 05:15 AM ET (US)
|
|
Deleted by topic administrator 07-21-2006 09:03 AM
|
| nonodelal
|
5
|
|
|
08-17-2008 06:02 AM ET (US)
|
|
troceltdar
|
| coppermine
|
6
|
|
|
01-13-2009 10:24 AM ET (US)
|
|
There are better alternative like SURF nowadays. However, new implementations, for example by Vedaldi, are still coming out and provide more performance in purely computational means.
|
| hanyujoys
|
7
|
|
|
09-24-2009 11:11 PM ET (US)
|
|
Support of the Lou Zhu, Lou Zhu worked hard Signature---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Nothing is impossible for a willing heart. ugg classic cardy |
