🚀 go-pugleaf

In the referenced article spz@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (S.P.Zeidler) writes:
>In <9209011949.AA19843@hp-and.an.hp.com> susanm@hp-and.an.hp.com (Susan Margulies) writes:
>
>One thing that you might want to take into account is that the Fourier
>transform of an ordinary image is hermitic, ie if you do a transform
>AxB real image -> AxB complex Fourier transform, you got quite some
>redundancies.

Serious question: so why not use the Hartley transform which does not
introduce these redundancies in the first place?

>Doing instead AxB image -> -(A/2+1)xB phase and (A/2+1)xB modulus
>will give you a nicely viewable (and displayable) Fourier transform.

... or use your favourite Fourier package and display the Hartley transform?

Regards, Peter

PS The Hartley transform can be regarded as a `tidier' Fourier transform.

   a) Uses cos(x)+sin(x) rather than cos(x)+i*sin(x).
   b) The inverse is the same operation as the transform.
   c) Takes real => real.
   d) Does not introduce redundancies into the representation.
   e) Even clearer relationship to the sine and cosine transforms.
   d) Easy to convert between Hartley and Fourier transforms.