[gdal-dev] [RFC] [GDAL] Idea for GSoC, 2014

[Dmitriy Baryshnikov]

Hi,

I think we need to decide it here, not to create lot of proposals. The 
second idea is very interesting. Maybe it worth to create some common 
interface (or API) to add new methods BRISK, SURF, SIFT etc.
You can develop you realisation of BRISK and demonstrate how-to one can 
use it via such common interface.
E.g. in GDALComputeMatchingPoints add enum for algorithms or use exist  
papszOptions.

Best regards,
     Dmitry

14.03.2014 17:28, Kshitij Kansal ?????:
> Hello everyone
>
> Continuing the previous discussion, I would like to propose something 
> and the community's suggestions are welcomed/needed. I can understand 
> that this thread is a little old, so let me remind you that its 
> regarding the automatic geo-referencer idea. The idea is also proposed 
> on the GDAL ideas page (http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/SummerOfCode).
>
> Based on the previous discussions, what came out was that we can 
> improve the current implementation of SIMPLE SURF in GDAL which was 
> developed as a part of 2012 GSOC GDAL Correlator project, to support 
> *large data* and *multi spectral imagery*. And then apply this 
> *modified* algorithm for the geo-reference purposes. Now I have been 
> in touch with Chaitanya, who is willing to mentor this project, and 
> there are some things on which we would like to know community's 
> suggestions/response.
>
> There are basically two things that can be done regarding this project:
>
> 1. As mentioned above, we can modify the SIMPLE SURF algorithm and 
> make it much better for the geo-reference purposes. Already, a lot had 
> been discussed on this and we have a fairly good idea about what is to 
> be done.
>
> 2. One more thing that can be done is that we can implement BRISK 
> algorithm[1] instead of SURF along with the FLANN matcher for this 
> purpose. What advantages this thing offers is that it is fairly fast 
> and gives comparable outputs along with that it works well with fairly 
> large data sets. So we do not need to segment the imagery as we would 
> have done in the case of SURF. Also added to this, this algorithm also 
> has no patent issues. We had a lot of problem regarding patent issues 
> in SIFT/SURF and we discussed them at length on the mailing list as well.
>
> One thing that I fell can be done is that  two proposal can be 
> written, one for each and then community can decide accordingly which 
> one is more useful. Or we can decide it here itself..?
>
> Kindly provide your valuable comments and suggestion..
>
> With Regards,
>
>     Kshitij Kansal
>
>     Lab For Spatial Informatics,
>
>     IIIT Hyderabad
>
> 1. http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/rg/papers/brisk.pdf 
> <http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/%7Evgg/rg/papers/brisk.pdf>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20140314/0344501c/attachment.html>