Boundary conditions
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 979
- Forks
- 181
- Avg merge
- 5m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 4
Description
All the current filter operations treat pixels outside the input image as if we'd extended the boundary pixels indefinitely (i.e. padding "by continuity"). Affine transformations handle pixels whose pre-image is outside the input image by setting them to a user-provided default value.
The former is possibly limiting, and the latter is a bit clunky as you always have to provide a default even when you don't really care.
Come up with a sensible policy for handling boundary conditions and document it. Do we need to allow filter users to extend with zero/by symmetry/some other method?
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Review the current filter operations and affine transformations to understand how they handle pixels outside the input image. Decide on a consistent boundary-condition policy, including whether filter users should be able to choose zero, symmetry, or another extension method and whether affine transformations need an optional default. Document the resulting policy and its expected behavior.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- computer-vision
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100