Timeline for Counting Grains of Rice
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 8, 2014 at 22:06 | history | edited | soktinpk | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 78 characters in body
|
| Nov 8, 2014 at 14:07 | comment | added | trichoplax is on Codidact now | @cyriel the explanation for most answers is obvious to someone. I just meant that an explanation included in the answer would be welcome for those of us for whom it isn't obvious :) | |
| Nov 5, 2014 at 12:45 | comment | added | cyriel | @githubphagocyte - an explanation is quite obvious - if you count all white pixels on result of binarization of image and divide this number by number of grains in image you will get this result. Of course exact result may differ, because of used binarization method and other stuff (like operations performed after binarization), but as you can see in other answers, it will be in range 2500-3500. | |
| Nov 4, 2014 at 11:23 | comment | added | trichoplax is on Codidact now | An explanation would be welcome. | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 16:02 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @BobbyJack The rice is guaranteed to be at more or less the same scale across images. I see no problems with it. | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 12:46 | comment | added | Bobby Jack | I'm suspicious of '2670'. Is that the average pixel size of a grain of rice? Seems a bit restricted ... | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 11:58 | comment | added | Kroltan | @Calvin'sHobbies FF36 on Windows gets 0, on Ubuntu gets 3, with the full size image. | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 11:44 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @Kroltan Not when you use the full size image. | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 7:51 | comment | added | Kroltan | Using the 3-rice image, it estimated 0 for me... :/ | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 0:13 | history | answered | soktinpk | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
