Within the field of computer vision the development of algorithms with predictable performance is of major concern. Before using a certain algorithm we like to know how well it performs and whether it is suitable at all for a given task. To answer these questions, we need quantitative characterizations of the performance of algorithms. This includes a statement of obtained results for certain performance measures (e.g., the localization accuracy) as well as the specification for which image classes and under which assumptions this performance can be guaranteed. On the one hand, such a characterization is a major step towards a sound description of algorithms as well as the foundation of the field of computer vision. On the other hand, it serves a clear practical need. To solve a certain task it is generally required that we have to select certain existing algorithms which solve a subtask (e.g., edge detection). However, in computer vision there are often a large number of approaches and algorithms which have been designed to solve the same subtask. Since often only scarce information is given on the performance of a certain algorithm and also comprehensive comparisons with other schemes can hardly be found, the selection of a suitable algorithm is very difficult and can actually be compared with ‘playing dice’. In practical applications it is therefore often necessary to implement several algorithms and to find out on his own which algorithm is best suited.
[1]
Hans-Hellmut Nagel,et al.
Volumetric model and 3D trajectory of a moving car derived from monocular TV frame sequences of a street scene
,
1981,
Comput. Graph. Image Process..
[2]
Karl Rohr,et al.
Evaluation of corner extraction schemes using invariance methods
,
1996,
Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Pattern Recognition.
[3]
Azriel Rosenfeld,et al.
Gray-level corner detection
,
1982,
Pattern Recognit. Lett..
[4]
Paul Beaudet,et al.
Rotationally invariant image operators
,
1978
.
[5]
Karl Rohr,et al.
Multi-Step Procedures for the Localization of 2D and 3D Point Landmarks and Automatic ROI Size Selection
,
1998,
ECCV.
[6]
Cordelia Schmid,et al.
Comparing and evaluating interest points
,
1998,
Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision (IEEE Cat. No.98CH36271).
[7]
Karl Rohr.
On 3D differential operators for detecting point landmarks
,
1997,
Image Vis. Comput..
[8]
Karl Rohr,et al.
Refined localization of three-dimensional anatomical point landmarks using multistep differential approaches
,
1998,
Medical Imaging.