Diagnostically acceptable irreversible compression (DAIC) is the amount of lossy compression which can be used on a medical image to produce a result that does not prevent the reader from using the image to make a medical diagnosis. The term was first introduced at a workshop on irreversible compression convened by the European Society of Radiology (ESR) in Palma de Mallorca October 13, 2010, the results of which were reported in a subsequent position paper. == Determination == The "amount of compression" in irreversible compression used to be determined by the compression ratio, where the acceptable minimum is determined by the algorithm (typically JPEG or J2K) and the data type (body part and imaging method). Such a definition is easy to follow, and has been used by medical bodies in 2010 around the world. However, its downside is obvious: the compression ratio tells nothing about the real quality of the image, as different compressors can produce vastly different qualities under the same file size. For example, the JPEG format of 1992 can perform as well as many modern formats given newer techniques exploited in mozjpeg and ISO libjpeg, yet they would be lumped together with the legacy encoders in such a scheme. The image compression community has long used objective quality metrics like SSIM to measure the effects of compression. In the absence of good data regarding SSIM, the ESR review of 2010 concluded that it is still difficult to establish a criterion for whether a particular irreversible compression scheme applied with particular parameters to a particular individual image, or category of images, avoids the introduction of some quantifiable risk of a diagnostic error for any particular diagnostic task. A 2017 study showed that a SSIM variant called 4-G-r (4-component, gradient, structural component of SSIM) best reflects changes in images that affect the decision of radiologists out of 16 SSIM variants. A 2020 study shows that visual information fidelity (VIF), feature similarity index (FSIM), and noise quality metric (NQM) best reflect radiologist preferences out of ten metrics. It also mentions that the original version of SSIM works as poorly as a basic root-mean-square distance (RMSD) for this purpose, a result echoed by the 2017 study. The 4-G-r modification is not tested in the study.
Coupled pattern learner
Coupled Pattern Learner (CPL) is a machine learning algorithm which couples the semi-supervised learning of categories and relations to forestall the problem of semantic drift associated with boot-strap learning methods. == Coupled Pattern Learner == Semi-supervised learning approaches using a small number of labeled examples with many unlabeled examples are usually unreliable as they produce an internally consistent, but incorrect set of extractions. CPL solves this problem by simultaneously learning classifiers for many different categories and relations in the presence of an ontology defining constraints that couple the training of these classifiers. It was introduced by Andrew Carlson, Justin Betteridge, Estevam R. Hruschka Jr. and Tom M. Mitchell in 2009. == CPL overview == CPL is an approach to semi-supervised learning that yields more accurate results by coupling the training of many information extractors. Basic idea behind CPL is that semi-supervised training of a single type of extractor such as ‘coach’ is much more difficult than simultaneously training many extractors that cover a variety of inter-related entity and relation types. Using prior knowledge about the relationships between these different entities and relations CPL makes unlabeled data as a useful constraint during training. For e.g., ‘coach(x)’ implies ‘person(x)’ and ‘not sport(x)’. == CPL description == === Coupling of predicates === CPL primarily relies on the notion of coupling the learning of multiple functions so as to constrain the semi-supervised learning problem. CPL constrains the learned function in two ways. Sharing among same-arity predicates according to logical relations Relation argument type-checking === Sharing among same-arity predicates === Each predicate P in the ontology has a list of other same-arity predicates with which P is mutually exclusive. If A is mutually exclusive with predicate B, A’s positive instances and patterns become negative instances and negative patterns for B. For example, if ‘city’, having an instance ‘Boston’ and a pattern ‘mayor of arg1’, is mutually exclusive with ‘scientist’, then ‘Boston’ and ‘mayor of arg1’ will become a negative instance and a negative pattern respectively for ‘scientist.’ Further, Some categories are declared to be a subset of another category. For e.g., ‘athlete’ is a subset of ‘person’. === Relation argument type-checking === This is a type checking information used to couple the learning of relations and categories. For example, the arguments of the ‘ceoOf’ relation are declared to be of the categories ‘person’ and ‘company’. CPL does not promote a pair of noun phrases as an instance of a relation unless the two noun phrases are classified as belonging to the correct argument types. === Algorithm description === Following is a quick summary of the CPL algorithm. Input: An ontology O, and a text corpus C Output: Trusted instances/patterns for each predicate for i=1,2,...,∞ do foreach predicate p in O do EXTRACT candidate instances/contextual patterns using recently promoted patterns/instances; FILTER candidates that violate coupling; RANK candidate instances/patterns; PROMOTE top candidates; end end ==== Inputs ==== A large corpus of Part-Of-Speech tagged sentences and an initial ontology with predefined categories, relations, mutually exclusive relationships between same-arity predicates, subset relationships between some categories, seed instances for all predicates, and seed patterns for the categories. ==== Candidate extraction ==== CPL finds new candidate instances by using newly promoted patterns to extract the noun phrases that co-occur with those patterns in the text corpus. CPL extracts, Category Instances Category Patterns Relation Instances Relation Patterns ==== Candidate filtering ==== Candidate instances and patterns are filtered to maintain high precision, and to avoid extremely specific patterns. An instance is only considered for assessment if it co-occurs with at least two promoted patterns in the text corpus, and if its co-occurrence count with all promoted patterns is at least three times greater than its co-occurrence count with negative patterns. ==== Candidate ranking ==== CPL ranks candidate instances using the number of promoted patterns that they co-occur with so that candidates that occur with more patterns are ranked higher. Patterns are ranked using an estimate of the precision of each pattern. ==== Candidate promotion ==== CPL ranks the candidates according to their assessment scores and promotes at most 100 instances and 5 patterns for each predicate. Instances and patterns are only promoted if they co-occur with at least two promoted patterns or instances, respectively. == Meta-Bootstrap Learner == Meta-Bootstrap Learner (MBL) was also proposed by the authors of CPL. Meta-Bootstrap learner couples the training of multiple extraction techniques with a multi-view constraint, which requires the extractors to agree. It makes addition of coupling constraints on top of existing extraction algorithms, while treating them as black boxes, feasible. MBL assumes that the errors made by different extraction techniques are independent. Following is a quick summary of MBL. Input: An ontology O, a set of extractors ε Output: Trusted instances for each predicate for i=1,2,...,∞ do foreach predicate p in O do foreach extractor e in ε do Extract new candidates for p using e with recently promoted instances; end FILTER candidates that violate mutual-exclusion or type-checking constraints; PROMOTE candidates that were extracted by all extractors; end end Subordinate algorithms used with MBL do not promote any instance on their own, they report the evidence about each candidate to MBL and MBL is responsible for promoting instances. == Applications == In their paper authors have presented results showing the potential of CPL to contribute new facts to existing repository of semantic knowledge, Freebase
Automatic scorer
An automatic scorer is the computerized scoring system to keep track of scoring in ten-pin bowling. It was introduced en masse in bowling alleys in the 1970s and combined with mechanical pinsetters to detect overturned pins. By eliminating the need for manual score-keeping, these systems have introduced new bowlers into the game who otherwise would not participate because they had to count the score themselves, as many do not understand the mathematical formula involved in bowler scoring. At first, people were skeptical about whether a computer could keep an accurate score. In the twenty-first century, automatic scorers are used in most bowling centers around the world. The three manufacturers of these specialty computers have been Brunswick Bowling, AMF Bowling (later QubicaAMF), and RCA. == History == Automatic equipment is considered a cornerstone of the modern bowling center. The traditional bowling center of the early 20th century was advanced in automation when the pinsetter person ("pin boy"), who set back up by hand the bowled down pins, was replaced by a machine that automatically replaced the pins in their proper play positions. This machine came out in the 1950s. A detection system was developed from the pinsetter mechanism in the 1960s that could tell which pins had been knocked down, and that information could be transferred to a digital computer. Automatic electronic scoring was first conceived by Robert Reynolds, who was described by a newspaper story at the time as "a West Coast electronics calculator expert." He worked with the technical staff of Brunswick Bowling to develop it. The goal was realized in the late 1960s when a specialized computer was designed for the purpose of automatic scorekeeping for bowling. The field test for the automatic scorer took place at Village Lanes bowling center, Chicago