|
Moose |
|
Don't make me assume my ultimate form!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 05/03/04
|
|
Posts: 1483
|
|
Loc: Outback, Australia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
Re: Monkey Revival
07/30/17 04:27 AM
|
|
|
> The tool is always going to give the same result.
No, not at all.
Some options have already discussed above: settings could allow the tool to work on the "average of all pixels in a region", and another for "average of the brightest 50 (or whatever) pixels in a region". Other settings could allow processing a colour reduced version of the image (reduce to 256 or 16 or whatever colours), another for a "gray scaled" version of the image, and so on. There's a large number of possible processing strategies. The tool can give different results (maybe better, maybe worse) depending on the processing strategy selected.
And that is just using simple statistical analysis techniques. When you add neural nets, genetic algorithms, OCR, advanced AI, etc into the mix (2 of these mentioned above), then the possibilities expand enormously.
Even without the advanced methods, if multiple simple statistical methods are used to process an image and results cross checked, then the tool should give higher accuracy and higher confidence in results.
I've now got 700+ images on file, and can re-process these to compare strategies and improve results. It's all just a bit of fun.
What started me thinking along these lines was the MH 370 crash and searching satellite photos for wreckage. Picking out light coloured wreckage in the middle of a blue ocean (or dark jungle) and stripping out the effects of clouds, boats, houses, etc.
Then this "identify the 0/1's in chips" cropped up so that people can repair their old games, and I thought - ooohhhhhhh, same kind of problem.
Messing around and processing data is great fun, even if if it goes nowhere and achieves nothing.
Moose
|
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: Monkey Revival
Reply
Re: Monkey Revival
