Comparison of relevant results: (a) damaged images, (b) Darabi’s results [20], (c) Barnes’ results [12], (d) Huang’ results [16], (e) our results.</p
Comparison of the Jaccard’s indexes that were obtained for 3 × 3 millimeters superficial OCT-A image...
<p>(A) Comparison on the order 0 moment: . (B) Comparison on the order 1 moment: . (C) Comparison on...
Comparison of crack optimization results using different image recognition methods.</p
(a) Marked image. (b) Tampered image. (c) Tampered regions. (d) Second-stage detection of Hu et al.’...
(a) Marked image. (b) Tampered image. (c) Tampered regions. (d) Second-stage detection of Hu et al.’...
(a) Degraded image; (b) First input image; (c) Second input image; (d) Third input image; (e) Ours.<...
side-by-side comparison of our image restoration results and original distorted image sequens
Comparison of results obtained with sieving method and image-based method (C = 0.85) (%).</p
<p>A: The original first time point image. B: Linearly registered second time point image. Note that...
Results comparing Assessment #1 and Assessment #3 representing combined effects of both treatments.<...
side-by-side comparison of our image restoration results and original distorted image sequens
<p>(a) the fully sampled image; (b)-(d) are reconstructed images using analysis, balanced and synthe...
(a) First-stage recovery τ = 2,ψ= 7. (b) First-stage recovery τ = 3,ψ = 5. (c) First-stage recovery ...
<p>(a) restoration results using method [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/jo...
<p>Comparison of CRAE between PE (+) and PE (-) eyes in visual field damage in two subgroups based o...
Comparison of the Jaccard’s indexes that were obtained for 3 × 3 millimeters superficial OCT-A image...
<p>(A) Comparison on the order 0 moment: . (B) Comparison on the order 1 moment: . (C) Comparison on...
Comparison of crack optimization results using different image recognition methods.</p
(a) Marked image. (b) Tampered image. (c) Tampered regions. (d) Second-stage detection of Hu et al.’...
(a) Marked image. (b) Tampered image. (c) Tampered regions. (d) Second-stage detection of Hu et al.’...
(a) Degraded image; (b) First input image; (c) Second input image; (d) Third input image; (e) Ours.<...
side-by-side comparison of our image restoration results and original distorted image sequens
Comparison of results obtained with sieving method and image-based method (C = 0.85) (%).</p
<p>A: The original first time point image. B: Linearly registered second time point image. Note that...
Results comparing Assessment #1 and Assessment #3 representing combined effects of both treatments.<...
side-by-side comparison of our image restoration results and original distorted image sequens
<p>(a) the fully sampled image; (b)-(d) are reconstructed images using analysis, balanced and synthe...
(a) First-stage recovery τ = 2,ψ= 7. (b) First-stage recovery τ = 3,ψ = 5. (c) First-stage recovery ...
<p>(a) restoration results using method [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/jo...
<p>Comparison of CRAE between PE (+) and PE (-) eyes in visual field damage in two subgroups based o...
Comparison of the Jaccard’s indexes that were obtained for 3 × 3 millimeters superficial OCT-A image...
<p>(A) Comparison on the order 0 moment: . (B) Comparison on the order 1 moment: . (C) Comparison on...
Comparison of crack optimization results using different image recognition methods.</p
DOI
Add to ORKG