Timeline for Is there any theory of the minimum amount of data for tomographic reconstruction?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10, 2020 at 20:22 | vote | accept | jakeoung | ||
| Mar 10, 2020 at 20:22 | vote | accept | jakeoung | ||
| Mar 10, 2020 at 20:22 | |||||
| Jan 28, 2020 at 0:17 | comment | added | Brian Borchers | I've added a reference. | |
| Jan 28, 2020 at 0:15 | history | edited | Brian Borchers | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added a reference on the severe ill-conditioining of the limited angle tomography problem
|
| Jan 27, 2020 at 20:36 | comment | added | jakeoung | Anyone who can elaborate more why the problem is ill-posed even with compute angular coverage? | |
| Jan 27, 2020 at 20:34 | comment | added | jakeoung | @Brian For the moment, what I want to do is to choose the reasonable number of angles for the synthetic test. | |
| Jan 26, 2020 at 13:44 | comment | added | Dirk | I would have used "mildly" and "severely" instead of "weakly" and "strongly" for the degree of ill-posedness. Don't know if this is a language/translation issue, but I like these terms better as they reduce overloading of "weak" and "strong". | |
| Jan 25, 2020 at 1:52 | history | edited | Brian Borchers | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Correction in response to Christian's comment
|
| Jan 24, 2020 at 23:37 | comment | added | Christian Clason | Actually, the problem is ill-posed even with complete angular coverage (the Radon transform is a compact operator). | |
| Jan 24, 2020 at 16:52 | history | answered | Brian Borchers | CC BY-SA 4.0 |