International Journal of Food Properties

ISSN: 1094-2912 (Print) 1532-2386 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ljfp20

IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD TO DETERMINE

SURFACE AREA AND VOLUME OF AXI-SYMMETRIC
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

C. M. Sabliov , D. Boldor , K. M. Keener & B. E. Farkas

To cite this article: C. M. Sabliov , D. Boldor , K. M. Keener & B. E. Farkas (2002) IMAGE
PROCESSING METHOD TO DETERMINE SURFACE AREA AND VOLUME OF AXI-SYMMETRIC
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, International Journal of Food Properties, 5:3, 641-653

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1081/JFP-120015498

Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Published online: 06 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2660

Citing articles: 42 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ljfp20
 MARCEL DEKKER, INC. • 270 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK, NY 10016
©2002 Marcel Dekker, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be used or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Marcel Dekker, Inc.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD PROPERTIES

Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 641–653, 2002

IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD TO DETERMINE

SURFACE AREA AND VOLUME OF
AXI-SYMMETRIC AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

C. M. Sabliov, D. Boldor, K. M. Keener, and B. E. Farkas*

Department of Food Science, North Carolina State University,

Raleigh, NC 27695-7624, USA

ABSTRACT

An image processing based method was developed to measure volume

and surface area of ellipsoidal agricultural products such as eggs, lemons,
limes, and peaches. The method assumes that each product has an axi-
symmetric geometry and is a sum of superimposed elementary frustums
of right circular cones. The product volume and surface area are calcu-
lated as the sum of the volumes and surface areas of individual frustums
using Matlab1. The dimensions of individual frustums are determined
from a digitized picture of the product acquired by a Charged Coupled
Device (CCD) camera and processed in Adobe Photoshop1. The
volumes and surface areas computed showed good agreement with
analytical and experimental results. The developed method proved
to be accurate, precise, and easy to use.

*Corresponding author. Fax: 919-515-7124; E-mail: befarkas@ncsu.edu

641

DOI: 10.1081=JFP-120015498 1094-2912 (Print); 1532-2386 (Online)

Copyright # 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com
642 SABLIOV ET AL.

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge of surface area of agricultural products is required as an

integral part in heat and mass transfer calculations and in determination of
physical properties such as gas permeability, weight per unit surface area,
and respiration rates. Theoretical estimations based on a product principal
dimensions and weights were investigated for eggs,[1] apples, pears and
plums,[2] and apples, carrots, oranges and lemons.[3] Experimental methods
were also developed to measure surface area and volume of agricultural
products. The tape method for surface area and the water displacement
method for volume[2] are the most commonly used, with the tape method
being labor intensive and subject to human error.
A first step toward image processing methods was made when a pho-
tographic method was proposed to estimate surface area and volume of
eggs.[2] In this method, the top and bottom of the eggs were considered as
segments of spheres and the sections between were considered elementary
cylinders. Although it had good results, this method was also time consuming
making it impractical for large number of samples.
With the availability of image processing software and hardware, the
task of measuring the dimensions, areas, and volumes of agricultural pro-
ducts, was significantly reduced. Two dimensional image analysis was used
to study the kinetic parameters of rice swelling in hot water.[4] Other image-
based measurements of surface areas of solid objects were previously reported
in literature for potato leafs[577] and for roots.[8710] Surface area of both
planar objects (leafs) and non-planar objects (roots) were obtained based
on the digitization of the image of the product and counting the number
of pixels. For non-planar objects, the authors approximated the object of
interest with a sum of elementary cylinders and obtained the surface area
of the product by summation of the surface area of the individual cylinders.
The objectives of this research were 1) to develop an image processing
method for determination of volume and surface area of axi-symmetric
(cylindrical and non-cylindrical) agricultural products, and 2) to validate
the developed method by comparing the results with analytical and
experimental data.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

The products subject to this study were eggs, lemons, limes, and pea-
ches, all purchased at a local grocery store. Surface area and volume of the
products were determined using image processing techniques, in three steps:
1) image acquisition, 2) image processing, and 3) volume and surface area
computation. Results obtained were compared against experimental and
analytical data.
IMAGE PROCESSING TO DETERMINE SURFACE AREA AND VOLUME 643

Image Acquisition

The components of the image processing system included: CCD camera

(I-CUBE, Crofton, MD), four 100 W halogen light sources (Sylvania,
Danvers, MA), light diffuser (photographic glossy paper), and sample holder.
All components were enclosed in a black plywood box (47.63
33.20

99.06 cm) to eliminate any interference from outside light. Optimum illumi-
nation was obtained by using equal intensity sources disposed in a four-fold
symmetry about the origin such that each source produced an equal con-
tribution to the total illumination.[11] The sample holder was built from
Styrofoam and was placed on a laboratory jack (Hunter Associates
Laboratory, Inc., Reston, VA), to conveniently adjust the distance between
the sample and the camera (Fig. 1). Images of the samples were acquired
using a 1=2 inch Hitachi KP-D50 professional CCD image processing camera
equipped with 8.5 mm focal lenses.[12] The amount of light entering the CCD
array of the camera was controlled by pre-setting the white balance with a
white piece of paper.[13] The acquired images were digitized with a Truevision
TARGAþ image acquisition card (Truevision, Indianapolis, IN). Two
different pictures were taken for each product after manually rotating the

Figure 1. Image processing acquisition system.

644 SABLIOV ET AL.

Figure 2. Original and processed images with two different views per product.

product 90 . The two perpendicular views of an egg and peach prior to
processing are presented in Figs. 2a and 2c, respectively.

Image Processing

The acquired images were processed using Adobe Photoshop 5.5 image
processing software (Adobe Systems Inc., Salinas, CA), upgraded with the
Image Processing ToolKit (Reindeer Games Inc., Asheville, NC), installed
on a Sony VAIO Digital Studio desktop computer. The color image of the
product on a black background was converted to a 256-levels gray scale
image, with white corresponding to 0 and black to 255. The image was then
converted to a binary image using the threshold option, with a value of 128,
the midpoint between the two peaks of the image histogram.[14] All pixels
with a gray level of 128 and higher were converted to black (binary value 1),
and those with a value of 127 and lower were converted to white (binary
value 0). The remaining noise, image features of less than 200 pixels, was
removed using the cutoff filter in the Image Processing Toolkit.[15] The binary
IMAGE PROCESSING TO DETERMINE SURFACE AREA AND VOLUME 645

image was inverted, with the object of interest black and the remaining image
white, and saved as a bitmap file (Figs. 2b and 2d).

Area and Volume Computation

The bitmap files were processed using Matlab (MathWorks Inc.,

Natick, MA) to obtain the volume and surface area of each sample. In
developing the Matlab program it was assumed that all objects had an axi-
symmetric geometry, characterized by a circular cross-section at any point
perpendicular to the z-axis. The axi-symmetric object was digitized in the
image acquisition process in small image elements or pixels.[16] After digiti-
zation, the image was represented by a set of elementary cylindrical objects of
1 pixel height (Fig. 3).
Volume and surface area of the sample may be estimated by summing
the elementary areas and volumes of individual cylinders.[10] However,
because this method does not account for the shaded areas (Fig. 3), a sig-
nificant error is introduced in the estimation. To better approximate the
shape of the object, the cylinders were connected into elementary frustums of
right circular cones (Fig. 4). The volume (V) and surface area (S) of the object
were computed as the sum of the volumes and, respectively, surface areas of
the elementary cones as follows:[17]

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
X
n Xn
p Dbot i Dtop i 2 2
S¼ Si ¼ ðDbot i þ Dtop i Þ  þh ð1Þ
i¼1 i¼1
2 2 2

Figure 3. Product geometry.

646 SABLIOV ET AL.

Figure 4. Elementary frustum of right circular cone.

