title: Author's Reply.
abstract: We present evidence that the Laplacian zero-crossing operator does not use neighborhood information as effectively as the second directional derivative edge operator. We show that the use of a Gaussian smoother with standard deviation 5.0 for the Laplacian of a Gaussian edge operator with a neighborhood size of 50 × 50 both misses and misplaces edges on an aerial image of a mobile home park. Contrary to Grimson and Hildreth's results, our results of the Laplacian edge detector on a noisy test checkerboard image are also not as good as the second directional derivative edge operator. We conclude by discussing a number of open issues on edge operator evaluation.
authors.affiliation: Machine Vision International, Ann Arbor, MI 48104.
authors.forename: R M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Haralick