Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 58,602
Re: Microcontrast

Joofa wrote:

AiryDiscus wrote:

Joofa wrote:

AiryDiscus wrote:

Joofa wrote:

Regardless of filters a natural image would have overwhelming large fraction of image content in the low frequency range. That is due to the statistical correlation property of natural images. Filtering can even emphasize that fact more, as you say.

Such a property cannot be general.

It is a general property of natural images.

E.g. images of modern architecture (angular, many lines) will be dominated by higher frequency content.

Yes, such an image would have more energy in the higher frequency regime than say an image of vegetation. However, typically it would still have more energy in the low frequency regime.

When someone uses a word like typically, it generally means they are not so sure.

Listen I can't argue this point with you. This is so established in image processing world that people know it. I guess, you are the one not in the 'know'.

Can you cite the applicable theorem?

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow