Oversplitting by watershed

Josh Warner silvertrumpet999 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 14 00:20:02 EST 2012


Thanks for the input, Tony and Stefan.  Unless someone else wants to tackle 
this, I'll see what I can put together over a week or so.  

Josh


On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:26:58 PM UTC-6, Tony S Yu wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <ste... at sun.ac.za<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Josh Warner <silvertr... at gmail.com<javascript:>> 
>> wrote:
>> > In contrast, `is_local_maximum` has a much simpler API.  It doesn't 
>> have the
>>
>> Just for the record, `is_local_maximum` is mentioned in:
>>
>> http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920020219.do
>>
>> So, if we could write a unified backend but still expose this
>> function, that'd be good!
>>
>> Stéfan
>>
>>  
>
> I'm also in favor of keeping `is_local_maximum` and `peak_local_max` as 
> separate functions, primarily because they have different return values 
> (both of which have valid use cases). But... I'd be in favor of deprecating 
> the current `is_local_maximum` in the `morphology` subpackage and renaming 
> it to `is_local_max` in the `feature` subpackage. Unfortunately emoving the 
> current function would break code (although the transition could be smooth 
> if it's removed after a couple of releases with a deprecation warning). 
> What do you think?
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Josh Warner <silvertr... at gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> I can probably put something together.  What should the goal be?  Expand 
>> the featureset of one algorithm, such that the other can be collapsed into 
>> a wrapper function with no loss of backwards compatibility, or expand the 
>> featureset of one and eliminate the other (carefully changing all internal 
>> references to the old function)?  
>>
>> The latter might be the best/ideal world solution, but even if all of the 
>> internal references were changed appropriately it could break 3rd party 
>> code.  I would lean toward the former option, moving in the direction of 
>> `is_local_maximum`, though this does appear to be the slower algorithm at 
>> present. 
>>
>
> As mentioned above, I think it'd be best to have a single core function, 
> but keep the other function (though possibly renamed and relocated) as a 
> wrapper of the core function. If `is_local_maximum` is slower, I think it 
> would be good to start with `peak_local_max` as the base.
>
> As a first pass, it'd be great to fix the border issue with 
> `peak_local_max`. (It might be nice to make this optional, since a user may 
> want to require that the peak must be `min_distance` away from the image 
> border---I could go either way on whether or not this is optional). Adding 
> masking and a footprint parameter would be great, and I assume it should be 
> straightforward (note that `scipy.ndimage.maximum_filter` has a footprint 
> parameter).
>
> Best,
> -Tony
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scikit-image/attachments/20121113/e808c973/attachment.html>


More information about the scikit-image mailing list