in 1967. The scoring machine received approval for official use by the American Bowling Congress in August of that year. They were first used in national official league gaming on October 10, 1967. In November, Brunswick announced that they were accepting orders for the new digital computer, which cost around $3,000 per bowling lane. Bowling centers that installed these new automatic scoring devices in the 1970s charged a ten cents extra per line of scoring for the convenience. == Description == Each Automatic Scorer computer unit kept score for four lanes. It had two bowler identification panels serving two lanes each. The bowler pushed it into his named position when his turn came up so the computer knew who was bowling and score accordingly. After the bowler rolled the bowling ball down the lane and knocked down pins, the pinsetter detected which pins were down and relayed this information back to the computer for scoring. The result was then printed on a scoresheet and projected overhead onto a large screen for all to see. The Automatic Scorer digital computer was mathematically accurate, however the detection system at the pinsetter mechanism sometimes reported the wrong number of pins knocked down. The computer could be corrected manually for any errors in the system; similarly, human errors, such as neglecting to move the bowler identification mechanism, could be corrected for by manual action. The scorer could take into account bowlers' handicaps and could adjust for late-arriving bowlers. The automatic scorer is directly connected to the foul detection unit. As a result, foul line violations are automatically scored. Brunswick had put ten years of research and development into the Automatic Scorer, and by 1972 there were over 500 of these computers installed in bowling centers around the world. AMF Bowling, competitor to Brunswick, entered into the automatic scorer computer field during the 1970s and their systems were installed into their brand of bowling centers. By 1974, RCA was also making these computers for automatic scoring. == Reception and further developments == The purposes of the computerized scoring were to avoid errors by human scorers and to prevent cheating. It had the side benefit of speeding up the progress of the game and introducing new bowlers to the game. Score-keeping for bowling is based on a formula that many new to bowling were not familiar with and thought difficult to learn. These casual bowlers unfamiliar with the formula thought the scores given by the computers were confusing. Some bowlers were not comfortable with automatic scorers when they were introduced in the 1970s, so kept score using the traditional method on paper score sheets. The introduction of this device increased the popularity of the sport. Automatic scorers came to be considered a normal part of modern bowling installations worldwide, with owners and managers saying that bowlers expect such equipment to be present in bowling establishments and that business increased following their introduction. Brunswick introduced a color television style automatic scorer in 1983. Bowling center owners could use these style automatic scorers for advertising, management, videos, and live television. By the 2010s, these types of electronic visual displays could show bowler avatars and social media connections to publicize the bowlers' scores. Some are capable of being extended entertainment systems of games for children and adults. Some scoring systems support variations on traditional bowling, such as different kinds of bingo games where certain pins have to be knocked down at certain times or practice regimes where certain spares have to be accomplished. By this point, QubicaAMF Worldwide, an outgrowth of AMF, was one of the leading providers of bowling scoring equipment.
PressWise
PressWise was digital imposition software to quickly and easily impose most any variety of flat and folding layouts. It was acquired by the Aldus Prepress Group affectionately known in the print and publishing industry as the Aldus WiseGuys in August 1991 from Emulation Technologies Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio. It was further developed by the Aldus Press Group and launched as the first of many Aldus prepress products in 1993. It was subsequently owned by Adobe Systems, then Luminous Corporation (Seattle), then Imation, and finally ScenicSoft. PressWise was discontinued by ScenicSoft in 1999 ultimately. == History == In February 2009, the PressWise copyright was acquired by Aethos Technologies and a new print automation product was launched by its creator, Eric Wold of Santa Rosa, California. This new product has no relationship to the old imposition software of the same name. It's notable that Larry Letteney, former President of Creo Americas was a board member and shareholder of Aethos Technologies during its early phase. Datatech SmartSoft acquired exclusive distribution rights to the software in September 2009. In September 2010 Datatech SmartSoft completed the acquisition of the PressWise brand and product.
Masking (art)
In art, craft, and engineering, masking is the use of materials to protect areas from change, or to focus change on other areas. This can describe either the techniques and materials used to control the development of a work of art by protecting a desired area from change; or a phenomenon that (either intentionally or unintentionally) causes a sensation to be concealed from conscious attention. The term is derived from the word mask, in the sense that it hides the face from view. == In painting == Masking materials supplement a painter's dexterity and choice of applicator to control where paint is laid. Examples include the use of a stencil or masking tape to protect areas which are not to be painted. === Solid masks === Most solid masks require an adhesive to hold the mask in place while work is performed. Some, such as masking tape and frisket, come with adhesive pre-applied. Solid masks are readily available in bulk, and are used in large painting jobs. Paper products Kraft paper Butcher paper Masking tape Plastic film Frisket Polyester tape Stencils Silk screen === Liquid masks === Liquid masks are preferred where precision is needed; they prevent paint from seeping underneath, resulting in clean edges. Care must be taken to remove them without damaging the work underneath. Latex or other polymers Molten wax Gesso, typically a substrate for painting, but can also be applied to achieve masking effects == In photography == Masks used for photography are used to enhance the quality of an image. Representations of a scene—whether film, video display, or printed—do not have the dynamic contrast range available to the human eye looking directly at the same scene. Adjusting the contrast in an image helps restore some of the perceived qualities of the original scene. These adjustments are typically performed on "blown-out" highlights, and "crushed" or "muddy" shadow areas, where clipping has occurred; or on desaturated colors. Photographic masks are peculiar in that they are produced from the image they will alter, an exercise in recursion. Masks used to produce other effects are similar to those used in painting. === Controlling exposure === ==== Film ==== The basic methods of controlling exposure are dodging and burning, which respectively lighten (reduce exposure) and darken (increase exposure) areas of an image. The tools a film photographer uses range from shaped pieces of black material (such as studio foil, foam, and paper) to the photographer's hands. To create a photographic mask, a sheet of negative film is contact-exposed to the original film negative or slide positive in a particular way. Both films are then combined to produce a processed positive. The process is similar when applied using digital techniques: the inverse of the working image is reduced to an image mask; filters or other adjustments are then applied, using the mask to selectively block portions of the image. ==== Digital ==== Image editors offer at the very least a "Select All" command and a rectangular "marquee" selection tool. (The word "marquee" describes the "crawling ants" border used to highlight the active region.) Once a selection is created, further changes to the image will be confined to that area. To continue editing the rest of the image, the selection is either "deselected" or the entire image is selected. Advanced suites offer more ways to select portions of an image, as well as ways to combine these selections through. Selection masks can be switched between an editable greyscale image and a mask. They allow the user to create a mask using the suite's painting tools. === Contrast masking === When the contrast range of an image needs to be adjusted, a contrast mask is a simple solution. The processed image resembles what would be achieved when exposing through a neutral density filter, but the effects are focused highly upon the extreme regions of the image. The blocking areas of the mask coincide with the highlights of the image, and the permissive areas with the shadows, resulting in more detail appearing in each. ==== Film ==== The mask is often made from high-quality black-and-white film, such as Kodak Technical Pan, which allows for a degree of softening on the mask. Its processing time is reduced so as to not completely oppose the original negative. Both negatives are combined and registered, and collectively exposed with additional time to compensate for the presence of the mask. ==== Digital ==== Contrast masking is made simpler with digital editing. A grayscale version of the image is produced, either by desaturation or by calculating selected ratios of the image's color channels, inverted, and blurred. The mask and original image are blended together to produce the final processed image. Some image editors allow for refinement of the effect by changing the strength of the blend. Contrast masking can be considered to be the opposite of gamma correction, which adjusts the midtones of an image. Effects similar to contrast masking can be achieved by adjusting the response curves of an image. === Unsharp masking === A derivative of contrast masking is unsharp masking, an unusual term for a process intended to increase the apparent sharpness (acutance) of an image. Unsharp masking uses a blurred form of the image to increase contrast along regions of moderate contrast difference. Around edges, the blur region causes highlights to overexpose and shadows to underexpose. Taken to an extreme, the edges become overly visible and detract from the quality of the image—this is referred to as halation. Unsharp masking does not increase the actual sharpness, as it cannot recover details lost to blurring. ==== Film ==== Unsharp masking allows the photographer to sharpen areas that have become blurred in the original negative, due to long shutter speed/exposure time, or from using a wide aperture/"fast" lens. When creating the unsharp mask, extra space or diffusing material is added between the image and the mask to produce the necessary blur. ==== Digital ==== Unsharp masking has become automated in digital editing, with higher-end suites offering the process as a "tool" or "filter" in their standard sharpening kits—the actual creation of a mask is bypassed in favor of calculations that represent the mask's effect. The process depends on three factors: the radius of the blur, the strength of the effect, and the threshold degree of contrast above which the effect will be applied. (Adjusting the threshold allows the editor to apply the effect selectively upon moderately defined edges and ignore image noise.) Unsharp masking is computationally more complex than other sharpening algorithms, but results in a higher-quality remedy. Deconvolution allows for truer sharpening, but is much more complex than unsharp masking.
