Talk:Machine vision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Old stuff needing a section head

This article has much common with Computer vision, should these be combined?

- It may be wise to accept this discrimination, given that it's so widely accepted although quite arbitrary. Once agreed upon this, it might be useful to state it in each article: we should rememember that articles should be aimed for casual readers, seeking for a definition, not for "us" workers in the field. It might also be useful to organize information so that topics that are common to both subjects be placed in a single position, so to optimize updating and consultation, while placing specific and distinctive topics in the relevant articles. --Zava 19:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

- In my opinion, no, the articles should not be combined. There is quite a difference between academic study (computer vision) and industrial applications (machine vision). The fields are closely related but distinct. Professionals in computer vision and machine vision attend separate conferences, publish different trade magazines, and so on. No one in the machine vision field refers to it as "computer vision." -- Rethunk

I agree. Its a real faux pas to mix these terms up. Seabhcán 11:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we can say, that machine vision is applying computer vision to industrial applications (like robotics or quality control). It would explain, why we can see redundancy on the Wiki-pages, when it comes to more abstract concepts (f.e. in Processing methods: thresholding, edge detection, ...) wedesoft. 23:44, 5 Oct 2005 (BST).
I'd agree with that. (I work in this industry.) There is another aspect: Fashion. Researchers use the term most popular at the time. 'Machine Vision' was popular in the late 80-90 because at that time is was the cutting edge to apply it to real life, but it has become less 'cool' since. Today, Computer Vision is more often used in Universities and Machine Vision in Industry, but in reality the terms are interchangeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabhcan (talk • contribs)

I changed the first paragraph, as I found the recent edit's defintion of machine vision as applying to the "physical world" vague and misleading. Computer vision scientists as well as machine vision scientists and engineers analyze images captured from the real world. I also made a few quick edits to make some phrases more concise (e.g. "have the ability to" --> "can")

Time permitting, I'll come back and tweak the first paragraph again to make it a bit more elegant.--Rethunk 23:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


I' m currently doing thesis about vision based inspection system.. what should I used? computer vision or machine vision? confuse,,,?

Ric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.11 (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No nonsense organization of links (linking vs. advertizing)

Let us admit that self-linking is human. I still feel that a WikipediA should ideally provide independent and non-commercial information. On the other hand, commercial links are indeed a useful resource for users, who do seek a definition but may also want to find suppliers and solutions. So I propose that links are re-organized according to a "no-nonsens" and self regulated policy, such as regrouping them in "Institutional and didactic", "Non profit and public domain resources", "Commercial solution providers" (Or similar categories).

--Zava 17:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Machine/Computer Vision

The section 'machine vision' on the page that discriminate between computer and machine vision is wrong. There is no official distinction. BOTH extend to the field of robot/autonomous vehicle vision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.225.69 (talk • contribs)

I work in this field and I can tell you there is a distinction. Science is to engineering as Computer Vision is to Machine Vision. You can see this in the journals. Journals which mention Machine Vision are for industry and Computer Vision are for researchers. Seabhcán 09:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Seabhcán is right. I work in this field as well. Computer vision and machine vision have remained distinct for some time, though there is significant overlap. The distinction is not a matter of the trendiness of terms, nor is the distinction arbitrary, nor does the "proper" usage depend on whether academic departments in universities decide to use the terms "computer vision" or "machine vision" in their course offerings. -Rethunk 16:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating. If that is correct I have been working in Machine Vision all this time, not Computer Vision after all.194.80.51.227 10:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I found a ref that says: "...two major reasons for doing this—one is to perform experiments, which will help to provide an understanding of the processes of vision and to throw light on biological vision systems; the other is to permit computers to engage in practical applications such as control of machines. The first of these leads to the discipline known as computer vision, while the second leads to machine vision." Encyclopedia of Optical Engineering By Ronald G. Driggers. It might be good to say so and reference it in one or both articles, because it's news to me. Dicklyon 17:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the reference. This formulation of the distinction between computer vision and machine vision should certainly be quoted in the article. Some day I hope to get back to editing the article again. -Rethunk (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Computer Vision

This page sounds more like somebody's specific job description and does not properly introduce the huge scientific field of machine vision, which is a major modern topic of study in most computer science departments of universities around the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.225.69 (talk • contribs)

Seabhcán - try putting 'machine vision' into scholar.google.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.225.69 (talk • contribs)

I do this all the time - whats your point. Seabhcán 11:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Everyone is welcome to read further at scholar.google.com. That said, I'll agree again with Seabhcán; the unsigned comment to which he responded lacks a point. There are textbooks hundreds of pages in length that don't provide a "proper" (complete? comprehensive? broad? deep?) introduction to the field of machine vision. This article was an attempt to describe the field as it actually is


yeah i think they are so cibai. -Rethunk 16:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)