Talk:Digital image processing/Archives/2014

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Merge with Image Processing?

I don't think so. That page has a much broader scope, with optical, analog, etc. Let's keep them separate. Dicklyon 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Merge tag removed. --Jiuguang (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I placed the merge tag there, as I think the separation of methodology from the objective is somewhat arbitrary. This article could use a little bit of expansion and prose, I think being able to start a sensible discourse on the whole kit would be good. User A1 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image processing vs. editing

Dear Wikipedians, This page is a far cry of what I would expect when I searched for "Digital image processing" I expected to see prose describing how popular image editing programs were used as a virtual digital darkroom. I do my digital image processing to improve composition, crop out extranious areas, remove noise, correct brightness, improve contrast, correct alignment, add dramatic effects, etc. You get the picture.

I would like to flesh out this article, but all of the above does not fit well with what is already there. I edited the page to add one paragraph. Please let me here your views. Phil 22:28, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think the digital image editing has more of the information you expected to see. Is there some way of clarifying that this digital image processing article is full of boring theory :-), that people really should click over to digital image editing to get the practical information on how to make their digital photos look better? --DavidCary 23:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there any difference between processing and editing? If not, a merge and redirect is in order. Alf ^melmac 00:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there's a BIG difference. People who does image editing are artists, photographers, or merely hobbysts. They use software (like Photoshop) to perform many tasks, as Phil pointed out. However, there are some other people, mainly engineers, mathematicians, and computer-scientists, who design the algorithms that perform those tasks. Put in other words, image editors USE PhotoShop's features, while image processing guys design those features. So, i doesn't make sense to merge these articles, there are very different tasks, although their names are a bit confussing. --Juan 06:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed External Links

These seem to be reasonable sources, but a long list of external links is an invitation to linkspam. Can these be turned into inline references instead?

Thanks. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 05:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would delete the lot. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad sentence

Is this sentence OK?! "Images taken by popular digital cameras often need processing to improve their quality, a distinct advantage digital cameras have over film cameras."

No, it's not OK. I rewrote that bit, and I hope you like it better. Dicklyon 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Link appropriate?

Is this link appropriate (link-owner) or is it considered commercial: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrimg.htm

I removed it because you linked your own stuff, and it leads to info about your CV and consulting; and that host sometimes gives me popup ads. The only time you should link your own stuff is for copies of things that have already been vetted, e.g. via peer review, such as copies of your published articles that you have a right to distribute personally but are otherwise copyrighted. See WP:NOR#Citing_oneself, WP:EL, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links,_images,_or_media_files and m:When_should_I_link_externally. Dicklyon 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you once again for the information, I am learning to be a decent Wikipedian. I apologize for my misconduct and the inconvenience caused by my behavior. The "popup-ads" are Google adds, I did not know this was considered inappropriate? All references to "personal identification" or "professional information", when linking from a page such as "digital imaging", should be removed from personal webpages linked to from Wikipedia? What about personal information and links on the "user" page at Wikipedia, is it forbidden to mention your professional occupation, is this considered inappropriate? No link or reference to professional information is allowed according to Wikipedia guidelines?Pvosta 11:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The rules and guidelines may not address such things explicitly, but the general concept of vanity and self promotion is discussed in various places. I'm just saying what I think will make your suggested pages more acceptable to other editors. To me, pages that involve popup ads are a definite non-starter. Dicklyon 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Chunawalla's additions

On Aug. 20 2007, User:Chunawalla doubled the size of the article, adding tons of non-wikified and non-referenced text, three really bad JPEG images of diagrams, of unspecified origin, and a viewpoint that may be too narrow. I think I'll revert it all for now and proposed this advice: Chunawalla, please work on the article more incrementally. Fit your material in, using wiki links to connect with what we have already. Certainly do specify your sources; ask here if you need help structuring references. If the figures are from you, please render them to PNG or SVG or some thing that treats them better. If they're not yours, say where they're from and whether you really do own the copyright. Dicklyon 18:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My Additions

Would like to restructure the article. Have got a lot of material on Digital Image Processing. I have made a number of slideshows. Please do read my content and suggest appropriate changes. I will be adding information to the links(See also) section as well.. Please do not mind me changing the see also section, as I felt these links would fall in line with the above treatment of Digital Image Processing. Thank you, once again... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chunawalla (talk • contribs).

The most important thing about your new material is to get good references. The list of refs that we have now is worthless, since they are not tied by footnotes to statements that they support. If you're going to add new material, I would insist that you not make the problem worse by having even more unsourced material. Please put refernences on anything you add, or tell me your sources if you want my help doing so. Otherwise, I will feel the unsourced material will need to be removed. Dicklyon 18:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And your images are now much worse, as small PNGs, hardly readable. Why did you make them smaller, instead of larger? You can use the "thumb" attribute to place small versions and have the big ones still accessible. Dicklyon 18:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Working on list of references. I don't get it how to use the thumb attribute. Could you please help me out in the same.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chunawalla (talk • contribs) 01:47, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

OK, I did a thumb example. I used the bigger JPEG, which is pretty awful because it was rendered with lots of aliasing from something else. How did you make it? Can you make a simpler one instead without all the distractions? Dicklyon 04:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And please fix the headings to proper case, not capitals; see other articles or the previous state of this article for examples. Dicklyon 04:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed again

I have reverted Chunawalla's additions for a second time. I appreciate the effort expended, but the material doesn't constitute a net improvement to this article. The material added included an abstruse mathematical definition of what an image is and an excruciatingly difficult-to-understand graph. Chunawalla also removed all of the external links, the navbox, categories and interwikis and replaced the see also section with a set of redlinks.

This article could still benefit from a bit of science (although I'm unsure what the proper scope of this article should be), but anything added should contain necessary context for ease of reading, and should be referenced, preferably to one of the dead-tree sources listed in the Refs section. — mholland (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think that if he wants to contribute, he can start with a definition via a sentence such as "An image is sometimes mathematically defined as ..." and give a reference. Then we'll see where he's coming from at least. Hopefully he's picking up a bit about wiki editing, too, and won't invest so much effort in large-scale changes that need to be reverted. Dicklyon 07:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge some parts of Image processor, Image processing, Digital image processing

Planed by me for years, but had no time. Tagremover (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)