fx and fy value looks different from the original paper

[mrteera]

inv = scipy.linalg.inv(A+gamma*np.eye(n))
...
xn = np.dot(inv, gamma*x + fx)

https://github.com/juliusbierk/activecontourmodel/blob/master/active_contour_model.py#L165

If I understand correctly, fx value in the code above use RectBivariateSpline() to fill the missing points.

But an equation (19) from the original paper: It has minus sign in front of fx. Could you please help me to understand why the implementation in the code looks different from the original paper?

[juliusbierk]

Dear Teera,

Sorry I don't have the time at the moment to check if I used a different convention. But if I am using a different convention, this should nothing more than amount to a flip of the signs of w_line,w_edge, I think. Hope that helps.

Best wishes, Julius

On 24 May 2017 at 16:47, Teera Laiteerapong notifications@github.com wrote:

inv = scipy.linalg.inv(A+gammanp.eye(n)) ... xn = np.dot(inv, gammax + fx)

https://github.com/juliusbierk/activecontourmodel/blob/ master/active_contour_model.py#L165

If I understand correctly, fx value in the code above use RectBivariateSpline() to fill the missing points.

But an equation (19) from the original paper http://web.cs.ucla.edu/%7Edt/papers/ijcv88/ijcv88.pdf: [image: screen shot 2560-05-24 at 10 43 32 pm] https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/1741387/26412304/81882ffc-40d2-11e7-9270-08e6dd4e8a8c.png It has minus sign in front of fx. Could you please help me to understand why the implementation in the code looks different from the original paper?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/juliusbierk/activecontourmodel/issues/1, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABzfTi2lQxRaTUx-cBlHCv5hXcy0R5pjks5r9FEGgaJpZM4NlTjz .