|
|
|
|
LEADER |
01935nam a2200433Ia 4500 |
001 |
10.1016-j.ultramic.2022.113578 |
008 |
220718s2022 CNT 000 0 und d |
020 |
|
|
|a 03043991 (ISSN)
|
245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Image difference metrics for high-resolution electron microscopy
|
260 |
|
0 |
|b Elsevier B.V.
|c 2022
|
856 |
|
|
|z View Fulltext in Publisher
|u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2022.113578
|
520 |
3 |
|
|a Digital image comparison and matching brings many advantages over the traditional subjective human comparison, including speed and reproducibility. Despite the existence of an abundance of image difference metrics, most of them are not suited for high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) images. In this work we adopt two image difference metrics not widely used for TEM images. We compare them to subjective evaluation and to the mean squared error in regards to their behaviour regarding image noise pollution. Finally, the methods are applied to and tested by the task of determining precipitate sizes of a model material. © 2022 The Authors
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a article
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a controlled study
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Digital image
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a High resolution
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a High resolution transmission electron microscopy
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a High-resolution
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a human
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a human experiment
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Image comparison
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Image difference
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Image difference metric
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Matchings
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Mean square error
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a mean squared error
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a MSE
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a noise pollution
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Noise pollution
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a precipitation
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Reproducibilities
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a SIFT
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a SSIM
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a transmission electron microscopy
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Transmission electron microscopy
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Transmissions
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Ederer, M.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Löffler, S.
|e author
|
773 |
|
|
|t Ultramicroscopy
|