Advertisement

Image databases are not databases with images

  • Simone Santini
  • Ramesh Jain
Session 9: Image Databases
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1311)

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss a number of new problems that arise in image databases, and that set them apart from traditional databases. The fact that image databases are based on similarity, rather than matching, creates a whose set of new issues.Most noticeably, while matching is, by and large, a well defined concept, there are many possible types of similarities. In this paper, we consider the problem of simulating human similarity perception. We argue that a satisfactory solution is possible for preattentive similarity, and we present a general and comprehensive geometric similarity model.

Keywords

Image Database Feature Contrast Traditional Database Average Gray Level Fuzzy Predicate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    J. J. Benedetto. Gabor representations and wavelets. Contemp. Math., 19:9–27, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Phil Brodatz. Textures. A Photographic Album for Artists & Designers. Dover, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Myron Flickner, Harpreet Sawhney, Wayne Niblack, Jonathan Ashley, Qian Huang, Byron Dom, Monika Gorkani, Jim Hafner, Denis Lee, Dragutin Petkovic, David Steele, and Peter Yanker. Query by image and video content: the QBIC system. IEEE Computer, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. J. Gibson. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ramesh Jain and Amarnath Gupta. Computer vision and visual information retrieval. In Festschrift for Prof. Azriel Rosenfeld. IEEE Computer Soc., 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Julesz. Experiments in the visual perception of texture. Scientific American, 232:34–43, April 1975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carol L Krumhansl. Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density. Psychological Review, 85:445–463, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Liu and R. W. Picard. Periodicity, directionality and randomness: Wold features for image modeling and retrieval. Technical Report 320, MIT Media Laboratory Perceptual Computing Section, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lewis Petrinovich. Probabilistic functionalism; a concept of research method. American Psychologist, 34(5):373–390, May 1979.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Samet and A. Soffer. MARCO: MAp Retrieval by COntent. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 18(8):783–798, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simone Santini and Ramesh Jain. Gabor space and the development of preattentive similarity. In International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Vienna, 1996. available at http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/users/ssantini.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roger N. Shepard. Toward a universal law of generalization for physical science. Science, 237:1317–1323, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amos Tversky. Features of similarity. Psychological review, 84(4):327–352, July 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simone Santini
    • 1
  • Ramesh Jain
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Information EngineeringUniversity of California, San DiegoLa Jolla

Personalised recommendations