Can image processing ops be standardised? What would an interface be?

[thompson318]

In GitLab by @MattClarkson on Oct 29, 2018, 22:00

I think it is at least worth having some common usage examples for each package, such as the one described above. We might then find that some examples lend themselves to becoming a class/command line progam/gui etc.

We should also try to standardise some function naming conventions between different modules e.g. everything has a .DoProcessing() or .ModifyImage() method, so that we could pass in different modules as arugments to a class/pipeline, which can then run them all automatically without having to call them individually. A quick example:

useful_modules = [distortion, interlace, resize]

MyPipeline.set_input(camera)
MyPipeline.set_modules(useful_modules)

MyPipeline.Start()
# This would then grab data and call .DoProcessing() on each module in useful_modules

[thompson318]

In GitLab by @MattClarkson on May 15, 2019, 10:15

@StephenThompson, @ThomasDowrick - I suggest closing this one. In SmartLiver, which is our biggest example to date, we just concatenated sequences of commands, either from OpenCV/Numpy directly, or from SNAPPY libraries. The logic is so app specific, that i think there isn't much benefit in overthinking things. The total amount of python was small.

So, I think SNAPPY libraries just focus on writing well designed functions/classes, at whatever is the most natural level of abstraction, well coded, well unit tested.

Then any researcher any where can use them, as they see fit.

I think this is in line with what Steve previously alluded to.

[thompson318]

In GitLab by @StephenThompson on May 15, 2019, 11:31

Yes, I'm happy to close.

[thompson318]

In GitLab by @MattClarkson on May 15, 2019, 11:31

closed