A comparison of 2D vs. 3D thresholding of X-ray CT imagery

By T. Elliot, R. Heck. 2007

48 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Civil and Structural Engineering, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Mechanical Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d747169af54dd276cada999fe744133269249a77

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Civil and Structural Engineering

1. Andre Peters
2. N. Lu
3. J. Nimmo

In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

1. T. Gebrenegus
2. Markus Tuller
3. P. Iassonov
4. Alasdair N. Houston
5. Wilfred Otten
6. Philippe C. Baveye
7. Hamid R. Tizhoosh
8. Hui-Fuang Ng

In Mechanical Engineering

1. T. Gebrenegus
2. Markus Tuller
3. P. Iassonov

Citations in the corpus

• Segmentation of X‐ray computed tomography images of porous materials: A crucial step for characterization and quantitative analysis of pore structures (2009, background): “D processing has major disadvantages because a large part of local voxel neighborhood information is neglected and directional bias is introduced [Elliot and Heck, 2007].”
• Observer-dependent variability of the thresholding step in the quantitative analysis of soil images and X-ray microtomography data (2010, background): “…structure and composition of soils at micrometric resolutions, and have enabled significant advances to be made in our understanding of the functioning of soils at previously unexplored spatial scales (e.g., Garnier et al., 1998; Baveye et al., 2002; Elliot and Heck, 2007a,b; Sleutel et al., 2008).”