Kenneth,
as so often, you don't address me or who ever you want to address.
Why do you do that? It is not only impolite, it makes it difficult to reply.
I agree widely with what you write, but the question about the quality
of manual results is obviously answered by the OP who states that he
would and could do it manually but seems to shrink from effort.
Apparently the OP is not aware of the effort that is required to achieve
fully automatically or partly automatically plus manually created
results for the 50 images.
Regards
Herbie
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Am 09.03.24 um 18:17 schrieb Kenneth Sloan:
I have lived in both worlds. When advising CS students, I stressed doing
rigorous studies and trying for full automation and rigorous testing. When
advising collaborators, I stressed throwing post-doc labor at the problem and
solving such problems manually. Even then, it’s essential to point out the
need for testing repeatability and inter-grader agreement.
“Fully automated” is very expensive, when you actually need reliable results
yesterday.
“Manual” does not always guarantee correctness.
One the third hand, measurement error is a common source of noise that can be
dealt with by increasing sample size - measurement methods don’t have to be
perfect in order to be useful.
Finally, both automatic and manual methods should always include an “I don’t
know” option. Both humans and algorithms should be aware of their limitations
and be willing to say “this problem is outside my range of competence”.
--
Kenneth Sloan
[email protected]
Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others.
--
ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html
--
ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html