X
n Xn
ph  2 
V¼ Vi ¼ Dbot i þ Dbot i Dtop i þ D2top i ð2Þ
i¼1 i¼1
12

where Dbot ¼ frustum bottom diameter, cm; Dtop ¼ frustum top diameter,
cm; and h ¼ frustum height, cm.
A Matlab code was created to calculate volume and surface area of the
elementary cones and their summation over the whole object (Appendix A).
The program counts the frustum radii in pixels, based on the difference
between the color of the sample (1 ¼ black) and the background (0 ¼ white).
Conversion from pixels to unit length in vertical and horizontal directions is
accomplished by multiplying the number of pixels with the calibration factor
in that direction (unit length=number of pixels). Calibration was performed
in both dimensions to account for non-square pixels in the CCD array of the
camera. For each sample class (eggs, lemons, limes, peaches) the system was
calibrated separately to account for different focal planes associated with
products of different dimensions. The calibration factors were determined as
follows. A picture of one representative product in each class was used in
Adobe Photoshop to count the number of pixels corresponding to its max-
imum dimensions in two directions. The dimensions were previously mea-
sured using a caliper and the calibration factor was calculated as the ratio
between the dimension in centimeters and the number of pixels. The resulting
number was employed in Matlab as a calibration factor for all products in
the same class with the reference product.

Method Validation

The method developed was validated by comparing area and volume

results obtained via image processing with calculated surface areas (A) and
volumes (V) of known-diameter (D) spheres:
IMAGE PROCESSING TO DETERMINE SURFACE AREA AND VOLUME 647

A ¼ pD2 ð3Þ

pD3
V¼ ð4Þ
6
For agricultural products, method precision was assessed by comparing the
two data points obtained from two perpendicular images of the product.
Method accuracy was estimated by comparing image processing results with
data obtained using previously developed methods. Surface area of agri-
cultural products was measured using the tape method[2] and volume by the
water displacement method.[2]
Narrow strips of tape from 2 to 4 cm in length were used to cover the
entire surface area of the product. The tape was cut into sections with a razor
knife, all sections removed and placed on a transparency sheet, which was
run through a LI-3000 Area Meter (LI-COR, Inc, Lincoln, NE) to obtain the
total sample area.
Sample volume was measured using the water displacement method.
The product was completely submerged in water by a sinker rod and the
weight of displaced water measured. Water absorption was assumed negli-
gible due to short contact time between the sample and the medium (water).
The product volume was obtained based on Archimede’s principle, by
dividing the mass of displaced water by the density of water.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical data analysis (means, standard deviations, percentage dif-

ference) was performed with Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation,
Redmond, WA). The mean values of surface area and volume for each
sample collected by image processing and traditional methods were based on
duplicate measurements. Percent difference between two data points was
calculated as the ratio between the absolute value of the difference between
the two values and the expected value:

jx1  x2 j
% diff ¼ ð5Þ
x1

where, x1 ¼ expected value and x2 ¼ measured value, e.g., when comparing

the image processing data and traditional data with calculated values, the
analytical value is considered the expected value. In addition, a t-test
(a ¼ 0.5) was performed to compare the means of traditional and computer
based data sets for agricultural products.
648 SABLIOV ET AL.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Method Validation

Surface area and volume of five 1.500 diameter spheres obtained using
image processing and traditional methods were compared against calculated
values to assess the accuracy of the method used (Table 1). Image processing
data shows a 1.34% larger surface area than the calculated value. The tape
method yields a surface area 3.20% larger than the calculated value. This
suggests that the image processing method is more accurate than the tape
method. Besides higher accuracy, the image processing method is more
precise, as supported by a low standard deviation between the readings,
0.32 cm2 as compared to 0.64 cm2 for the tape method.
In terms of volume measurement, the accuracy of the water displace-
ment method (0.44%) is better than the image processing (1.19%). The
precision of both methods: water displacement and image processing, are
very similar: 0.04 cm3 and 0.07 cm3, respectively. Overall, the image proces-
sing error in both surface area and volume measurement was below 2%.

Agricultural Products
Method Precision

Table 2 contains volume and surface area data of different agricultural

products determined based on image-processing algorithms. Standard
deviations for surface area and volume for spheres were very small, less than
0.7 cm2 and 0.2 cm3, respectively. Also, standard deviations for egg surface
areas (1.4 cm2) compared well with previously reported standard deviations
for surface area estimations of hen eggs,[1] between 3.5 to 4 cm2. Standard
deviations for other agricultural products were: for lemons 1.5 cm2 (surface
measurement) and 3.4 cm3 (volume measurement), limes 3.7 cm2 and 6.6 cm3,
and peaches 3.6 cm2 and 4.8 cm3.
The difference between image processing precision for different agri-
cultural products may be explained based on their geometry: the closer the

Table 1. Method Validation, Mean Values  Standard Deviations (Percent Difference Be-
tween the Measured Parameter and the Analytical Value)

Surface Area (cm2) Volume (cm3)

Image Tape Image Water

Calculated Processing Method Calculated Processing Displacement

45.60 46.21  0.32 47.06  0.64 28.96 28.62  0.07 29.09  0.04
(1.34%) (3.20%) (1.19%) (0.44%)
IMAGE PROCESSING TO DETERMINE SURFACE AREA AND VOLUME 649

Table 2. Method Precision, Image Processing Mean Values  Standard Deviations

Major Minor Mass Area Volume

Dimension (cm) Dimension (cm) (g) (cm2) (cm3)

Spheres 46.21  0.06 28.63  0.06

46.09  0.05 28.57  0.13
46.41  0.68 28.64  0.06
46.26  0.55 28.61  0.07
46.09  0.16 28.62  0.06
Eggs 2.83 2.21 61.35 76.10  0.28 59.14  0.14
2.75 2.10 53.51 69.48  0.23 51.51  0.12
2.71 2.17 56.75 71.87  0.19 55.69  1.34
2.89 2.11 57.62 72.68  0.21 54.76  0.48
2.78 2.13 56.44 72.31  0.48 54.69  0.08
2.68 2.11 54.29 70.67  0.02 53.05  0.09
2.91 2.14 59.53 75.54  1.31 57.18  0.47
2.80 2.12 55.67 72.89  0.24 55.21  0.36
2.85 2.18 60.55 75.44  0.94 57.31  0.38
2.78 2.12 54.63 69.60  0.54 51.78  0.41
Lemons 3.62 2.56 84.59 109.10  0.95 100.74  1.49
3.63 2.57 81.76 108.35  1.51 99.93  3.41
3.41 2.45 68.00 96.09  0.03 83.04  0.77
3.72 2.39 72.70 95.15  0.30 80.34  0.71
3.30 2.56 73.13 99.64  1.62 88.42  2.40
Limes 3.24 3.02 122.51 123.19  3.73 120.89  6.63
3.33 2.97 124.23 123.42  3.39 121.26  4.78
3.24 2.80 111.19 119.12  1.61 116.66  2.07
3.40 2.87 120.64 125.80  0.80 126.76  1.50
3.06 2.91 114.97 124.45  0.41 125.82  0.74
Peaches 2.92 2.79 112.25 130.03  3.61 133.25  4.83
3.25 2.93 145.17 146.24  0.71 159.67  0.75
3.08 3.06 122.09 131.55  2.03 136.37  2.62
3.08 3.06 116.13 129.59  3.32 133.08  4.58
3.21 3.21 135.27 143.70  2.06 155.00  3.88

product is to axi-symmetric geometry, the better the method precision.

Spheres are perfectly axi-symmetric objects, eggs are close to axi-symmetric,
leading to small standard deviations in area and volume measurements.
Higher standard deviations, associated with area and volume of limes, lemons,
and peaches suggest a degree of asymmetry associated with these products.
Another geometric factor associated with peaches, which can explain the high
standard deviations observed for this product, is concavity, shown in Fig. 2d.
It was found that the volume and area calculated were higher than expected
when concavity was involved, e.g., the area and volume computed based on
the first peach picture is higher than those computed based on the second
picture. Instead of adding the volumes of two different frustums, one in region
650 SABLIOV ET AL.

I and another in region II (Fig. 2d), the Matlab program created a new
frustum with a diameter equal to the sum of the diameters of the two frustums,
leading to higher calculated area and volume. It is therefore important to
avoid using concave images of the agricultural products when computing their
volume and surface areas. Also, errors were introduced during the digitization
process, when images were converted from a continuous function to a grid of
discrete elements (pixels). Sources of error in the digitization process for dif-
ferent types of discretizations have been reviewed previously.[16]

Method Accuracy

Surface area and volume of agricultural products were measured by the

image processing method and traditional methods and the results compared.
The t-test showed significant difference between the means of the two data
sets for both area and volume measurements. But, in nearly all cases volume
data obtained by the image processing method exceeded the values obtained
by the water displacement method by less than 10%: 5.3% for eggs, 7.5%
limes, 6.9% peaches and 9.7% lemons (Table 3). The results can be attributed
to a high threshold value employed in the Adobe Photoshop image proces-
sing procedure leading to an image of larger than actual dimensions.
Surface area of axi-symmetric objects was overestimated as a result
of the high threshold value (Table 4). For eggs and spheres, the image-
processing method gave results within 5%, lower than the tape method. For
all other agricultural products there was no obvious trend in the data. Some
products resulted in higher image processing values while others resulted in
higher values for the tape method. In all cases the difference between the two
methods was less than 6%. The percentage differences between image-based
measurements and the experimental values were smaller or equivalent with
percentage difference between theoretical predictions and experimental
values for surface areas and volumes of lemons.[3]

CONCLUSIONS

A method for determination of surface area and volume of axi-

symmetrical agricultural products using machine vision and image processing
was developed and tested, showing good results for products such as eggs,
lemons, limes, and peaches. Traditional methods such as water displacement
can be successfully used for volume measurement of agricultural materials.
However, the tape method used for surface area measurement proved tedious
and prone to human error. The method developed in this study provides a
valuable alternative to the traditional methods for measurement of volume
and surface area of axi-symmetric agricultural products.
IMAGE PROCESSING TO DETERMINE SURFACE AREA AND VOLUME 651

Table 3. Method Accuracy in Volume Measurement

Water Image % Water Image %

Displacement processing Difference Displacement processing Difference

Volume of Eggs (cm3) Volume of Lemons (cm3)

58.26 59.14 1.51 94.04 100.74 7.12
50.41 51.51 2.18 91.91 99.94 8.73
53.12 55.69 4.83 75.69 83.04 9.71
54.17 54.76 1.10 79.21 80.34 1.43
52.65 54.69 3.88 81.89 88.42 7.97
50.50 53.05 5.05 Volume of Limes (cm3)
56.06 57.18 2.00 124.42 120.89 2.84
52.41 55.21 5.34 126.23 121.26 3.93
56.84 57.31 0.83 111.97 116.66 4.19
51.35 51.76 0.78 122.66 126.76 3.34
117.01 125.82 7.53
Volume of Spheres (cm3) Volume of Peaches (cm3)
29.09 28.63 1.56 124.69 133.25 6.86
29.06 28.57 1.74 157.48 159.67 1.39
29.09 28.64 1.57 135.34 136.37 0.76
29.03 28.61 1.46 129.14 133.08 3.05
29.12 28.62 1.75 148.39 155.00 4.45

Table 4. Method Accuracy in Surface Area Measurement

Tape Image % Tape Image %

Method processing Difference Method processing Difference

Surface of Eggs (cm2) Surface of Lemons (cm2)

77.53 76.10 1.83 107.02 109.10 1.95
69.85 69.48 0.53 104.09 108.35 4.09
73.37 71.87 2.04 90.80 96.09 5.83
73.27 72.68 0.80 96.84 95.15 1.74
72.50 72.31 0.27 96.91 99.64 2.82
71.01 70.67 0.48 Surface of Limes (cm2)
78.50 75.54 3.77 125.60 123.19 1.91
74.88 72.89 2.66 126.13 123.42 2.15
76.56 75.44 1.46 117.18 119.12 1.66
71.48 69.59 2.64 124.48 125.80 1.06
118.60 124.45 4.93
Surface of Spheres (cm2) Surface of Peaches (cm2)
47.50 46.21 2.70 129.98 130.03 0.04
46.40 46.09 0.68 149.20 146.24 1.98
46.47 46.41 0.12 133.62 131.55 1.55
47.37 46.26 2.34 125.89 129.59 2.94
47.56 46.09 3.09 139.77 143.70 2.81
652 SABLIOV ET AL.

Image acquisition does not require special training and the mathema-
tical model can be easily implemented in software packages other than
Matlab. With future developments of other image acquisition devices, such
as higher resolution digital cameras, and with the increase in image quality
and price reductions, the method will become more accurate and more
affordable. Furthermore, this method may be used for on-line sorting of
agricultural products based on their surface areas and volumes.

APPENDIX A
Matlab Code

[x,cmap_bmp] ¼ imread(‘file name’,‘bmp’);

s ¼ 0;
v ¼ 0;
d_old ¼ 0;
cal_v ¼ 4.381/247.667; % calibration in vertical direction
cal_h ¼ 5.675/299.333; % calibration in horizontal direction
for xx ¼ 1:512,
d ¼ 0;
s1 ¼ 0;
v1 ¼ 0;
for yy ¼ 1:400,
if x(yy, xx) ¼¼ 1
d ¼ d+1;
end
end
s1 ¼ pi*(d_old+d)/2*cal_v*sqrt((d/2-d_old/2)^2*cal_v^2+cal_h^2);
v1 ¼ pi/12*cal_h*(cal_v^2)*(d_old^2+d_old*d+d^2);
s ¼ s+s1;
v ¼ v+v1;
d_old ¼ d;
end
surface ¼ num2str(s,5)
volume ¼ num2str(v,5)

REFERENCES

1. Hughes, R.J. Estimation of Shell Surface Area from Measurements of Length,

Breadth, and Weight of Hen Eggs. Poultry Science 1984, 63, 247172474.
2. Mohsenin, N.N. Chapter 3: Physical Characteristics. In Physical Properties of
Plantand Animal Materials; Gordon and Breach Science Publishers: New York,
NY, 1970; 51787.
IMAGE PROCESSING TO DETERMINE SURFACE AREA AND VOLUME 653

3. Moustafa, S.M.A. Theoretical Prediction of Volume, Surface Area and Center

of Gravity for Agricultural Products. Transactions of the ASAE 1971, 14 (3),
5497553.
4. Ramesh, M.N. An Application of Image Analysis for the Study of Kinetics of
Hydration of Milled Rise in Hot Water. International Journal of Food Proper-
ties 2001, 4 (2), 2717284.
5. Trooien, T.P.; Heermann, D.F. Measurement and Simulation of Potato Leaf
Area Using Image Procesing. I. Model Development. Transactions ASAE
1992, 35 (5), 170971712.
6. Trooien, T.P.; Heermann, D.F. Measurement and Simulation of Potato Leaf
Area Using Image Procesing. II. Model Results. Transactions ASAE 1992,
35 (5), 171371718.
7. Trooien, T.P.; Heermann, D.F. Measurement and Simulation of Potato Leaf
Area Using Image Procesing. III. Measurement. Transactions ASAE 1992,
35 (5), 171971721.
8. Costa, C.; Dwyer, L.M.; Hamilton, R.I.; Hamel, C.; Nantais, L.; Smith, D.L.
A Sampling Method for Measurement of Large Root Systems with Scanner-
Based Image Analysis. Agronomy Journal 2000, 92, 6217627.
9. Oddiraju, V.G.; Beyl, C.A. Root Growth of Seedlings and Microcuttings of
Western Black Cherry Grown in Compacted Soil. HortScience 1996, 31 (3),
4537457.
10. Tagliavini, M.; Veto, L.J.; Looney, N.E. Measuring Root Surface Area and
Mean Root Diameter of Peach Seedlings by Digital Image Analysis.
HortScience 1993, 28 (11), 112971130.
11. Gennert, M.A.; Wittels, N. Uniform Frontal Illumination of Planar Surfaces:
Criteria for Optimal Lighting Design. Proceedings of The International Society
for Optical Engineering 1994, 2065, 62769.
12. Mills, R.; Stoltzman, D. Custom Fixed-Focal Length versus Zoom Lenses. Pro-
ceedings of The International Society for Optical Engineering 1988, 1005, 54756.
13. Hitachi Denshi, Ltd. Color Video Cameras Model KP-D50. Operational man-
ual 1999.
14. Russ, J. The Image Processing Handbook, 3rd Ed.; CRC Press & IEEE Press:
Boca Raton, FL, 1999.
15. Russ, J. The Image Processingand Analysis Cookbook. Companion to The Image
Processing Handbook; 1999.
16. Miller, E.G. Alternative Tilings for Improved Surface Area Estimates by Local
Counting Algorithms. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 1999, 74
(3), 1937211.
17. Spiegel, M.R.; Liu, J. Schaum’s Outlines-Mathematical Handbook of Formulas
and Tables, 2nd Ed.; McGRAW-HILL: New York, NY, 1999.

Received July 24, 2001

Revised October 11, 2001
Accepted November 14, 2001