Course given 2007/2008 in study period 3
Results of students evaluation:
16 students filled in the evaluation form (29%).
Additional comments on prerequisites:
good knowledge of fourier transform and MatLab was needed too.
---
Vissa saker var lite oklara. En del av deltagarna hade läst ex. maskinlärning, och då antogs alla ha gjort det.
Additional comments on the course book:
expensive and nor fully covered in the class.
---
Lite lång, som alla amerikanska böcker.
---
No informations on the camera model.
The maths are too simple.
---
En del av de termer som det frågas om på (ex)tenta-frågorna finns inte med i sakregistret till boken. T.ex. "Optimal flow".
---
It's a very verbose book. Personally I percieved it to have a bad signal to noise ratio. A book that is more to the point (maybe given as an alternative?) would be appreciated.
---
Isn't there a book that covers more on computer vision? The lecture notes are not very structured and complete, so it would be useful to have a reference book for finding details.
---
The book is simply perfect!
Additional comments on lecture notes:
Skulle kunna varit numerade, om man skulle anteckna något viktigt som stod på en speciell sida.
---
Some points are too developped (fourrier transform), and others are overlooked (SIFT features)
---
Kändes lite faktafattiga ibland. Ett stort plus för att de gick att titta igenom innan föreläsningen så man kunde förbered sig.
---
Some things are mentioned to briefly.
---
Alot of information in a small space, especially annoying since alot of the topics were not in the book.
Had to construe information from the not-so-good lecture notes and out of context handouts.
---
The lecture notes should be more structured. It is unclear where the explanation of one concept ends and the next begins.
---
English could have been less sophisticated in lecture notes
---
It was very difficult to follow the material in the lecture notes without attending the lectures. This is true in general for the lectures after edge detection and for classification in particular. I do not know if this is intentional, but it is not a good thing. If I happen to miss a lecture, it is nice to be able to read through the lecture slides and understand (mostly) everything.
Additional comment on lab notes:
i would like to have a bit more help on the 3rd lab.
---
Frågorna i labbinstruktionerna var utydligt formulerade. Många handlade om att göra något trivialt och sedan dra slutsatser om detta. Skulle vara bättre med tydligare, mer tekniska frågor och färre filosofiska frågor.
---
De svenska var konstigt översatta från engelska. En del gånger var det också svårt att veta vad man skulle göra.
---
The labs are well constructed, but maybe they should be more problem oriented.
---
There are a few typos here and there along with some ambiguities, but nothing major.
---
Sometimes diffuse formulations. I'm aware of that you don't want to give away to much information sometimes and that's not what I mean.
---
The difficulty of the labs was most often to decipher what was meant by the questions.
---
Some elaboration is needed regarding the differences between filter2 and conv2 in lab3. I still have not understood it completely, despite having a discussion with an assistant.
Additional comments:
I attended to the five first lectures, but I found them too long for their content.
---
Although the lecture about stereo and essential matrices was a bit confusing
---
In my view, this is the part of the course that could use the most improvement. You also seem to be a teacher who wants to improve, so I have written down some of the observation that I have made during class.
Danica:
* The slides often lack in structure. It was typically hard to tell whether we were listening to a continuation of the topic of the previous slides or not. You could spend the first few minutes introducing the main topics/methods of the lecture, in what order they will be coming (and the relationship between them if possible), and then make it clear when we're switching from one topic to the next.
* Your English vocabulary could use some improvement, you often seem to fail to find the appropriate words. The difference is particularly noticeable when you switch to Swedish to answer a question, using a much broader range to explain the same thing. You can probably tell when it happens, the important thing would then be to remember what you were trying to say and then try to look up better words/phrases afterwards.
* You have the bad habit of using "Ähh" and "Öhh" instead of short pauses while talking, it should be easy to correct once you're aware of it.
* You often seem to suspect that few understood what you said. Rather than asking a question to that effect, you should summarize the main points of what you just said. Doing so is less patronizing for those that did understand, and more useful for those that didn't. Particularly: asking "Do you agree with me?" (which often comes of as "You agree with me." because of lack of intonation) is rarely going to give any useful response. Any student that would have answered "no" to that question would have interrupted you anyway.
* Mathematical derivations on slides are rather useless. If you want people to understand how a formula is derived (or even how it looks) then you should derive it on the blackboard, where people can follow the train of thought (rather than trying to follow the slide, which is quickly removed). In general, you are easy to understand when using the blackboard, so please take every chance to use it.
* The slides are often too noisy, there's often too much text per slide for people to be able to extract the important parts while listening to you. You often use complete sentences, that's not necessary for slides. The slides often seem built to be lecture notes (i.e. they often include many details and have a verbosity level suited for undivided attention), rather than to be support for your lecture (i.e. emphasize the main points that you're making). I know that it's easy to construct slides that include everything, because it looks good on the computer. What you need to remember though is that the people at the lecture won't be sitting alone reading the slides on a computer, they will be listening to you while glancing at a (often too small) projection for a few seconds, in an attempt to grasp your main points.
Hedvig:
* You might want to sit down and work out the projector issues before class, so that you are confident in how to make it work once in class.
* Minor detail: The blackboard behind you was full of interesting problems during your lecture, which can be distracting. You didn't have time to erase it this time, but it's worth thinking about.
* Your slides gave a nice introduction to the problem, but could have used more structure (see above) and less noise (see above). The part that was unclear was that we were jumping between different methods without any clear separator (i.e. it was hard to (during the first part) tell whether the next slide was a continuation of the previous one, or some other method). E.g. you could have tied together the slides on moments while clearly separating them from the rest.
---
Put more emphasis on difficult basic concepts (homogeneous coordinates, Fourier transform and Hough transform for example) and less on vague discussions about applications or simple concepts
---
Since time was limited, the topics were not covered as they were supposed to be. Either the topics can be reduced or the lecture hours per week can be increased
Additional comment:
not many problems were solved/discussed.
---
För få, det borde ha varit fler övningar.
---
Schemakrockar gjorde att jag inte deltog.
---
Kändes lite väl grundläggande när vi löste en endimensionell andragradsekvationen (eller var det tredjegrad? minns inte).
---
It seemed to little with only two, more of them would be appreciated.
---
The exercises did not fit in too well with what was in the course, they were a bit difficult aswell. Would have liked to see some exercises on perspective projections and epipolar geometry aswell.
---
The exercise sessions were insufficient. Furthermore, not all the exercises could be covered in each session. Thus we solved totally 6-8 problems during the entire course during the exercise sessions. This does not really build confidence for facing the exam.
Additional comment:
i did not have the opportunity to attend many sessions due to clashes with other courses
---
De var mycket hjälpsamma
---
For the last lab, an additional help session would have been useful
---
I didn't actually request any help during lab sessions, but they seemed ok during the reviews.
---
I never asked for help (hence I haven't selected any option).
---
One word: SIMA
Additional views on Lab 1:
not very difficult
Additional views on Lab 2:
Give more intuitive explanations on the Fourier Transform.
Additional views on Lab 3:
more crarification / help notes should be given for parts 5 and 6
---
Lite mycket fokus på Houghtransformen trots att det inte var så mycket om det i boken eller på föreläsningarna.
---
please elaborate on the difference between filter2 and conv2.
Additional comments on the labs as a whole:
The labs could be more stimulating if there was more problem solving questions.
---
They were a bit hard, but very interesting and fun
---
Sometimes you get stuck on some stupid Matlab detail which was unclear in the lab text. This is not good and should not be the focus of the lab.
---
The entire classification concept is still a bit fuzzy. Can it be included in the labs? At least a section in one of the labs.
Additional comment on the web information:
a link to the exam registration would be useful
---
"news" section could be more useful
the practical applications at the lab. the hough transform and the image segmentation
---
Själva ämnet. Intressant och känns meningsfullt, man ser att man kan tillämpa sina kunskaper inom datateknik.
---
Line detection is great.
The topics are generally interesting and the approach is very educational.
---
The lab sessions were really good, since they gave me the opportunity to reinforce the theoretical knowledge by applying it in practice.
---
Laborationerna var överlag bra, speciellt Houghtransformen.
---
Face detection and Hough transform
---
The labs and the exercises, since that's when you get a feel for what you should know.
---
The labs were the best parts because I tend to learn the most when I need to apply theory and not just read about it.
---
Perspective projection and stereo vision
---
Labs. Because they were practical not only theoritical
---
Grey level transformations, Edge detection and linking, high and low pass filtering and general convolution with generic kernels was the most fruitful. This is because I found many direct applications and had a lot of fun playing around with images, not only in MATLAB but also in image editing software like the GIMP which has several cool features including the ability to convolve an image with a generic matrix that you specify. The concepts of classification and morphology were a bit less exciting as direct application was not found/elaborated.
more exercises should be solved
---
One lecture about the biological aspect is too much.
The practical application of PCA is hard to understand. We don't have real clues about object recognition.
---
Kändes som att delar av kursen inte rymdes i labbarna, tänker framför allt på minkowski-operationerna som kanske kan arbetas in som en del i någon av labbarna?
---
I would appreciate if there were solutions to the old exams and/or more exercises.
---
More labs and help sessions would be great and also try to connect more of the course to labs. I think the examination of this course should rely more on labs than on the test.
---
The intro lecture could have contained more cool examples of what can be done and the examples could have been connected to what we would learn in the course. An example: One could have shown visual odometry and connected that to feature extraction.
---
The course can be done 7.5 ECTS credits or the topics covered can be reduced or lecture hours per week can be increased
---
The course is simply too heavy considering the credit points it gives!! For 4 credit points, the material up to Hough transform is enough, in my opinion.
Considering what we studied and the time we had to put in 6 or 7.5 credits is what should be given.
---
Give the grading thresholds before the exam. 49 out of 50 points (98%) for an A seems awfully high, especially when a B is only 78%.
Now just press the button below!
Denna sammanställning har genererats med ACE.