You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The sum of values over each column (projection) has to be equal to the sum of values in the whole original image by definition!
The simple 4 by 4 example proofs it is not.
Given the 4x4 matrix with all zeros, except one entry at (1,1) equal to 1.
Rotating this matrix in 15° increments, we get the following sums for each projection:
0° / 90° : 1
15° / 75° : 0.9915
30° / 60° / 120° / 150° : 0.9492
45° / 135° : 0.9278
105° / 165°: 0.9922
The 15 ° rotation is not cherry picked, but a random example.
This is undocumented and unexpected information loss which is hard to predict or compensate for.
This fluctuation could mess with image recognition and shape descriptors (one quick example would be 10.1016/j.cviu.2005.06.005 , which squares each value) and probably other tasks for which sinograms are used.
My guess is, that this is due to some issue in the interpolation when rotating the matrix. Bilinear interpolation should not lose this information to my understanding, so this is still unexpected..
This issue was found together with the issues described in #3846 but is independent of it.
System information (version)
Detailed description
The sum of values over each column (projection) has to be equal to the sum of values in the whole original image by definition!
The simple 4 by 4 example proofs it is not.
Given the 4x4 matrix with all zeros, except one entry at (1,1) equal to 1.
Rotating this matrix in 15° increments, we get the following sums for each projection:
The 15 ° rotation is not cherry picked, but a random example.
This is undocumented and unexpected information loss which is hard to predict or compensate for.
This fluctuation could mess with image recognition and shape descriptors (one quick example would be 10.1016/j.cviu.2005.06.005 , which squares each value) and probably other tasks for which sinograms are used.
My guess is, that this is due to some issue in the interpolation when rotating the matrix. Bilinear interpolation should not lose this information to my understanding, so this is still unexpected..
This issue was found together with the issues described in #3846 but is independent of it.
Steps to reproduce
Issue submission checklist
forum.opencv.org, Stack Overflow, etc and have not found any solution
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: