2
$\begingroup$

So, my professor says that two pixels are connected if:

  1. they are neighbours; and
  2. their intensities satisfy a specified criterion of similarity.

And depending on the type of neighbours they are, they can be 4-, 8- or m-connected.

But the book I'm following, by Gonzalez and Woods, says the following about connectivity:

Let S represent a subset of pixels in an image. Two pixels p and q are said to be connected in S if there exists a path between them consisting entirely of pixels in S.

Now, if I understand what a "path" is, then according to the book, two pixels can be connected even if they're not neighbours and are still connected by a path. This directly contradicts the first condition in my professor's definition.

Is one of them wrong? What am I missing?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

In short, there is on the one hand a pair-wise definition: two pixels are "simply" connected when they fulfill certain conditions on pixel spatial adjacency and/or brightness. Typically, for pixels of intensity $I_{m,n}$, they can be said connected locally if $|m-m'|\le 1$ and $|n-n'|\le 1$ (for the 8-topology, or $|I_{m,n}-I_{m',n'}|\le 1$ if you allow a non-local valued difference.

Then, one can define connected pixel components, by extending the above notion by proximity, possibly along a path, with other conditions on the distances, or with certain notions of homogeneity.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.