Newer
Older
The second test (\RefFig{fig:hard}) compares the performance of both
detectors on a quite difficult image with a lot of gradient noise.
The new detector provides less outliers and misaligned segments, and
globally more relevant informations to infere the structure of the brick wall.
\begin{figure}[h]
%\center
\begin{tabular}{
c@{\hspace{0.1cm}}c@{\hspace{0.1cm}}c@{\hspace{0.1cm}}}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig_method/parpaings.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig_hard/hardOld.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Fig_hard/hardNew.png}
\begin{picture}(1,1)
{\color{dwhite}{
\put(-286,4.5){\circle*{8}}
\put(-171,4.5){\circle*{8}}
\put(-58,4.5){\circle*{8}}
}}
\put(-288.5,2){a}
\put(-173.5,2){b}
\put(-60.5,2){c}
\end{picture}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Evaluation on a quite textured image:
1) imput image,
2) results of the old detector,
3) results of the new detector.}
\label{fig:hard}
\end{figure}