Posted by
michael shaffer on
Apr 24, 2006; 10:47am
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Histogram-modification-before-auto-thresholding-tp3703002p3703006.html
Gabriel writes ...
> On Monday 24 April 2006 03:56, Cheok Yan Cheng wrote:
> > Recently, when I try out the auto-threshold function in ImageJ, I
> > found that two following two methods produce completely different
> > result:
> >
> > (A) Process->Binary->Threshold
> > (B) Image->Adjust->Threshold.
>
> They are 2 different things.
I believe you are correct, however, the mystery remains. Why are there 2
methods?
Genuinely, Michael Shaffer :o)
SEM/MLA Research Coordinator
(709) 737-6799 (ofc)
(709) 737-6790 (lab)
(709) 737-6193 (FAX)
http://www.mun.ca/creait/maf/ http://www.esd.mun.ca/epma/
Inco Innovation Centre
c/o Memorial University
230 Elizabeth Avenue
P.O. Box 4200
St. John's, NL A1C 5S7
> > It seems that if the largest histogram is much greater
> > (2x) than the 2nd largest histogram, the largest histogram will be
> > reduced to 1.5x of the 2nd largest histogram.
> >
> > May I know what is the reasons behind for doing so? Is
> there any more
> > information on this?
>
> I believe that this is for display purposes (so one does not
> get a very large peak in the image histogram).
>
> > P/s For my case, my image get much better result through (B)
>
> I don't think so. Method A is to *adjust* the threshold
> value. Method B converts the image into a binary image
> according to the *current* value set (either manually or
> automatically using method A).
>
> I hope it helps.
> G.
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1503 (20060423) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>
http://www.eset.com>
>