High Accurate Unhealthy Leaf Detection

C. Vikas Reddy; G. Gopichand; K. Mona Teja; S. Mohan Sai

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 26 references

High Accurate Unhealthy Leaf Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A five-stage leaf-image pipeline reports 71–92.7% accuracy on four diseases, according to the paper.

desk verdict Routine five-stage leaf-disease pipeline applied to a 235-image private dataset; the validation split is internally inconsistent and the accuracy claims cannot be independently checked. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09003 v1 pith:MYOJ554L submitted 2019-08-14 cs.CV eess.IV

S. Mohan Sai , G. Gopichand , C. Vikas Reddy , K. Mona Teja This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVeess.IV

keywords plantleafdiseasedetectiongeneticalgorithmsegmentationYCbCrcolorspaceGLCMtexturefeaturessupportvectormachinekernelslow-lightimageenhancementgenerativeadversarialnetworkSVMclassification

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a five-stage automatic pipeline can identify four common leaf diseases—Blight, Anthracnose, Canker, and Leaf Spot—accurately enough for early field detection. The authors argue that each stage earns its place: CNN-based enhancement and GAN-based upscaling repair low-light and low-resolution images; conversion to YCbCr separates brightness from color; a genetic algorithm clusters the image into background and infected regions; GLCM texture statistics describe the infected patches; and an SVM with four kernels performs the final classification. If the reported accuracies hold, the model would offer a cheap, fast alternative to specialist visual inspection of crops, especially where agricultural expertise is scarce. The central claim is that the combination, not any single stage, produces the high accuracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the ordered pipeline in which each stage feeds the next: low-light enhancement by a CNN with inception modules and residual shortcut connections plus GAN-based low-resolution restoration; RGB-to-YCbCr conversion, which isolates the luma component Y from the blue and red chroma components Cb and Cr so segmentation can exploit human-perceptual color; genetic-algorithm clustering, where each chromosome encodes k cluster centers and a fitness function sums the Euclidean distance between each pixel and its assigned cluster center, grouping pixels into green background and infected brown regions; GLCM, the grey-level co-occurrence matrix, which computes contrast, energy, dissimilarity, entropy, and correlation texture features; and SVM classification with four kernels. The genetic search is what the paper highlights as allowing large-space optimization with low computational cost.

What would settle it

Take the same five-stage pipeline to an independently collected, class-balanced set of fresh leaf images from different fields, cameras, and lighting conditions; if per-class accuracy falls well below the reported 71–92% range, or if a plain color-threshold baseline matches those numbers, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a genetic-algorithm segmentation operating in YCbCr color space isolates diseased leaf tissue well enough that standard GLCM texture features, fed to an SVM with RBF, linear, polygonal, and quadratic kernels, yield per-disease validation accuracies of 84.37% (Blight), 91.07% (Anthracnose), 86.20% (Canker), and 71.02% (Leaf Spot) on a 215-image validation portion, with per-class accuracies on supposedly unseen leaves reaching 92.7% with the linear kernel. The paper presents this as evidence that the proposed five-stage architecture—enhancement, color-space conversion, genetic segmentation, texture extraction, and SVM classification—forms a practical, high-accuracy disease detector.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 235 privately gathered leaf images are representative of real field conditions and that the test images are truly unseen yet drawn from the same distribution; if the dataset is unrepresentative or the split leaks information, the reported accuracies stop being evidence of a high-accuracy detector.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported accuracies hold on real field images, growers could obtain an early disease label from a simple photograph, limiting spread before a pathologist is consulted.
Because the final classifier is a lightweight SVM over handcrafted texture features, the pipeline could run on embedded or mobile hardware; the CNN and GAN run only at the preprocessing stage.
The variation across kernels, with the linear kernel outperforming RBF on supposedly unseen images, implies that kernel choice is a first-order tuning decision for this feature set.
A correct result would make the same five-stage ordering a reusable recipe for other leaf diseases whose symptoms produce color and texture contrasts, not just the four tested classes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

An editor-level inference is that the same genetic-algorithm plus GLCM plus SVM core could be tested without the CNN and GAN enhancement stages; if accuracy does not drop on well-lit, high-resolution images, those enhancement stages are optional rather than load-bearing.
A natural extension would be to run the pipeline with a formal class-balanced train, validation, and test split and report per-class confusion matrices, which would turn the claimed percentages into statistically meaningful estimates.
Because YCbCr separates brightness from chroma, the method may transfer to leaf diseases with color symptoms under varying illumination more easily than RGB-based classifiers, a hypothesis the paper does not test.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: this is a standard five-stage image-processing pipeline applied to a 235-image private dataset, and the reported accuracies cannot be checked from the paper. The split description in Section IV is internally inconsistent, which alone sinks the central claim.

What is actually new: the specific accuracy tables for this dataset do not appear in the cited references, so in a narrow empirical sense the numbers are new. The paper also gives a reasonably clear walk-through of the components: low-light enhancement via an inception-style CNN, GAN-based super-resolution, RGB-to-YCbCr conversion, genetic-algorithm clustering for segmentation, GLCM features, and SVM with four kernels. That is a coherent assembly of off-the-shelf pieces, and the writing shows the authors know the relevant literature.

Soft spots: the load-bearing problem is the evidence for the accuracy claim. Section IV says 235 images total and then says 'the training set consists of images and 215 images for the validation set'—the training-set size is never given. Table 1's validation counts per disease sum to exactly 215, so the text and table agree the validation set is 215. That leaves 20 images for training. Training a CNN and a GAN on 20 images is not plausible, and no details are given about how those networks were trained on so few samples. Table 2 reports per-kernel accuracies for 'new images' but gives no sample size per row. If each row is a single image, percentages like 92.7% are not defined; if multiple images, the N is missing. There are no baselines, no error bars, no cross-validation, no dataset description beyond the count, and no code or data. The confidence interval for the Leaf Spot point estimate (26/37 ≈ 71%) is roughly 54–84%, so even taking Table 1 at face value the result is statistically weak. These are not minor omissions—the paper's only contribution is the claimed accuracies, and they are unverifiable.

I would also flag the citation pattern: reference [6] is the authors' own earlier work, and several references are listed twice ([2]=[9]; [1] and [11] are different but overlapping). That is sloppy but secondary compared with the missing evidence.

Who this is for: a reader looking for a quick survey of standard plant-disease detection components might get a light overview, but the paper is not a reliable source for accuracy numbers. It reads like an undergraduate project report.

Recommendation: desk reject. A serious referee would immediately hit the split contradiction and the missing test sizes, and without data or code there is nothing to evaluate. I would not bring it to reading group and would not cite it.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a five-stage pipeline for automatic detection of unhealthy plant leaves, targeting four diseases: Blight, Anthracnose, Canker, and Leaf Spot. The stages are image enhancement (low-light enhancement using CNN inception modules and low-resolution enhancement using adversarial networks), RGB-to-YCbCr color space conversion, segmentation by a genetic algorithm, texture feature extraction using GLCM, and classification with SVM using RBF, linear, polygonal, and quadratic kernels. The authors report validation accuracies in Table 1 ranging from 71.02% to 91.07% and per-kernel accuracies for new images in Table 2 ranging up to 92.7%.

Significance. If the reported accuracies were reproducible and the method were evaluated on a properly defined public benchmark, the work could be a useful applied contribution to automated plant disease diagnosis. However, the manuscript provides no shared dataset, no coherent data split, no baselines or competing methods, no error bars or cross-validation, and no details on label acquisition. As a result, the central accuracy claim is unverifiable from the presented evidence, and the significance cannot be assessed beyond the proposal of a generic pipeline.

major comments (4)

[Section III, paragraph before the accuracy formula; Table 1] The dataset split is described incoherently. The text states that 235 images are split into training and validation, then says 'the training set consists of images and 215 images for the validation set,' leaving the training count undefined. Table 1 lists validation counts that sum to exactly 215 (64+56+58+37), implying only 20 images for training. This inconsistency is load-bearing because the reported accuracies cannot be interpreted without knowing the training set size and the split procedure.
[Section IV, Table 2] Table 2 reports per-kernel accuracies for 'new images' but does not specify the number of test images per row. If the phrase 'a complete new image' is interpreted literally, each row is a single test sample, making percentages such as 92.7% undefined for a one-trial evaluation; if multiple images were used, the sample size N is omitted. Without N, no confidence interval can be computed, and the claim of high accuracy is not statistically supported.
[Section IV, Tables 1 and 2] No baseline or comparison method is provided. For a four-class problem, the expected accuracy of a random classifier is 25%, yet the paper does not compare against this or any existing method. Treating Table 1 at face value, the binomial 95% confidence interval for Leaf Spot (26 correct out of 37) is approximately 54% to 84%, so the 71.02% point estimate is not distinguishable from a much weaker classifier. The paper needs error bars, cross-validation, or a comparative evaluation.
[Section III, Image Acquisition; Section IV] The dataset is private and its composition is underspecified. The paper names tomato, beans, pepper, and orchid leaves but reports no counts per class, no acquisition protocol, no class balance, and no description of how ground-truth disease labels were verified. The central accuracy claim therefore rests on an unverifiable assumption that the 235 images are representative of real-world leaf images and that the labels are correct.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Section I] The paper repeatedly uses 'sessions' where 'sections' or 'stages' is intended, and contains grammatical errors that obscure the description of the pipeline.
[Section III, equations for GLCM features] The GLCM formulas contain notation errors: the summation indices and the expression for correlation are written incorrectly (e.g., correlation is not normalized properly), and the definitions of mean and variance are not consistent with standard GLCM definitions.
[References] References [2] and [9] are duplicates of the same work, and several references are cited in the literature review without a corresponding statement of how they inform the proposed method.
[Section III, Low Light Image Enhancement] The description of the CNN architecture is incomplete; the paper states that inception modules are used but does not specify layer counts, training data size, learning rate, or any implementation detail necessary for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the accuracy claims are direct empirical measurements, not derivations from fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

This paper reports an empirical image-processing pipeline (preprocessing, YCbCr conversion, genetic-algorithm segmentation, GLCM feature extraction, SVM classification) and presents measured accuracies on a private 235-image dataset. There is no derivation chain in which a predicted quantity reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to an input definition. The accuracy formula in Section III is a standard definition of classification accuracy (correctly classified over total), and Table 1 applies that formula to validation-set counts; this is a report of measurements, not a prediction derived from the method's own assumptions. The use of GLCM features and SVM kernels is standard practice and is not presented as a first-principles derivation. Reference [6] is a prior work by an overlapping author, but it concerns infrared weapon detection for sandalwood smuggling and is not load-bearing for the leaf-disease claims; it appears only in the literature review and does not justify the central result. The main weaknesses of the paper—unclear train/validation split, small private dataset, no external benchmark, and statistically unstable per-class counts—are correctness and generalizability concerns, not circular-reasoning concerns. No step in the paper defines a term in terms of the very result it is supposed to predict, and no fitted value is renamed as an independent prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central empirical claim rests on standard components plus a private dataset; the main unstated inputs are hyperparameters and representativeness assumptions.

free parameters (3)

Gamma range for low-light enhancement = 1.5 to 5.5 (set randomly)
Section 2.1.1 states gamma is randomly set in this range; this is a hand-chosen range that affects enhancement output and downstream features.
Number of clusters K in genetic algorithm segmentation = not specified
Section 3.2 uses K clusters but never states how K is chosen; segmentation quality depends on it.
SVM kernel and hyperparameters = not specified
Section on classifier lists four kernels without regularization or kernel parameters; these affect the reported accuracies.

assumptions (4)

standard math RGB to YCbCr conversion matrix (Section 3.1) is a valid standard color transform.
The transformation is a standard color-space conversion; no proof is needed for this review.
domain assumption Disease symptoms are separable from healthy leaf tissue using color and texture features after clustering.
The entire pipeline assumes that infected regions differ in YCbCr color and GLCM texture in a way that generalizes across species and lighting; the paper does not test this assumption directly.
domain assumption The genetic-algorithm clustering converges to meaningful segments without supervised guidance.
Section 3.2 describes an unsupervised clustering fitness function; the paper does not evaluate segmentation quality against ground truth.
ad hoc to paper The small private dataset is representative and correctly labeled.
No collection protocol, class balance, or label verification is provided; the entire accuracy claim rests on this unstated assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High Accurate Unhealthy Leaf Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MYOJ554L

@misc{pith2026190809003,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High Accurate Unhealthy Leaf Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MYOJ554L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09003}
}

read the original abstract

India is an agriculture-dependent country. As we all know that farming is the backbone of our country it is our responsibility to preserve the crops. However, we cannot stop the destruction of crops by natural calamities at least we have to try to protect our crops from diseases. To, detect a plant disease we need a fast automatic way. So, this paper presents a model to identify the particular disease of plant leaves at early stages so that we can prevent or take a remedy to stop spreading of the disease. This proposed model is made into five sessions. Image preprocessing includes the enhancement of the low light image done using inception modules in CNN. Low-resolution image enhancement is done using an Adversarial Neural Network. This also includes Conversion of RGB Image to YCrCb color space. Next, this paper presents a methodology for image segmentation which is an important aspect for identifying the disease symptoms. This segmentation is done using the genetic algorithm. Due to this process the segmentation of the leaf Image this helps in detection of the leaf mage automatically and classifying. Texture extraction is done using the statistical model called GLCM and finally, the classification of the diseases is done using the SVM using Different Kernels with the high accuracy.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[6]

There are many types of the feature extraction which usually include color, e dge, shape, texture extraction

Feature Extraction: After the segmentation of the area of interest which means the extraction of the diseased part from the image which is mostly the browned region in RGB format. There are many types of the feature extraction which usually include color, e dge, shape, texture extraction. Targeting the plant leaf for the classifying the leaf surface textu...

work page
[2]

To avoid this we use two methodologies in order to prevent these details

Image Preprocessing: The low light images and the low resolution images loose the details of the input images for the proper classification. To avoid this we use two methodologies in order to prevent these details. So, the low light image enhancement done by the Convolutional neural network using inception modules . And the low resolute images are improve...

work page
[9]

The dissimilarity helps in measuring the weights linearly (0, 1, 2, 3,….)

Dissimilarity: While measuring the weights in the contrast measure as pixel goes away from the diagonal the weights increases drastically. The dissimilarity helps in measuring the weights linearly (0, 1, 2, 3,….). Dissimilarity = ∑ PN−1 i,j=0 ij|i-j|

work page
[1]

The image converted to digital format and are resized as to measure and compare different images

Image Acquisition Images of the various leaves are captured and the input images are resized to a proper scale (for example 250x250 pixels) for performing the further operations. The image converted to digital format and are resized as to measure and compare different images

work page
[11]

And the values of the range in between (-1, 1)

Correlation: Correlation describes how to correlate a pixel to its neighbour pixels in the entire image. And the values of the range in between (-1, 1). Correlation = ∑ PN−1 i,j=0 ij(i-µ)(j-µ)/σ2 Where Pi,j the pixel value of the image at position i,j amd the N is the Number of gray levels. Mean (µ) = Mean value or Average of all pixel values in the relat...

work page
[3]

So, the color transformation is required to make the image more convenient form for the computation of computer

Image Segmentation: 3.1 Color Space Conversion: In this session once the image brought to the suitable format then the data has to be converted to the different domain which makes the computing more convenient and more flexible and the observation of the RGB images is often striking differen t from the human perception and computes into proper representat...

work page
[4]

𝟐𝟓𝟔𝟖 𝟎. 𝟓𝟎𝟒𝟏 𝟎. 𝟎𝟗𝟕𝟗 −𝟎. 𝟏𝟒𝟖𝟐 −𝟎. 𝟐𝟗𝟏𝟎 𝟎. 𝟒𝟑𝟗𝟐

work page
[5]

𝟒𝟑𝟗𝟐 −𝟎. 𝟑𝟔𝟕𝟖 −𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟏𝟒 ] [ 𝑹 𝑮 𝑩 ] The Conversion of image from RGB to YCrCb is shown in the figure .4. (a) (b) Figure. 4 The image (a) converting into the image in YCrCb color space (b) In the YCbCr color space the Y is the luma component which represent the light intensity. C b and C r are the blue and red chroma components. Since the Y component is mor...

work page

Show all 26 references

[7]

C ontrast of a pixel and its corresponding surrounded pixels in the entire image

Contrast: Contrast describes the intensity values of a pixel . C ontrast of a pixel and its corresponding surrounded pixels in the entire image. This can be understood by assuming if the contrast value is 0 it implies that the whole image is constant or it will have high value...
[8]

This value generally varies between 0 and 1

Energy: Energy describes the uniformness in the image with square elements summation in the GLCM. This value generally varies between 0 and 1. If the value is 1 it means that the image is constant. Energy = ∑ (PN−1 i,j=0 ij)2
[10]

Entropy describes the amount of loss of data in a signal which are being transmitted and also measures the signal data

Entropy: Entropy is responsible for the information needed to compress the image. Entropy describes the amount of loss of data in a signal which are being transmitted and also measures the signal data. Entropy = ∑ PN−1 i,j=0 ijlogPij
[12]

Singh, V., & Misra, A. K. (2017). Detection of plant leaf diseases using image segmentation and soft computing techniques. Information Processing in Agriculture, 4(1), 41-49

2017
[14]

Kaur, L., & Laxmi, V. (2016). Detection of Unhealthy Region of plant leaves using Neural Network. Disease management, 1(05), 34-42

2016
[15]

Madhogaria, S., Schikora, M., Koch, W., & Cremers, D. (2011). Pixel -based classification method for detecting unhealthy regions in leaf images. In Proc. of 6th. Workshop on Sensor Data Fusion (SDF)

2011
[16]

Choras, R. S. (2007). Image feature extraction techniques and their applications for CBIR and biometrics systems. International journal of biology and biomedical engineering, 1(1), 6-16

2007
[17]

M., Naresh, K., RajKumar , S., Ganesh, M

Sai, S. M., Naresh, K., RajKumar , S., Ganesh, M. S., Sai, L., & Nav, A. (2018, April). An Infrared Image Detecting System Model to Monitor Human with Weapon for Controlling Smuggling of Sandalwood Trees. In 2018 Second International Conference on Inventive Communication and C...

2018
[18]

R., Gawande, U., & Hajari, K

Gavhale, K. R., Gawande, U., & Hajari, K. O. (2014, April). Unhealthy region of citrus leaf detection using image processing techniques. In Convergence of Technology (I2CT), 2014 International Conference for (pp. 1-6). IEEE

2014
[19]

(2015, May)

Sarayloo, Z., & Asemani, D. (2015, May). Designing a classifier for automatic detection of fungal diseases in wheat plant: By pattern recognition techniques. In Electrical Engineering (ICEE), 2015 23rd Iranian Conference on (pp. 1193-1197). IEEE

2015
[20]

S., Anjali, K., & Unni, D

Arya, M. S., Anjali, K., & Unni, D. (2018, January). Detection of unhealthy plant leaves using image processing and genetic algorithm with Arduino. In 2018 International Conference on Power, Signals, Control and Computation (EPSCICON) (pp. 1-5). IEEE

2018
[21]

P., & Dhole, S

Shaikh, R. P., & Dhole, S. A. (2017, April). Citrus leaf unhealthy region detection by using image processing technique. In Electronics, Communication and Aerospace Technology (ICECA), 2017 International conference of (Vol. 1, pp. 420-423). IEEE

2017
[22]

Singh, V., & Misra, A. K. (2015, March). Detection of unhealthy region of plant leaves using Image Processing and Genetic Algorithm. In Computer Engineering and Applications (ICACEA), 2015 International Conference on Advances in (pp. 1028-1032). IEEE

2015
[23]

Sasi, K., Radhiga, P., & Chandraprabha, K. (2018). Plant Leaf Disease Prediction and Solution using Convolutional Neural Network Algorithm. International Journal, 6(4)

2018
[24]

B., & Kumbhar, N

Dhaygude, S. B., & Kumbhar, N. P. (2013). Agricultural plant leaf disease detection using image processing. International Journal of Advanced Research in Electrical, Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering, 2(1), 599-602

2013
[25]

H., & Patil, A

Kulkarni, A. H., & Patil, A. (2012). Applying image processing technique to detect pl ant diseases. International Journal of Modern Engineering Research, 2(5), 3661-3664

2012
[26]

Bashir, S., & Sharma, N. (2012). Remote area plant disease detection using image processing. IOSR Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering, 1(6), 31-34

2012
[27]

K., Cheeran, A

Chaudhary, P., Chaudhari, A. K., Cheeran, A. N., & Godara, S. (2012). Color transform based approach for disease spot detection on plant leaf. International Journal of Computer Science and Telecommunications, 3(6), 65-70

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [6]

There are many types of the feature extraction which usually include color, e dge, shape, texture extraction

Feature Extraction: After the segmentation of the area of interest which means the extraction of the diseased part from the image which is mostly the browned region in RGB format. There are many types of the feature extraction which usually include color, e dge, shape, texture extraction. Targeting the plant leaf for the classifying the leaf surface textu...

work page

[2] [2]

To avoid this we use two methodologies in order to prevent these details

Image Preprocessing: The low light images and the low resolution images loose the details of the input images for the proper classification. To avoid this we use two methodologies in order to prevent these details. So, the low light image enhancement done by the Convolutional neural network using inception modules . And the low resolute images are improve...

work page

[3] [9]

The dissimilarity helps in measuring the weights linearly (0, 1, 2, 3,….)

Dissimilarity: While measuring the weights in the contrast measure as pixel goes away from the diagonal the weights increases drastically. The dissimilarity helps in measuring the weights linearly (0, 1, 2, 3,….). Dissimilarity = ∑ PN−1 i,j=0 ij|i-j|

work page

[4] [1]

The image converted to digital format and are resized as to measure and compare different images

Image Acquisition Images of the various leaves are captured and the input images are resized to a proper scale (for example 250x250 pixels) for performing the further operations. The image converted to digital format and are resized as to measure and compare different images

work page

[5] [11]

And the values of the range in between (-1, 1)

Correlation: Correlation describes how to correlate a pixel to its neighbour pixels in the entire image. And the values of the range in between (-1, 1). Correlation = ∑ PN−1 i,j=0 ij(i-µ)(j-µ)/σ2 Where Pi,j the pixel value of the image at position i,j amd the N is the Number of gray levels. Mean (µ) = Mean value or Average of all pixel values in the relat...

work page

[6] [3]

So, the color transformation is required to make the image more convenient form for the computation of computer

Image Segmentation: 3.1 Color Space Conversion: In this session once the image brought to the suitable format then the data has to be converted to the different domain which makes the computing more convenient and more flexible and the observation of the RGB images is often striking differen t from the human perception and computes into proper representat...

work page

[7] [4]

𝟐𝟓𝟔𝟖 𝟎. 𝟓𝟎𝟒𝟏 𝟎. 𝟎𝟗𝟕𝟗 −𝟎. 𝟏𝟒𝟖𝟐 −𝟎. 𝟐𝟗𝟏𝟎 𝟎. 𝟒𝟑𝟗𝟐

work page

[8] [5]

𝟒𝟑𝟗𝟐 −𝟎. 𝟑𝟔𝟕𝟖 −𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟏𝟒 ] [ 𝑹 𝑮 𝑩 ] The Conversion of image from RGB to YCrCb is shown in the figure .4. (a) (b) Figure. 4 The image (a) converting into the image in YCrCb color space (b) In the YCbCr color space the Y is the luma component which represent the light intensity. C b and C r are the blue and red chroma components. Since the Y component is mor...

work page