Talk:Optical flow

2D-3D

Optical flow can be 2 or 3 dimensional, it can even be n-dimensional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawoodmajoka (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The author specifically states that the optical flow is, essentially, a dense motion field. That would make it a noun. However, both this article and the motion estimation article use the term as a verb. Will DIP please make up their collective minds about this and stop confusing the rest of us. Alternatively, please stop using this redundant term all together. Dhatfield (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

On more careful consideration I think that this should be merged into motion estimation. Any expert volunteers? Dhatfield (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be inclined to keep optical flow and motion estimation as distinct topics. Motion estimation is the term used in image coding, while optical flow is used in animal and machine vision. Optical flow is used by humans (and other animals) in ways that have little to do with the image coding algorithms. Optical flow is usually about recovering 3D structure and 3D egomotion, while motion estimation is a pure 2D concept in typical usage. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Dick. Overhaul complete. I'm fairly sure it contains errors, but it's improved. Dhatfield (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I copyedited your stuff to be more concise, fix misspellings and grammar, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with optic flow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.58.129 (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

YES! Please discuss at this page to avoid duplicate discussions....

Vastly improved from when I last looked here! If you want more pics, talk to me. Dhatfield (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that because optical flow is an important component of animal vision that it must also be an important part of computer vision is a logical fallacy. It is equivalent to asserting that, since flapping wings are essential to animal flight, any flying machine must have flapping wings. 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.211.131.111 (talk)

2D+t instead of 3D+t

The current text describes the case of 3D+t data, but 2D+t is by far the most common type of data used for optical flow techniques and what is discussed in almost all of the literature. I will change to 2D+t shortly unless someone can motivate why 3D+t is better. --KYN (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As the author of this part of the article, I have now switched the flow equations to the 2D format. Dawoodmajoka (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Slightly strange vector maths

Normally the dot product is between two vectors $\mathbf {u} \cdot \mathbf {v}$, or if you use the transpose notation, a matrix product between a row and a column vector written without a dot: $\mathbf {u} ^{T}\mathbf {v}$. This article's first section uses *both* of these together, which looks a little odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.199.11 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Optical flow sensor

I think the sensors should be discussed in the same article as the methods; no need to separate the material into two short articles just because one involves hardware. Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought about that as well- about adding a section to "optical flow" regarding computational hardware. However the page for optical flow itself needs updating as well, since the term can refer to both the psychological phenomena as well as the algorithms used to measure it. This subject brings together biology, neuroscience, image processing, robotics, and so on... User:Trevmicro