5
$\begingroup$

There is a new proposal in Area 51 to start up an Image Processing & Computer Vision site.

I had my doubts about it: Will this mean that DSP.SE and Cross Validated SE will lose members to the detriment of both?

However @Drazick has convinced me that it will draw more people to all three sites.

Do you have any concerns about this?

For @MBaz: the discussion happened here.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Can you post/link the arguments in favor of having three sites? $\endgroup$ – MBaz Sep 29 '15 at 21:54
  • $\begingroup$ @MBaz: Added a link to the Area 51 discussion at the bottom of the "question". $\endgroup$ – Peter K. Sep 30 '15 at 11:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks. I can see both sides of the issue. I have no strong position. If subsets of people want their own site and can sustain it, more power to them, I guess. Sometimes I wish we had a site just for digital communications, but I'm happy to be part of DSP too. $\endgroup$ – MBaz Sep 30 '15 at 13:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why the need to split ? Image processing is part of signal processing. Imagine if physics.se split in all sub-domains, or if stackoverflow split in all different languages. As a 1D signal engineer, I like to see questions about image processing and learn, which would not happen if the site was only dedicated to a narrow subject. $\endgroup$ – MaximGi Mar 8 '16 at 16:10
5
$\begingroup$

I think there should be a separation.
The area is close very close, but people are different.

The way things now, it makes this forum "Low Quality" for Image Processing to the least and it reflects how things here (Why would you need here simple low quality questions like how to adjust brightness of image in MATLAB here?).
In the long run it will make the life span of a question in DSP longer with more relevant people have the chance seeing it.

The way things now, the Image Processing and Computer Vision world loses people to other communities (StackOverflow, Cross Validate) and not to DSP.
It means this forum doesn't attract the correct people to answer and develop high quality community for Image Processing and it is needed.

It would be great of people reading here could support there (More up votes for questions):

http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/86832/image-processing-and-computer-vision

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ any discipline can be divided and sub-divided to smaller and more specialized sub-disciplines. all's i can say is that with the image processing questions, there are many terms and many published algs that i have no idea what they are. it's sorta like Computer Science being merged with Electrical Engineering in some universities. the fields have some things in common and many things that are not. $\endgroup$ – robert bristow-johnson Jun 4 '16 at 22:20
5
$\begingroup$

In light the decision to close the mentioned proposal, I'd like to propose change the name of this Community.

Could someone change the community name into Signal & Image Processing?

It would bring a lot more people into the forum.

Thank You.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure how we'd do that, but I'll see what can be done. $\endgroup$ – Peter K. May 14 '16 at 16:25
  • $\begingroup$ @PeterK., That would be amazing Peter. Thank You. $\endgroup$ – Royi May 14 '16 at 18:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Drazick May I suggest: Signal Processing, Image Analysis and Vision (or if too long): Signal, Image, Vision $\endgroup$ – Laurent Duval May 14 '16 at 19:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Signal Processing, Image Processing and Computer Vision :-). What do you say? For years the field was called Image Processing and I believe that is what people search for. $\endgroup$ – Royi May 14 '16 at 22:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Drazick I do believe that having one term for processing, the second for analysis paves the field better. But it is less compact. $\endgroup$ – Laurent Duval May 15 '16 at 20:42
  • $\begingroup$ I also feel inclined to support the name change but I think that "Computer Vision" should become a tag within "Digital Image Processing". $\endgroup$ – A_A May 28 '16 at 10:34
  • $\begingroup$ @PeterK. any updates? $\endgroup$ – Royi May 29 '16 at 4:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Drazick : Based on a conversation in the Teachers' Lounge, we need a community-based suggestion for the name change. To that end, I've added a question on meter here. Please think about what it says. $\endgroup$ – Peter K. May 31 '16 at 14:23
3
$\begingroup$

I think that here on DSP we have people from mainly three fields: image/video processing, audio processing and digital communications. These fields sometimes feel nearly orthogonal: most of the time I have no clue what the image processing people are talking about and I mostly ignore these questions.

However, that's no reason to have a sperate site, in my opinion. The beforementioned fields all share the same tool, which is digital signal processing. It's no problem if there are "shadow communities" inside DSP. On StackOverflow there are probably thousands of expert groups which cannot contribute to the others, still they have programming in common. Tags are a tool to manage these groups.

If there must be a seperate Image processing site, it should be sharply seperated from DSP, i.e. only very specific theoretical/mathematical problems should be discussed there. Everything slightly implementation/algorithm related should go here to DSP. I have the feeeling, however, that this separation would be hard to implement. Thus, personally, I'm against having a seperate image processing site.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ In time where data science sips from the computer programming well, I aggree with @Deve: I have the chance to work in both image and vibration processing (acoustics, geophysics), and both domains can improve by exchanging ideas, even if this is not the mainstream. A major conference like ICASSP still has a lot of image processing talks. $\endgroup$ – Laurent Duval Oct 29 '15 at 21:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .