Talk:Region growing
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Poor English[edit]
I don't understand how this makes sense[edit]
"...it can also be classified as one of the pixel-based image segmentations because it involves the selection of initial seed points." Clearly, this is a pixel-based method; however, it isn't clear (to me, at least) that this designation is in any way related to selecting seed points... right?65.183.135.231 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Crap[edit]
This shit article doesn't make any fucking sense. It must have been written by some nerd who has never seen a pussy up close and who can barely spell.
- You could be right in some things, but you cannot just insult other persons like that. Go and ask your mom for some advice, and then come back with your head between your legs.
Crap[edit]
Totally agree with the previous person. And the definition of the algorithm is the general definition of segmentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinoz (talk • contribs) 06:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Return of the real[edit]
Real men (and women) fix stuff up, rather than carping from the sidelines.
—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC))
Copyright Violation[edit]
It appears that a lot of the text actually wasn't infringing the copyright. I've tried to save this here. It could be easier than rewriting the article from scratch. Orthogonal1 (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, but fortunately not necessary. :) We had the content first. See above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Computationally expensive[edit]
It is not NP-hard and thus explanations are missing, why and in what way it should be "expensive". Further either make bullet points in a list or sentences. The structure is not nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:1E6E:800:17DB:9114:769D:6340 (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- I will change that part. This is definitely wrong and I found some papers probably copying that fact citing random sources. The method is comparably fast, since each pixel would be at maximum visited 4 times. The slow part is the memory access, which should be considered as a different kind of problem and can be adapted. If this method would be slow,
referencing any benchmarks or a hierachy fo speed would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:1E6E:800:17DB:9114:769D:6340 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
