US5642433A
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Method and apparatus for image contrast quality evaluation
Assignee: TriPath Imaging Inc
•
Filing: 1995-07-31
•
Granted: 1997-06-24
•
Expires: 2015-07-31
Abstract
Abstract A method for single image based image contrast quality evaluation is used in a computer controlled image system including an automated microscope for acquiring images. An image is acquired. An image contrast score is computed for the image. An image reliability score is computed for the image. The image contrast score and image reliability score are accumulated and combined to produce a contrast quality score. The contrast quality score is compared to a predetermined limit so as to produce a quality of processing result.
Inventors
- 👤 Shih-Jong J. Lee
- 👤 Paul S. Wilhelm
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-10-31 23:07
CPC Classifications
G; G06; G06T; G06T7/00; G06T7/0002; G02; G02B; G02B21/00; G02B21/36; G02B21/365; G06T7/10; G06T7/13; G06V; G06V10/00; G06V10/98; G06V10/993; G06V20/00; G06V20/60; G06V20/69; G06V20/693; G01; G01N; G01N15/00; G01N15/10; G01N15/14; G01N15/1429; G01N15/1433; G06T2207/00; G06T2207/10; G06T2207/10056; G06T2207/20; G06T2207/20036; G06T2207/30; G06T2207/30004; G06T2207/30024; G06T2207/30168
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 19
Claim 1
Independent Claim
70 words
A method for measuring the contrast quality of an image comprising the steps of: (a) acquiring an image; (b) operating on the image to compute a first edge intensity value; and (c) operating on the image to compute an edge of edge intensity value; and (d) computing an image contrast score for the image as the ratio of the edge of edge intensity value to the first edge intensity value.
Claim 2
Independent Claim
70 words
A method for measuring the contrast quality of an image comprising the steps of: (a) acquiring an image; (b) operating on the image to compute a first edge intensity value; and (c) operating on the image to compute an edge of edge intensity value; and (d) computing an image contrast score for the image as the ratio of the edge of edge intensity value to the first edge intensity value.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
49 words
The method of claim 1 wherein the step of operating on the image to compute a first edge intensity value further comprises the steps of: (a) detecting an edge gradient of the single image to produce an edge gradient image; and (b) accumulating values of the edge gradient image.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim
43 words
The method of claim 2 further comprising the steps of: (a) image conditioning the edge gradient image so as to produce a conditioned edge gradient image; and (b) processing the conditioned edge gradient image so as to produce an edge of edge image.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
35 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the step of image conditioning the edge gradient image so as to produce a conditioned edge gradient image limits the edge gradient image value to a predetermined minimum limit.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
33 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the step of operating on the image to compute an edge of edge intensity value further comprises computing an accumulated value of the edge of edge image.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
27 words
The method of claim 2 wherein the step of detecting an edge gradient of the single image to produce an edge gradient image comprises a morphological operation.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
18 words
The method of claim 6 wherein the morphological operation comprises applying a dilation residue operator to the image.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
18 words
The method of claim 6 wherein the morphological operation comprises applying an erosion residue operator to the image.
Claim 10
Dependent Claim
17 words
The method of claim 6 wherein the morphological operation comprises the step of morphologically combining detected edges.
Claim 11
Dependent Claim
25 words
The method of claim 1 further comprising the step of computing an image reliability score for the image derived from the first edge intensity value.
Claim 12
Dependent Claim
28 words
The method of claim 10 further comprising the step of comparing the image reliability score to a predetermined limit so as to produce a quality of processing result.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim
34 words
The method of claim 10 wherein the image reliability score is low, it is an indication that the image contrast data may be derived from an image with insufficient material for reliable contrast evaluation.
Claim 14
Dependent Claim
19 words
The method of claim 10 further comprising the step of combining the image contrast score and image reliability score.
Claim 15
Independent Claim
96 words
A method for contrast quality evaluation of a biological specimen comprising the steps of: (a) acquiring at least one image for a specimen; (b) computing at least one image contrast score for the at least one image; (c) computing at least one image reliability score for the at least one image; (d) accumulating and combining the at least one image contrast score and the at least one image reliability score to produce a quality of processing measure; and (e) comparing the quality of processing measure to a predetermined limit to produce a quality of processing result.
Claim 16
Independent Claim
96 words
A method for contrast quality evaluation of a biological specimen comprising the steps of: (a) acquiring at least one image for a specimen; (b) computing at least one image contrast score for the at least one image; (c) computing at least one image reliability score for the at least one image; (d) accumulating and combining the at least one image contrast score and the at least one image reliability score to produce a quality of processing measure; and (e) comparing the quality of processing measure to a predetermined limit to produce a quality of processing result.
Claim 17
Dependent Claim
56 words
The method of claim 14 wherein the step of accumulating and combining the image contrast score and image reliability score further comprises the steps of: (a) accumulating the image contrast score and image reliability score in a histogram; and (b) computing a summary statistic of the histogram so as to produce a quality of processing measure.
Claim 18
Independent Claim
153 words
A method for single image based image contrast quality evaluation, comprising the steps of: (a) acquiring an image; (b) detecting an edge gradient of the image to produce an edge gradient image; (c) processing the edge gradient image so as to produce an edge of edges image; (d) processing the edge gradient image so as to produce an accumulated edge intensity value; (e) processing the edge of edges image so as to produce an accumulated edges of edges intensity value; (f) computing an image contrast score for the image wherein the image contrast score comprises a ratio of the accumulated edges of edges intensity value to the accumulated edge intensity value; and (g) computing an image reliability score for the image wherein the image reliability score comprises the accumulated edge intensity value; and (h) combining the image contrast score and the image reliability score so as to produce a quality of processing measure.
Claim 19
Independent Claim
153 words
A method for single image based image contrast quality evaluation, comprising the steps of: (a) acquiring an image; (b) detecting an edge gradient of the image to produce an edge gradient image; (c) processing the edge gradient image so as to produce an edge of edges image; (d) processing the edge gradient image so as to produce an accumulated edge intensity value; (e) processing the edge of edges image so as to produce an accumulated edges of edges intensity value; (f) computing an image contrast score for the image wherein the image contrast score comprises a ratio of the accumulated edges of edges intensity value to the accumulated edge intensity value; and (g) computing an image reliability score for the image wherein the image reliability score comprises the accumulated edge intensity value; and (h) combining the image contrast score and the image reliability score so as to produce a quality of processing measure.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
US3629499A
Cited
US3721759A
Cited
US3743427A
Cited
US3824393A
Cited
US3851156A
Cited
US4012634A
Cited
US4045772A
Cited
US4000417A
Cited
US4220850A
Cited
US4349254A
Cited
US4352545A
Cited
US4341953A
Cited
US4577095A
Cited
US4626674A
Cited
US4636051A
Cited
US4725722A
Cited
US5051770A
Cited
US4810869A
Cited
US4887125A
Cited
US5042077A
Cited
US4991970A
Cited
US5287272B1
Cited
US5287272A
Cited
US5091963A
Cited
US5072382A
Cited
US5107422A
Cited
US5206919A
Cited
US5162990A
Cited
US5257182A
Cited
US5257182B1
Cited
US5204761A
Cited
US5239170A
Cited
US5315700A
Cited
US5361140A
Cited
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 2000-06-23 | 2000-12-23 | 2001-06-24 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 2004-06-23 | 2004-12-23 | 2005-06-24 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 2008-06-23 | 2008-12-23 | 2009-06-24 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |