Talk:Image processing

Untitled
The "connectivity" link isn't correct. I can't find anything on Wikipedia that would be good to link to. -- Nowhither 01:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

--117.211.48.144 (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)mugilBold text== 2006 merge proposal ==

Should this article be just changed to a redirect to digital image processing? In practice, they're equivalent.

I certainly think that if there's any merging to happen, image Processing should be merged into digital image processing. DIP is the standard practice today and I rarely hear the digital being dropped. Though, I'd rather neither be merged and things stay as they are. Cburnett 06:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's OK. I respect your opinion, and won't try to merge the articles again. --Fredrik Orderud 13:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think nearly everyone says image processing and means digital image processing. Every book I have about this topic are named "... Image Processing ..." So I think we should merge the two articles, and redirect from digital image processing to image processing. We should use the same terms as the rest of the world, even when its not correct. Malte singapore 08:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Either these articles should be merged or "image processing" should be linking to "digital image processing" and "analogue image processing" and only covering general things applying to both areas of image processing. ylloh 16:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont't think that these articles should be merged but linked together. I share the opinion that "image processing" should point to "digital image processing" and "analogue image processing". Under "image processing", for example, one could cover general definitions and techniques which can be applied to other areas of image processing. Jf.pals 06:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with merging the articles.

Oppose. Sounds to me like the consensus is to let image processing link to the others. This will leave place to talk about the optical versus digital methods, etc. Dicklyon 01:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

References and Further Reading
I think this article would be better with the References/Further Reading Sections removed. First, the referenced books do not seem to be the best available on this topic (a lot of standard books would need mentioning first IMHO) and second, the references should rather be included in the digital image processing page. Let me know if you feel otherwise. --Hobbes (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally agreed. Too many of these CS articles are just coat-racks for someone's favorite books. --Adoniscik(t, c) 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.218.16.135 (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge some parts of Image processor, Image processing, Digital image processing
Planed by me for years, but had no time. Tagremover (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Content added to this article in October 2012 seems to have duplicated one or more published sources. The material may have been copied from: Acoustical Imaging: Techniques and Applications for Engineers by Woon Siong Gan. This material has been removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 50.246.99.245 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is the content?
The second paragraph states: "This article is about general techniques that apply to all of them." Then there is no discussion of general techniques that apply to all of them. In fact, there are only two additional paragraphs, which are only tangentially related to image processing. I came here for analog image processing and found nothing, and notably, there is but a single sentence at analog image processing, which is self-referential, completely unhelpful, and relies on digital image processing for its basis. Regardless, this article is pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.97.99 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's gone. In this edit, the only edit ever by User:Mms731, 4800 bytes were added, in 2012, mostly copied straight out of this book and another book mentioned above.  Recently in 2014, someone noticed and took out the copyright violation.  So now someone needs to try again to write the article.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed "This article..." since there isn't one. Should this page be a redirect to something useful? Volunteer1234 (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I redirected to digital image processing as suggested above. There was also talk of merging but since there is nothing to merge a redirect is more appropriate. Volunteer1234 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)