|WikiProject Robotics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
The "connectivity" link isn't correct. I can't find anything on Wikipedia that would be good to link to. -- Nowhither 01:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Should this article be just changed to a redirect to digital image processing? In practice, they're equivalent.
I certainly think that if there's any merging to happen, image Processing should be merged into digital image processing. DIP is the standard practice today and I rarely hear the digital being dropped. Though, I'd rather neither be merged and things stay as they are. Cburnett 06:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- That's OK. I respect your opinion, and won't try to merge the articles again. --Fredrik Orderud 13:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think nearly everyone says image processing and means digital image processing. Every book I have about this topic are named "... Image Processing ..." So I think we should merge the two articles, and redirect from digital image processing to image processing. We should use the same terms as the rest of the world, even when its not correct. Malte singapore 08:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Either these articles should be merged or "image processing" should be linking to "digital image processing" and "analogue image processing" and only covering general things applying to both areas of image processing. ylloh 16:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I dont't think that these articles should be merged but linked together. I share the opinion that "image processing" should point to "digital image processing" and "analogue image processing". Under "image processing", for example, one could cover general definitions and techniques which can be applied to other areas of image processing. Jf.pals 06:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with merging the articles.
Oppose. Sounds to me like the consensus is to let image processing link to the others. This will leave place to talk about the optical versus digital methods, etc. Dicklyon 01:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
References and Further Reading
I think this article would be better with the References/Further Reading Sections removed. First, the referenced books do not seem to be the best available on this topic (a lot of standard books would need mentioning first IMHO) and second, the references should rather be included in the digital image processing page. Let me know if you feel otherwise. --Hobbes (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Totally agreed. Too many of these CS articles are just coat-racks for someone's favorite books. --Adoniscik(t, c) 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)