10 thoughts on “Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information

  1. Andrej Karpathy Andrej Karpathy says:

    David Marr proposes a complete framework of how the brain could process visual information from 2D image all the way to 3D geometries at the very end Even coming up with a not obviously wrong hypothesis of this entire pipeline is no small feat and David almost makes it sound consistent and as if it could work if it was only implemented with a few details filled in here and there I do wonder if he was slightly ahead of his time, I m sure he would have loved to play around with Kinect RGBD video David Marr proposes a complete framework of how the brain could process visual information from 2D image all the way to 3D geometries at the very end Even coming up with a not obviously wrong hypothesis of this entire pipeline is no small feat and David almost makes it sound consistent and as if it could work if it was only implemented with a few details filled in here and there I do wonder if he was slightly ahead of his time, I m sure he would have loved to play around with Kinect RGBD videos


  2. Bart Bart says:

    Begin with the epilogue If any of its arguments interest you, go find their proofs in the preceding text.


  3. Billie Pritchett Billie Pritchett says:

    David Marr s Vision is a book of Marr s research on the study of the visual sytem It was not fun to read and not for general audiences It is easy to understand the basic premise of the book, however, and I think it s the right way to go about studying vision.Marr s perspective on the study of vision amounts to this When we study any system in the brain, we have to study it at three different levels There s the computational level, the algorithmic level, and the physiological level or neurop David Marr s Vision is a book of Marr s research on the study of the visual sytem It was not fun to read and not for general audiences It is easy to understand the basic premise of the book, however, and I think it s the right way to go about studying vision.Marr s perspective on the study of vision amounts to this When we study any system in the brain, we have to study it at three different levels There s the computational level, the algorithmic level, and the physiological level or neurophysiological level, if you d like Here is how to think about these different levels The computational level tries to answer the question, What does the system do What problem is the system designed to solve In the case of vision, the question might be, What reason do we have the visual system in general or some of the features of the visual system in particular The algorithmic or representational level deals with these kinds of questions How does the system do what it does What representations in particular or what algorithms does the system make use of to carry out its processing The physical or physiological level asks how the system physically realizes the system With vision, the question might be what neural structures are used to make vision possible According to Marr, any neglect of any of these areas will make it very difficult to make any progress in the study of any given system.Marr argues in this book that the general way in which vision works is that features of the world are interpreted first in a rough sketch form, kind of like a rough pencil drawing on paper When it wants to understand the information that is being input indetail, the visual system might then create a two and a half dimensional sketch, where textures and shades, for example, are interpreted in order to understand something in the environment If stillinformation about the environment is needed, the visual system will construct a three dimensional model.If we accept Marr s framework for a research program and his three stages of vision, then it makes possible to work out the details to study vision further,richly and withscientific rigor That said, the writing here is torturous for general audiences because Marr uses language related to the visual system that only people who are familiar with the visual system would understand Unfortunately


  4. Michiel Michiel says:

    Difficult book to rate I feel that it is a very personal and interesting viewpoint on the the perception of images, but I cannot shake the idea that it is also quite a bit outdated It has a bit of an old AI feel where the focus was on algorithms rather than probability and networks Contained some interesting concepts for example, how we perceive depth and texture , but seemed to be both too technical and at the seem time too superficial to me


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *