All-in-focus imaging using average filter-based relative focus measure

Kwon, O.J.,Choi, S.,Jang, D.,Pang, H.S. Academic Press 2017 Digital signal processing Vol.60 No.-

Digital images are normally taken by focusing on an object, resulting in defocused background regions. A popular approach to produce an all-in-focus image without defocused regions is to capture several input images at varying focus settings, and then fuse them into an image using offline image processing software. This paper describes an all-in-focus imaging method that can operate on digital cameras. The proposed method consists of an automatic focus-bracketing algorithm that determines at which focuses to capture images and an image-fusion algorithm that computes a high-quality all-in-focus image. While most previous methods use the focus measure calculated independently for each input image, the proposed method calculates the relative focus measure between a pair of input images. We note that a well-focused region in an image shows better contrast, sharpness, and details than the corresponding region that is defocused in another image. Based on the observation that the average filtered version of a well-focused region in an image shows a higher correlation to the corresponding defocused region in another image than the original well-focused version, a new focus measure is proposed. Experimental results of various sample image sequences show the superiority of the proposed measure in terms of both objective and subjective evaluation and the proposed method allows the user to capture all-in-focus images directly on their digital camera without using offline image processing software.

漢語學習者的漢語句子焦點位置的聽覺區分

李善熙 ( Lee Sun Hee ) 중국어문학회 2024 中國語文學誌 Vol.- No.87

What is important in understanding the context of meaning in the entire conversation is the understanding of the overall sound such which includes focus or prosody of the whole sentence not a single utterance of a very partial vowel, consonant, or tone. In particular, ‘focus perception’ is very important to understand what is important in the context, however learner research on ‘focus perception’ is insufficient. Even in the same sentence, physical sound information such as the strength or sound length of the speech sound may vary depending on what semantic importance is expressed psychologically. The purpose of the present study was to examine how listeners’ native language affected the ability of distinguish the focus placement in Chinese. Native Chinese and Korean Chinese learners judged focus placement in 10 different sentence. One sentence consists of 3 words(5 syllables). The tone of the each syllables are Tone1. It is observed it there are focus at the specific position such as Subject, Verb and Object, the components which carry focus have longer durations and higher pitch. Chinese natives and Korean learners can distinct the focus position clearly. However, though it is also observed the components carrying information focus at the sentence final position exhibit longer durations and higher pitch than the other part of the sentence, Korean learners and Chinese natives judged differently about the focus position of broad focus. Unlike Korean learners thought that there are focus at the final syllable, more Chinese natives thought that there are no focus in broad focus sentence.

초점의 유형에 따른 운율 실현 양상 -‘은/는’과 ‘이/가’ 초점 성분을 중심으로-

김민국,하영우 한국어의미학회 2017 한국어 의미학 Vol.58 No.-

58. This study aims to examine prosodic realization, declination of pitch, of focuses which are marked by un/nun and i/ka and to find correlation between focus markers with prosody, which are major means of focus expression. Discussion of this article is summarized as follows. First, when focuses are marked by focus marker, focuses always involve prosodic prominence regardless of focus type. This result demonstrates that prosodic prominence can distinguish different type of focuses by cooperation of focus markers which co-occur with it. Second, but prosodic prominence has distinctive function when different type of focuses which can not be expressed by paradigmatic focus marker un/nun or syntagmatic focus marker i/ka appear. Thus, prosodic prominence has expressive function and distinctive function. Third, context which be able to differentiate type of focus has no effect on prosodic realization of focuses. In other words, prosodic prominence obligatorily appears when focuses are marked. Finally, prosodic realization of focuses can usually be characterized by absolute pitch level. However, occasionally readjustment of relative pitch level and length are important to observe prosodic realization of focuses. So, we need to develop various method of observing prosodic realization of focuses.

보조사 ‘(이)나’의 의미론 - ‘이접’의 의미와의 관련성을 중심으로 -

김민국 한말연구학회 2024 한말연구 Vol.65 No.30

. In this paper, we focused on the relationship between focus particle (i)na and disjunctive particle (i)na and attempted to explain the meanings of focus particle (i)na based on the semantic properties of disjunction. The discussions in this paper are summarized as follows. First, due to the semantic properties of disjunction, disjunctive particle (i)na has three meanings: 'inclusive', 'exclusive'(including 'excluding' and 'excluded'), and 'uncertainty'. All three of these meanings are also found in focus particle (i)na. Second, when the meaning of ‘uncertainty’ appears explicitly in focus particle (i)na, it is mainly related to exclusive disjunctive contexts where the meaning of 'uncertainty' is most pronounced. Third, the meaning of 'exclusive' expressed by focus particle (i)na is divided into two types of 'exclusion' expressed by exclusive disjunction. The 'second best' or 'unsatisfactory choice', which is the representative meaning of focus particle (i)na is the result of the upper value in the scale implication based on irrealis mood being excluded and as a result the lower value being selected as the focus. When focus particle (i)na indicates the meaning of 'excluding', if the upper value becomes the focus, it forms a necessary condition context, whereas if the lower value becomes the focus, it forms a sufficient condition context, just like exclusive focus particle man. However, focus particle (i)na does not have 'exhaustiveness' due to the meaning of 'uncertainty'. Fourth, inclusive focus particle (i)na reveals the meaning of 'large subjective quantity' by including lower values ​​in the scale implication based on realis mood. This aspect also appears in the inclusive focus particle to. Inclusive focus particle (i)na can form an alternative set even when it does not involve 'quantity' or 'degree', in such cases, similar to inclusive focus particle kkaji, it means 'surprise' or 'unexpected event'.

Ranking Acoustic Cues for English Focus Prosody with Random Forests

이용철 한국중원언어학회 2024 언어학연구 Vol.- No.70

This study measured prosodic parameters related to English focus prosody, and ranked the cues that play a significant role in featuring English focus prosody using a random forest model. To achieve this research objective, we directly compared two focus conditions: broad focus and discourse-new focus. The broad focus condition was isolated, while the discourse-new focus condition was induced using a Q&A format. The findings revealed that both focus and post-focus regions exhibited distinct prosodic cues. In the focus regions, the primary distinguishing factor between the two focus conditions was duration, followed by intensity, pitch range, maximum pitch, mean pitch, and so on. Conversely, in the post-focus regions, mean absolute slope emerged as the foremost determinant in distinguishing between the two focus conditions. The remaining parameters were subsequently ranked in the following order: intensity, mean pitch, maximum pitch, duration, pitch range, minimum pitch, and so forth. In essence, different sets of acoustic cues demonstrated varying levels of influence on the focus and post-focus regions, each characterized by unique acoustic parameters, which ultimately defined the distinctive prosodic features of each region.

Do Subtypes of Focus Really Exist in Spanish?

정혜윤 한국언어학회 2016 언어 Vol.41 No.1

Chung, Hye-Yoon. 2016. Do Subtypes of Focus Really Exist in Spanish? Korean Journal of Linguistics, 41-1, 95-118. This article deals with the term focus in Spanish, in particular, two subtypes of focus, called Contrastive Focus and Non-contrastive Focus (cf. Gutiérrez-Bravo, 2005). According to Zubizarreta (1998), in Spanish, the two types of focus most noticeably differ syntactically: While Non-contrastive Focus should appear at the utterance-final position, Contrastive Focus may appear in-situ. Inspired by a handful of studies (e.g. Cabrera-Abreu & García-Lecumberri, 2003; Kim & Avelino, 2003; Toledo, 1989) and motivated by empirical data gathered for the pilot study conducted prior to the current study, I set out to reinvestigate Zubizarreta’s (1998) claim on the distinction between the focus subtypes. The findings of the current study show that the pragmatically defined notion of focus (Lambrecht, 1994) is not further divided into two types in Castilian Spanish at least syntactically. Across the focus scopes, there were little differences in Contrastive Focus and in Non-contrastive focus. (Korea University)

Do Subtypes of Focus Really Exist in Spanish?

Hye-Yoon Chung 한국언어학회 2016 언어 Vol.41 No.1

Chung, Hye-Yoon. 2016. Do Subtypes of Focus Really Exist in Spanish? Korean Journal of Linguistics, 41-2, 97-118. This article deals with the term focus in Spanish, in particular, two subtypes of focus, called Contrastive Focus and Non-contrastive Focus (cf. Gutiérrez-Bravo, 2005). According to Zubizarreta (1998), in Spanish, the two types of focus most noticeably differ syntactically: While Non-contrastive Focus should appear at the utterance-final position, Contrastive Focus may appear in-situ. Inspired by a handful of studies (e.g. Cabrera-Abreu & García-Lecumberri, 2003; Kim & Avelino, 2003; Toledo, 1989) and motivated by empirical data gathered for the pilot study conducted prior to the current study, I set out to reinvestigate Zubizarreta’s (1998) claim on the distinction between the focus subtypes. The findings of the current study show that the pragmatically defined notion of focus (Lambrecht, 1994) is not further divided into two types in Castilian Spanish at least syntactically. Across the focus scopes, there were little differences in Contrastive Focus and in Non-contrastive focus. (Korea University)

조절초점이 소비자 행복에 미치는 영향 : 예측방법과 시간적 거리의 조절효과를 중심으로

추령,김경민 한국전문경영인학회 2018 專門經營人硏究 Vol.21 No.4

Previous studies have reported that, according to promotion focus and prevention focus in regulatory focus, consumers’ predictions of future events are different. Various hypotheses have been established that, regulatory focus has influence not only on product attitudes but also on consumer happiness, and also interaction of forecast methods and temporal distance are expected to affect consumer happiness. In our first experiment, we carried out a 2(regulatory focus: promotion focus/ prevention focus) ×2(prediction method: forecasting/ backcasting) between subject design. Our second experiment 2 was a 2(regulatory focus: promotion focus) ×2(temporal distance: near future/ distance future) between subject study. The first experiment showed a significant interaction between regulatory focus and prediction method on happiness. In other words in the case promotion focus, consumers who use forecasting indicate more influence on happiness than backcasting. However, in the case of prevention focus, it has nothing to do with the prediction method used. Evidently, the second experiment also showed a significant interaction between regulatory focus and temporal distance. Similar to experiment 1, the interaction effect of the two variables was significant as expected. In other words it is found that while promotion focus consumers prefer to select distance future time, consumers of prevention focus prefer to select near future time. These results suggest that because of the influence given by the interaction of consumer characteristics of regulatory focus and prediction method, temporal distance on happiness obtained from the consumption of product, understanding of regulatory focus is important from the strategic marketing aspect. Preceding study is worthwhile for happiness and future prediction in the field of marketing

ソウル方言話者の日本語發話に對する日本語母語話者の評價 : "end focus"を中心に "end focus"를 중심으로 With focus on "End Focus"

李惠蓮 한국일어일문학회 2004 日語日文學硏究 Vol.48 No.1

"end focus"とは、ソウル方言話者の日本語の發話中に現れる特徵的なイントネ-ションのことである。本硏究では、このソウル方言話者の"end focus"に對する日本語母語話者の評價を、自然談話を材料に調べた。 その調査の方法として、まず、被驗者は日本語母語話者15名を對象とした。この被驗者15名は全員過去日本國內や海外で日本語を敎えた經驗のある且つ、現在外國人に「日本語を敎えている者である。被驗者の平均年齡は23歲で、日本語を敎えた經驗は平均3年である。 次に、調査の材料は、ソウル方言話者女性1名の60分間の自然談話の中で最初の10分間の「自己紹介」の部分を拔粹したものである。評價用紙は、「自由記述」、「アンケ-ト」「內省報告」の三つである。手續きは、一人ずつ防音室で調査を行った。 その結果、まず、自由記述とアンケ-トの發音の部分的な評價の7項目 (單音、特殊拍、アクセント、プロミネンス、ポ-ズ、"end focus"、イントネ-ション) の評價の結果、この音聲的要因の7項目の中で、"end focus"が最も直す必要がある項目として評價された。 また、フォロ-アップインタビュ-の結果でも、"end focus"は聞き手に對して、感情的に不快な印象を與えてしまうという意見が多かったため、最も直すべき項目であると評價された 。 次に"end focus"に對する質的評價の內容をまとめると「音聲面」、「文法面」「感情面」、「場面差」、「方言·なまり」の五つに分けることが出來た。また、この中で"end focus"は、感情面のマイナス的效果があるという指摘が多かったため、最も直すべき項目であると評價された。 以上の結果から、ソウル方言話者の日本語發音の不自然な音聲的要因の中で、"end focus"が、その日本語發音の不自然さに大きく影響する要因の一つであるといえる。また、ソウル方言話者の日本語音聲敎育において、感情的誤解を招く句末イントネ-ションである"end focus"の矯正指導の必要性が示唆された。

Accessible and Active Subjects in Event-Reporting Sentences in English, French and Korean

오치성 사단법인 한국언어학회 2008 언어학 Vol.0 No.50

The proposition of an uttered sentence can be divided into two portions: one which is already part of the presupposition and the other which does not belong to the presupposition, i.e. the focus. Depending on which portion of the proposition is the focus, three types of focus structures are distinguished: predicate-focus, argument-focus, and sentence-focus structures (Lambrecht 1994). Among the three types of focus structures, the sentence-focus structure, in which the focus covers the entire proposition, can be characterized as expressing an "all-new" proposition. According to Lambrecht (1994, 1988), sentence-focus sentences are divided into two subtypes depending on their functions in the discourse: presentational and event-reporting. A presentational sentence presents a new discourse referent, and an event-reporting sentence reports a new event involving a new referent in a discourse. Due to the "all-new" character of sentence-focus structure, it may be expected that a topical (active or accessible) referent does not appear in sentence-focus structure. However, it is often noticed that accessible referents appear as subject arguments in event-reporting cases of sentence-focus structures in English and French. Lambrecht argues that speakers use those accessible referents to add unexpected or surprising nature to the events expressed by the sentences. Similarly, in Korean, it is pointed out that accessible and even active subject referents can appear in event-reporting sentences, and I argue that they have the same function as those accessible referents in event-reporting sentences in English and French: they are used to indicate the events expressed by the sentences are surprising or unexpected.