Czekanowski distance
The Czekanowski distance (sometimes shortened as CZD) is a per-pixel quality metric that estimates quality or similarity by measuring differences between pixels. Because it compares vectors with strictly non-negative elements, it is often used to compare colored images, as color values cannot be negative. This different approach has a better correlation with subjective quality assessment than PSNR. == Definition == Androutsos et al. give the Czekanowski coefficient as follows: d z ( i , j ) = 1 − 2 ∑ k = 1 p min ( x i k , x j k ) ∑ k = 1 p ( x i k + x j k ) {\displaystyle d_{z}(i,j)=1-{\frac {2\sum _{k=1}^{p}{\text{min}}(x_{ik},\ x_{jk})}{\sum _{k=1}^{p}(x_{ik}+x_{jk})}}} Where a pixel x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is being compared to a pixel x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} on the k-th band of color – usually one for each of red, green and blue. For a pixel matrix of size M × N {\displaystyle M\times N} , the Czekanowski coefficient can be used in an arithmetic mean spanning all pixels to calculate the Czekanowski distance as follows: 1 M N ∑ i = 0 M − 1 ∑ j = 0 N − 1 ( 1 − 2 ∑ k = 1 3 min ( A k ( i , j ) , B k ( i , j ) ) ∑ k = 1 3 ( A k ( i , j ) + B k ( i , j ) ) ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{MN}}\sum _{i=0}^{M-1}\sum _{j=0}^{N-1}{\begin{pmatrix}1-{\frac {2\sum _{k=1}^{3}{\text{min}}(A_{k}(i,j),\ B_{k}(i,j))}{\sum _{k=1}^{3}(A_{k}(i,j)+B_{k}(i,j))}}\end{pmatrix}}} Where A k ( i , j ) {\displaystyle A_{k}(i,j)} is the (i, j)-th pixel of the k-th band of a color image and, similarly, B k ( i , j ) {\displaystyle B_{k}(i,j)} is the pixel that it is being compared to. == Uses == In the context of image forensics – for example, detecting if an image has been manipulated –, Rocha et al. report the Czekanowski distance is a popular choice for Color Filter Array (CFA) identification.
Alias Eclipse
Eclipse was a professional 2D image editing program available on Silicon Graphics and Windows workstations. Designed to manipulate high-resolution images like digitized movie frames and photographs for print, it offered color correction tools, image processing effects, rudimentary paint features, and spline-based drawing and masking. == History == Eclipse was originally developed in the late 1980s by Full Color Computing, an early provider of photo retouch and color prepress software for Silicon Graphics workstations. Alias Research (later Alias Systems Corporation), a developer of professional 3D graphics applications for the SGI platform, purchased the rights to Eclipse in fall 1990. Alias developed Eclipse through the early to mid-1990s, releasing version 2.5 in 1995 with improvements to the speed of color correction, effects, and rendering. Xyvision's Contex Prepress division purchased exclusive rights to Eclipse from Alias in 1996, and released version 3.0 the following year. Eclipse was subsequently sold to German developer Form & Vision GmbH, which continued development and ported it to the Windows platform. In 1999, Form & Vision released a demo of Eclipse 3.1.3 on the SGI platform which was limited to 1600 x 1600 pixel images, then ceased development of Eclipse on the SGI platform. Eclipse was thereafter developed exclusively for the Windows platform, culminating with version 3.1.4 in 2001. In the same year the firm went bankrupt. == Features == Eclipse was designed to work with very large images that could not be manipulated in real time on contemporary computer systems due to memory limitations, and thus allowed the user to make modifications to a lower-resolution copy of the original image in "proxy mode." Brush strokes, color corrections, and other edits were saved in proxy mode, then applied to the full-size image in post processing. This method also allowed for batch processing of a high-resolution image sequence using the edits applied to the original proxy image. Other features included color correction and separation, warping, special effects, text, and shape masking. Wavelet image compression created by LuraTech was added to Eclipse 3.1.4