Author | Message |
---|---|
Redalb
Posts: 22
|
Posted 13:05 Apr 20, 2011 |
1_20_2 Generated Image
1_20_2 No Filtering
1_20_2 With Average Filter using 3x3 Kernel
Same input as the first image. No filtering, and K = 4
Same input as the first image. With Average Filter using 3x3 Kernel, and with K = 4
Last edited by Redalb at
14:39 Apr 20, 2011.
|
ashasabeer
Posts: 55
|
Posted 13:29 Apr 20, 2011 |
we should use "average filter" rt .that means we should calculate all the 3*3 pixels and take the average Is it correct ? |
Redalb
Posts: 22
|
Posted 14:26 Apr 20, 2011 |
Correct
1_20_2 Updated filter result
1_20_4 Updated filter result
5_40_4 Created Image
5_40_4 No Filter
5_40_4 Filtered
Last edited by Redalb at
14:39 Apr 20, 2011.
|
cbort
Posts: 95
|
Posted 21:28 Apr 22, 2011 |
My filtering seems to be doing very little if its even doing anything at all.. I cant tell the difference to be honest...
After filtering do I do anything different from the procedure of the non filtered shrinking Last edited by cbort at
21:54 Apr 22, 2011.
|
Redalb
Posts: 22
|
Posted 01:00 Apr 23, 2011 |
My advice would be to make an averages array the same size as the original image, each value in the averages array is the average value for that spot in the original. If you average pixels in the original as you go along it will mess up the averages. You would end up with averages of pixels that were already averaged.
Last edited by Redalb at
01:03 Apr 23, 2011.
|
cbort
Posts: 95
|
Posted 16:19 Apr 23, 2011 |
Thanks for your help Todd :) Filtered:
Non-Filtered:
Original:
|