Advertisement

A Study on the Effects of Noise Level, Cleaning Method, and Vectorization Software on the Quality of Vector Data

  • Hasan S. M. Al-Khaffaf
  • Abdullah Zawawi Talib
  • Rosalina Abdul Salam
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5046)

Abstract

Correct detection of line attributes by line detection algorithms is important and leads to good quality vectors. Line attributes includes: end points, width, line style, line shape, and center (for arcs). In this paper we study different factors that affect detected vector attributes. Noise level, cleaning method, and vectorization software are three factors that may influence the resulting vector data attributes. Real scanned images from GREC’03 and GREC’07 contests are used in the experiment. Three different levels of salt-and-pepper noise (5%, 10%, and 15%) are used. Noisy images are cleaned by six cleaning algorithms and then three different commercial raster to vector software are used to vectorize the cleaned images. Vector Recovery Index (VRI) is the performance evaluation criteria used in this study to judge the quality of the resulting vectors compared to their ground truth data. Statistical analysis on the VRI values shows that vectorization software has the biggest influence on the quality of the resulting vectors.

Keywords

salt-and-pepper raster-to-vector performance evaluation engineering drawings 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Tombre, K.: Graphics recognition: The last ten years and the next ten years. In: Liu, W., Lladós, J. (eds.) GREC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3926, pp. 422–426. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu, W.: Report of the Arc Segmentation Contest. In: Graphics Recognition: Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Recent Advances and Perspectives, pp. 363–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wenyin, L.: The third report of the arc segmentation contest. In: Liu, W., Lladós, J. (eds.) GREC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3926, pp. 358–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shafait, F., Keysers, D., Breuel, T.M.: GREC 2007 Arc Segmentation Contest: Evaluation of Four Participating Algorithms, vol. 5046. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Gorman, L.: Image and document processing techniques for the RightPages electronic library system. In: Proc. 11th IAPR International Conference on Pattern Recognition. Conference B: Pattern Recognition Methodology and Systems, The Hague, pp. 260–263 (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Story, G.A., O’Gorman, L., Fox, D., Schaper, L.L., Jagadish, H.V.: The RightPages image-based electronic library for alerting and browsing. Computer 25(9), 17–26 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chinnasarn, K., Rangsanseri, Y., Thitimajshima, P.: Removing salt-and-pepper noise in text/graphics images. In: The 1998 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Circuits and Systems, Chiangmai, pp. 459–462 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simard, P.Y., Malvar, H.S.: An efficient binary image activity detector based on connected components. In: Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, pp. 229–233 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Al-Khaffaf, H.S.M., Talib, A.Z., Abdul Salam, R.: Internal Report, Artificial Intelligence Research Group, School of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vectory 5.0. Raster to Vector Conversion Software. Graphikon GmbH, Berlin, Germany, http://www.graphikon.de
  11. 11.
    VPstudio ver 8.02 C6. Raster to Vector Conversion Software, Softelec, Munich, Germany, http://www.softelec.com, http://www.hybridcad.com
  12. 12.
    Scan2CAD 7.5d. Raster to Vector Conversion Software, Softcover International Limited, Cambridge, England, http://www.softcover.com
  13. 13.
    Phillips, I.T., Chhabra, A.K.: Empirical performance evaluation of graphics recognition systems. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 21(9), 849–870 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chhabra, A.K., Phillips, I.T.: Performance evaluation of line drawing recognition systems. In: Proc. 15th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Barcelona, pp. 864–869 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, W.Y., Dori, D.: A protocol for performance evaluation of line detection algorithms. Machine Vision and Applications 9(5-6), 240–250 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hasan S. M. Al-Khaffaf
    • 1
  • Abdullah Zawawi Talib
    • 1
  • Rosalina Abdul Salam
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer SciencesUniversiti Sains MalaysiaUSM PenangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations