Timeline for OpenCV Motion Analysis: Optical Flow vs Motion History
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://dsp.stackexchange.com/ with https://dsp.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 7, 2015 at 11:36 | comment | added | Tolga Birdal | I guess this is a question for the other post. But, it becomes more robust, because you can easily add rigidity or planarity constraints. In plain optical flow, you assume no motion of pixels but try to get the correspondences relying on a smoothness prior or some regularization. | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 1:33 | comment | added | Manav Kataria | I read the other post before posting this. Would like to understand the analysis. Like why do you say "more robust and reliable"? | |
| Dec 29, 2014 at 7:39 | comment | added | Tolga Birdal | Updated the answer. | |
| Dec 29, 2014 at 7:39 | history | edited | Tolga Birdal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 177 characters in body
|
| Dec 29, 2014 at 1:22 | comment | added | Manav Kataria | Could you elaborate on what you mean by "establishing correspondences" | |
| Dec 29, 2014 at 1:18 | comment | added | Manav Kataria | @Tolga: I agree the difference between Farneback and LK. Would Farneback and LK be the same in quality and performance if LK considered all pixels to track? | |
| Dec 28, 2014 at 23:29 | history | answered | Tolga Birdal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |