Image analysis – Image transformation or preprocessing – Multilayered image transformations
Reexamination Certificate
1997-09-19
2001-01-30
Mehta, Bhavesh (Department: 2721)
Image analysis
Image transformation or preprocessing
Multilayered image transformations
C382S305000, C382S311000, C345S428000, C345S501000, C345S504000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06181836
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates to computer processing in general, and more particularly to a method and system for image processing. The patent application claims priority of French patent application No. 93.03455, filed Mar. 25, 1993, the contents of which are herein incorporated by reference.
The present invention was created in response to the shortcomings of the current generation of image retouching systems. Other retouching systems use one of two methods for handling images: (1) high resolution/low resolution (high res/low res), and (2) virtual image. Each of these two approaches overcomes some major obstacles, however neither fully responds to the needs of today's color professionals for high quality, and fast response at an affordable price.
In the high res/low res approach, the complete scanned image (referred to as the “high res” image) is subsampled to yield a much smaller image (referred to as the “low res” image). Because previous image retouching systems did not yield “real time” performance when handling large images (over 10M or 10 million bytes), it was necessary to invent an approach to allow the retouching system work on a smaller, i.e. low res image that would yield acceptable response times for the operator. Using this approach, retouching actions are stored in a script. When retouching is complete, the script is typically passed to a more powerful, and expensive, server and “executed.” That is, the actions contained in the script are applied to the high res image, which results in a high quality final image. The disadvantage of this approach is that the operator does not work with the actual image or at highly detailed levels (particularly for a magnified “close-up” of a portion). As a result, it is not always possible to perform highly detailed retouching actions such as silhouetting and masking. Moreover, unpleasant surprises may occur upon execution.
The virtual image approach, commonly used by desktop image editing packages (e.g. MacIntosh or Windows types), manipulates a copy of the actual image held in memory. In some cases, one or more copies; or intermediate drafts are held, enabling the user to revert to at previous copy if an error is introduced. Using the virtual image approach, the image itself is transformed as retouching effects are applied.
The virtual image approach suffers two important shortcomings: first, large amounts of memory are required; and second, each effect is applied immediately to the entire image so that complex manipulation, such as large airbrushing, scaling and rotation, incur long processing delays.
Prior image retouching systems have used large mainframe computers or work stations and proprietary hardware. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,142,616, issued Aug.
2
5, 1992 to Kellas, et al., teaches an electronic graphic system. In this system, data relating to a user-defined low resolution image functions to control an image by the combining other image data with data defining a low resolution representation of the initial image. Once desired modifications have been achieved, the image is displayed on a display monitor so that a low resolution control image is converted to a high resolution representation. Stapleton, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,775,858, issued Oct. 4, 1988, also teaches the use of a large frame store to produce an image of higher resolution than that found on a television screen.
Due to the high amount of memory required for processing, personal computers have proven very slow and marginally acceptable. Moreover, even with larger mainframe systems, there is not always a good correlation between the monitor and the printed image since there is not always a way to visualize the final image on the display device. Thus, discrepancies can be introduced due to differences between screen resolution and print resolution. Other relevant patents include: U.S. Pat. No. 5,179,651 issued Jan. 12, 1993 to Taaffe, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,065,346, issued Nov. 12, 1991 to Kawai, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,656,467, issued Apr. 7, 1987 to Strolle, U.S. Pat. No. 4,833,625, issued May 23, 1989 to Fisher, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,288,821, issued Sep. 8, 1991 to Lavallee, et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 4,546,385, issued Oct. 8, 1985 to Anastassiou.
Numerous image processing procedures currently exist. Common to all procedures is modification of an image through recalculation operations to irreversibly rearrange dots or picture elements (“pixels”) of an original image (or those resulting from the most recent modification) into a new arrangement.
Perhaps the greatest disadvantage of known procedures stems from the image that is displayed on the monitor not being identical to the image that will eventually be printed, rendering the operator unable to see the work as it will actually appear in print. Anomalies and discrepancies can therefore occur in the printed image. Known procedures cannot resolve the fact that the image displayed on the operator's monitor screen is in most cases vastly less defined than the scanned image held in the computer's memory. (This is untrue only in the case of small, low resolution images.) Resolution (as measured in dots per inch) of modern display monitors is far less than the resolution of printed color images.
A second and perhaps equally important disadvantage of known image processing techniques is that the image editing effects are applied sequentially, i.e. step-by-step. This incurs a severe degradation in the quality of the original image if many image editing effects are applied to the same portion of an image.
Operations carried out on an image usually require a high degree of processing power. If processing power is unavailable, then the time required to carry out the operation becomes unacceptably long, thus reducing the scope and sophistication of possible operations to be carried out on the image. For example, airbrush strokes are currently extremely limited in size as a result of the extreme processing power needed to calculated image changes.
The irreversible nature of image processing using known procedures precludes the operator from easily implementing any second thoughts. Presently, the only way to correct an airbrush stroke which does not achieve a desired effect is to superimpose a new stroke (instead of merely erasing the unsuccessful stroke). Alternatively, computers equipped with large memory can save intermediate steps. However, this requires a huge amount of memory (e.g., a single 8½″×11″×300 dots per inch (dpi) figure requires over 33 million bytes).
The present invention overcomes these shortcomings and permits rapid and powerful editing functions even on less powerful desktop computers, by employing at least one, more preferably two and most preferably three new and independent processes: preprocessing, image editing, and raster image processing.
The subject invention advantageously uses what I call a Functional Interpolating Transfer System (FITS) to greatly speed editing of an image on standard microcomputers, thus eliminating the need for expensive workstations or special hardware. FITS breaks down image processing into three steps: preprocessing, image editing and FITS raster image processing. This results in a virtually instantaneous response and eliminates waiting for file saving or processing updates. With this technique, limits on file size and resolution disappear.
Preprocessing in the invention (brand name “FITS”) involves creating a specially formatted version of an image which allows image editing to progress at rapid speed.
Image editing refers to the process of retouching, combining or otherwise modifying images, to create the final desired image. Image editing involves, in the broadest sense, all processing operations performed on an original image. This includes the combining of images, effects such as sharpening, blurring, brightening, darkening, distortion, and include modifications to the color or appearance of all or part of a original image.
Color changes may be achieved in a variety of ways including
Blakely & Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman
Mehta Bhavesh
MGI Software Corporation
LandOfFree
Method and system for non-destructive image editing does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Method and system for non-destructive image editing, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Method and system for non-destructive image editing will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2555137