Path: news.mathworks.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!postnews.google.com!k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: ImageAnalyst <imageanalyst@mailinator.com>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: image processing
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <6a23af8b-30a4-4224-815d-7dfa30170fde@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
References: <fsns6q$ke7$1@fred.mathworks.com> <fsnv89$jkj$1@fred.mathworks.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.186.67.199
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1206925776 21824 127.0.0.1 (31 Mar 2008 01:09:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:09:36 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=75.186.67.199; 
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 
Xref: news.mathworks.com comp.soft-sys.matlab:459981


On Mar 30, 1:24=A0pm, "misty m." <donots...@smth.be> wrote:
> still impossible.. :/ i'm trying with different 'n' but the
> best i got is half od edges of my hole..
----------------------------------------------------

misty.m
Are you allowed to manually edit the image beforehand (like you're
just analyzing a few dozen images) or does it need to be totally
automated (because, for example, you need to process thousands of
images)?

Also it's hard to design a robust algorithm based on just one photo
because invalid assumptions could be made (like the holes will always
be on the left edge of the image or they always have the same
intensity or things like that).  You might want to consider posting
more images, otherwise the best we can do is to solve it for one image
but that may fail miserably in general because it was specialized for
just that one particular image.
Regards,
ImageAnalyst

By the way, misty, you should have started a new thread rather than
reply to Raymond's posting which in turn should have also been a new
thread rather than continuing on with muhammad's original thread.