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
When using the skeletonizeImage I noticed that regions at the border have a strange behavior.
In fact, when I zero-pad the labels passed to skeletonizeImage and un-pad after that, I get different results compared to the unpadded version:
This is expected because the underlying distance transform only considers distances to pixels inside the image domain. Looking at your results, the padding solution might be more desirable.
Besides this, two observations are strange: (1) Without apparent reason, regions behave quite differently in terms of skeleton side arms. (2) In the unpadded result, the skeleton of the upper left region is disconnected -- this shouldn't happen. It would be interesting to compare with results from flipped/rotated versions of the input. Theoretically, the skeleton should be equivariant (modulo tie breaking).
Hi Ullrich ,
When using the skeletonizeImage I noticed that regions at the border have a strange behavior.
In fact, when I zero-pad the labels passed to skeletonizeImage and un-pad after that, I get different results compared to the unpadded version:
Image:
Connected Comp:
Without Any Padding :
With Padding:
Here is the code
Greetings Thorsten
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: