[IPOL discuss] Repository of test images

[Daniel Kondermann]

I think IPOL is better suited for publishing code.

When it comes to big datasets, I would like to encourage using our website:
http://hci.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de//Benchmarks/documents/
Yet, I still see the problem of proper DOIs (or similar) with our website which will hopefully be dealt with by the end of this year:

As my job is secured by now, we will start creating a fully free journal (hopefully not even open access) which might be similar to arxiv.org
and also IPOL but including a review system similar to amazon.
(I will share the amazon-rating system as Django module as soon as it is available so that others can use it as well...)
The journal will be classical in terms of topics (similar to IJCV and PAMI) but innovative on reviewing and with a special track on reproducible
research including datasets and performance analysis.
By the end of this year the first website should go online, including a call for a special issue on performance analysis and reproducible research.

Until then, I have heard there is a dataset track in a journal on robotics, but I couldn't find it by googling - does anyone know something
about this?

Best,
Daniel

Am 15.03.2013 16:51, schrieb Nicolas Limare:
>> Well, for those images taken directly from the camera we have all
>> that information, but some of the images might be altered before
>> they can be used as test images. [...] But still the image has been
>> taken with some parameters that perhaps are interesting to say
>> (hoping that this doesn't confure the users). The original camera
>> configuration and the transformations done afterwards.
> If the dataset is published as an article, it will be the reviewers'
> job to verify that all the possibly useful information is provided,
> and that this information is clearly explained.
>
>> According to the Wikipedia "SHA-1 appears to provide greater
>> resistance to attacks[citation needed], supporting the NSA's
>> assertion that the change increased the security". Anyway, we just
>> want to use the hash function as a quick verification of the file,
>> so I think it's enough. And it's very simple for the users to check
>> a file. For example, using "shasum" in a GNU/Linux system.
> Yes, we don't need cryptographic strength, just a quick and easy way
> to verify that we got the good file. I still think providing SHA1 and
> MD5 is better because it costs nothing to he authors and it provides
> the users with whichever hash they are used to manipulate. But this is
> not an important issue, and here again it should be decided by
> editors/reviewers.
>
>> If we proposed a new format to verify the contents of the file, it'd
>> be more difficult for the users to verify the files.
> I agree. I was just asking the question by curiosity, but this would
> not be practical for people using these files and checksums.
>
>> you have an input PNG image and you want to verify that it's exactly
>> the same image used in IPOL.
> (Here, you verify the checksum of the FILE, not the checksum of the
> IMAGE. You could have different FILES, with different checksums,
> containing exactly the same IMAGE. For example, files with a different
> text comment. But let's close this pointless and unproductive
> discussion on file vs image, I should not have raised it :)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at list.ipol.im
> https://tools.ipol.im/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://tools.ipol.im/mailman/archive/discuss/attachments/20130318/c1f6df97/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 553 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://tools.ipol.im/mailman/archive/discuss/attachments/20130318/c1f6df97/attachment.pgp>