Talk:Machine vision

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Machine vision article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Robotics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tt1887. Peer reviewers: Dragonroll.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article is about both a term and a widely-varying set of endeavors which often go by that term It is the term most commonly used to try to assemble and refer to a set of endeavors in that field, although other terms are often used for subsets, supersets and partially overlapping sets of those endeavors.

So, the article needs to both describe the meaning of the term "machine vision", and then provide coverage of the field defined by that term. On the latter the article keeps getting nuked to the point where, 13 years after it's inception, this article about a large and important field looks like little more than a stub. While this may sometimes be an issue with the nukers, it also may also be vulnerable due to using too much etymology type wording in the coverage of the field, and generally organizing the whole article along entomology lines.

For example, let's say there's a common term "Native American History" and an article titled "Native American history" (which there isn't by that name) which opens with a definition of that term. As with machine vision, other groupings and titles may apply to that general topical area. Then, someone builds a section on the Puebloan Culture of the 13th century. That section should probably not be explicitly saying / repeating "Native American history includes the Pueblo Culture of the 13th century". Conversely, somebody should not be nuking that whole section because the sources don't explicitly say that Native American History includes Pueblo Culture of the 13th century. I think that we've had both of these issues here. I plan to try to work on the wording and organizational side. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The first step is to develop the etymology & definition section. I started but it needs more work. But I think that the material is well-contained within a couple of the cited sources.North8000 (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work; i've been watching. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Undid archiving of this section North8000 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your work here is certainly appreciated, North8000! I'm glad you stuck with the article and made it through the reversion wars. I hope one day to get back to editing the article. For example, the article could benefit from referencing the history of the industry written up in Nello Zuech's book Understanding and Applying Machine Vision. Rethunk (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I really appreciated your effort and I think you really did great job. I saw you used the book written by Steger, Carsten, Markus Ulrich; Christian Wiedemann. Are those people developed Halcon? I think this is a really powerful machine vision software.Tt1887 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I know the book better than the authors. I don't know the answer but will go look at the book to see if it has "about the author" info. I like the book because it has great mathematical depth and rigorousness in each area yet is broad enough to cover the field. Halcon is known as having a very powerful toolbox and less so of a development environment.North8000 (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Tt1887: Scratch what I said. I was thinking of the "Machine Vision Theory Algorithms practicalities book by Davies which I have. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Here's a first pass at a more generalized list.

• Automotive component inspection
• Inspection of cast, molded, machined and forged parts
• Train and vehicle examiner systems
• Wood product inspection
• Inspection of sub-assemblies
• Medical device inspection
• Labeling & Packaging Inspection
• Reading of Codes & Characters
• PCB & Semiconductor Inspection including Ball Grid Arrays (BGAs)
• Surface Inspection
• Automated space monitoring
• Robot and motion controller guidance

This might present a "sourcing that the sky is blue" quandary, but perhaps we can find a source for a similar list.

North8000 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Tweaked my list North8000 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply