Absolutely Markus. Let's also keep in mind that comparing segmentation results is a very tricky exercise. There's no such thing as a perfect segmentation result IMHO.
Pierre 2013/2/12 Markus Metz <markus.metz.gisw...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Pierre Roudier > <pierre.roud...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks Markus and Eric, >> >> I have similar feedback when testing on various SPOT5 scenes. XL results are >> not entirely identical of course, but reasonably similar, so I support >> Markus' decision. > > I can make the results more similar, but one reason why results are > different between i.segment and i.segment.xl is that I had the > impression that i.segment is doing over-segmentation, i.e. merging too > liberally with the effect that some segments (objects), in particular > large segments, were more heterogeneous than justified by the given > merging threshold. With i.segment.xl, I tried to get results that are > very similar to the eCognition results. > > Markus M > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Pierre >> >> On Feb 11, 2013 10:53 PM, "Markus Metz" <markus.metz.gisw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have tested again i.segment and discovered that for the NC Landsat >>> 2000 imagery the module takes nearly 7 hours for reasonable >>> segmentation. The i.segment.xl module does the same in 10 seconds. The >>> region consists of 250 000 cells, not so much. In the documentation it >>> says that processing the entire ortho image takes about a day. With >>> the xl version it takes about 10 minutes. I am going to move the xl >>> version to trunk and keep the original GSoC version in addons for >>> reference. >>> >>> Markus M >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Eric Momsen <eric.mom...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Sorry for not responding right away, I hadn't realized the code sprint >>> > started (finished?!) already. There is a paper deadline this month and >>> > a >>> > thesis to write that has consumed my attention... I don't think I'll >>> > have >>> > time for anything in February. If noone else wants/needs to do it >>> > sooner, I >>> > hope to have a break between my thesis writing and starting work this >>> > summer. So in April(???) I will find some time to dedicate to GRASS >>> > code >>> > and/or documents again. >>> > >>> > -Eric >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Moritz Lennert >>> > <mlenn...@club.worldonline.be> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On 02/02/13 17:37, Markus Metz wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Moritz Lennert >>> >>> <mlenn...@club.worldonline.be> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Markus and Yann, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> If you have the time it might be a great opportunity to use the >>> >>>> community >>> >>>> sprint to get i.segment from the addons to trunk. What do you think ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I would prefer i.segment.xl for speed reasons and memory control, but >>> >>> the shape functionality in i.segment would need to be ported to >>> >>> i.segment.xl first. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I meant i.segment in a global sens, not distinguishing .xl, so that's >>> >> perfectly fine with me. >>> >> >>> >> Eric, any chance for you to look at integrating your work on shapes >>> >> into >>> >> i.segment.xl ? >>> >> >>> >> Moritz >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> grass-dev mailing list >>> grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev -- Scientist Landcare Research, New Zealand _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev