Can someone tell me how (or the name of it, so that I could look it up) I can implement this interpolation effect? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36lE9tV9vm0&t=3010s&frags=pl%2Cwn
I tried to use r = r+dr, g = g+dr and b = b+db for the RGB values in each iteration, but it looks way too simple compared to the effect from the video.
"Can someone tell me how I can implement this interpolation effect?
(or the name of it, so that I could look it up)..."
It's not actually a named interpolation effect. It appears to interpolate but really it's just realtime updated variations of some fictional facial "features" (the hair, eyes, nose, etc are synthesized pixels taking hints from a library/database of possible matching feature types).
For this technique they used Neural Networks to do a process similar to DFT Image Reconstruction. You'll be modifying the image data in Frequency domain (with u,v), not Time domain (using x,y).
You can read about it at this PDF: https://research.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/pubs/2017-10_Progressive-Growing-of/karras2018iclr-paper.pdf
The (Python) source code:
https://github.com/tkarras/progressive_growing_of_gans
For ideas, on Youtube you can look up:
DFT image reconstruction (there's a good example with b/w Nicholas Cage photo reconstructed in stages. Loud music warning).
Image Synthesis with neural networks (one clip had salternative shoe and hand-bag designs (item photos) being "synthesized" by an N.N. after it analyzed features from other existing catalogue photos as "inspiration".
Image Enhancement Super Resolution using neural networks This method is closest to answering your question. One example has very low-res blurry pixelated image in b/w. Cannot tell if boy or girl. During a test, The network synthesizes various higher quality face images that it thinks is the correct match for the testing input.
After understanding what/how they're achieve it, you could think of shortcuts to get similar effect without needing networks eg: only using regular pixel editing functions.
Found it in another video, it is called "latent space interpolation", it has to be applied on the compressed images. If I have image A and the next image is image B, I have first to encode A and B, use the interpolation on the encoded data and finally decode the resulted image.
As of today, I found out that this kind of interpolation effect can be easily implemented for 3d image data. That is if the image data is available in a normalized and at 3d origin centred way, like for example in a unit sphere around the origin and the data of each faceimage is inside that unit sphere. Having the data of two images stored this way the interpolation can be calculated by taking the differences of rays going through the origin center and through each area of the sphere at some desired resolution.
Related
Example Image
For example as Image above, area I need is just like red box, and other section doesn't have any labels for classification/object detection.
What I think is "If I use cropped image to red box will occur better effect" because there's to much useless area without labels in original image. When mosaic augmentation used in yolo v4, It will put images together in one. And, because there's so many area without labels, data after mosaic can be useless than before.
But, This is just my guess, and I need a test to confirm it, but the lack of computing power is limiting the actual test. So the question is, Is it possible to actually improve performance if the original image is cropped in the form of a red box? Is that why I guessed correctly?
Also, my partner said that cropping is not a good choice in Yolo because it can ruin the proportion of the object, but I couldn't understand what the proportion of the object meant in Yolo. I wonder why the proportion of objects in Yolo is not suit with cropping.
Thanks for read, and have a nice day
simply you shouldn't resize the images, however, if the training/testing data set contains considerable difference among width and heights, use the data augmentation methods. Pls, follow the link for more information.
https://github.com/pjreddie/darknet/issues/800
I have roughly 160 images for an experiment. Some of the images, however, have clearly different levels of brightness and contrast compared to others. For instance, I have something like the two pictures below:
I would like to equalize the two pictures in terms of brightness and contrast (probably find some level in the middle and not equate one image to another - though this could be okay if that makes things easier). Would anyone have any suggestions as to how to go about this? I'm not really familiar with image analysis in Matlab so please bear with my follow-up questions should they arise. There is a question for Equalizing luminance, brightness and contrast for a set of images already on here but the code doesn't make much sense to me (due to my lack of experience working with images in Matlab).
Currently, I use Gimp to manipulate images but it's time consuming with 160 images and also just going with subjective eye judgment isn't very reliable. Thank you!
You can use histeq to perform histogram specification where the algorithm will try its best to make the target image match the distribution of intensities / histogram of a source image. This is also called histogram matching and you can read up about it on my previous answer.
In effect, the distribution of intensities between the two images should hopefully be the same. If you want to take advantage of this using histeq, you can specify an additional parameter that specifies the target histogram. Therefore, the input image would try and match itself to the target histogram. Something like this would work assuming you have the images stored in im1 and im2:
out = histeq(im1, imhist(im2));
However, imhistmatch is the more better version to use. It's almost the same way you'd call histeq except you don't have to manually compute the histogram. You just specify the actual image to match itself:
out = imhistmatch(im1, im2);
Here's a running example using your two images. Note that I'll opt to use imhistmatch instead. I read in the two images directly from StackOverflow, I perform a histogram matching so that the first image matches in intensity distribution with the second image and we show this result all in one window.
im1 = imread('http://i.stack.imgur.com/oaopV.png');
im2 = imread('http://i.stack.imgur.com/4fQPq.png');
out = imhistmatch(im1, im2);
figure;
subplot(1,3,1);
imshow(im1);
subplot(1,3,2);
imshow(im2);
subplot(1,3,3);
imshow(out);
This is what I get:
Note that the first image now more or less matches in distribution with the second image.
We can also flip it around and make the first image the source and we can try and match the second image to the first image. Just flip the two parameters with imhistmatch:
out = imhistmatch(im2, im1);
Repeating the above code to display the figure, I get this:
That looks a little more interesting. We can definitely see the shape of the second image's eyes, and some of the facial features are more pronounced.
As such, what you can finally do in the end is choose a good representative image that has the best brightness and contrast, then loop over each of the other images and call imhistmatch each time using this source image as the reference so that the other images will try and match their distribution of intensities to this source image. I can't really write code for this because I don't know how you are storing these images in MATLAB. If you share some of that code, I'd love to write more.
My aim is to detect the vein pattern in leaves which characterize various species of plants
I have already done the following:
Original image:
After Adaptive thresholding:
However the veins aren't that clear and get distorted , Is there any way i could get a better output
EDIT:
I tried color thresholding my results are still unsatisfactory i get the following image
Please help
The fact that its a JPEG image is going to give the "block" artifacts, which in the example you posted causes most square areas around the veins to have lots of noise, so ideally work on an image that's not been through lossy compression. If that's not possible then try filtering the image to remove some of the noise.
The veins you are wanting to extract have a different colour from the background, leaf and shadow so some sort of colour based threshold might be a good idea. There was a recent S.O. question with some code that might help here.
After that some sort of adaptive normalisation would help increase the contrast before you threshold it.
[edit]
Maybe thresholding isn't an intermediate step that you want to do. I made the following by filtering to remove jpeg artifacts, doing some CMYK channel math (more cyan and black) then applying adaptive equalisation. I'm pretty sure you could then go on to produce (subpixel maybe) edge points using image gradients and non-maxima supression, and maybe use the brightness at each point and the properties of the vein structure (mostly joining at a tangent) to join the points into lines.
In the past I made good experiences with the Edge detecting algorithm difference of Gaussian. Which basically works like this:
You blur the image twice with the gaussian blurr algorithm but with differenct blur radii.
Then you calculate the difference between both images.
Pixel with same color beneath each other will creating a same blured color.
Pixel with different colors beneath each other wil reate a gradient which is depending on the blur radius. For bigger radius the gradient will stretch more far. For smaller ones it wont.
So basically this is bandpass filter. If the selected radii are to small a vain vill create 2 "parallel" lines. But since the veins of leaves are small compared with the extends of the Image you mostly find radii, where a vein results in 1 line.
Here I added th processed picture.
Steps I did on this picture:
desaturate (grayscaled)
difference of Gaussian. Here I blured the first Image with a radius of 10px and the second image with a radius of 2px. The result you can see below.
This is only a quickly created result. I would guess that by optimizing the parametes, you can even get better ones.
This sounds like something I did back in college with neural networks. The neural network stuff is a bit hard so I won't go there. Anyways, patterns are perfect candidates for the 2D Fourier transform! Here is a possible scheme:
You have training data and input data
Your data is represented as a the 2D Fourier transform
If your database is large you should run PCA on the transform results to convert a 2D spectrogram to a 1D spectrogram
Compare the hamming distance by testing the spectrum (after PCA) of 1 image with all of the images in your dataset.
You should expect ~70% recognition with such primitive methods as long as the images are of approximately the same rotation. If the images are not of the same rotation.you may have to use SIFT. To get better recognition you will need more intelligent training sets such as a Hidden Markov Model or a neural net. The truth is to getting good results for this kind of problem may be quite a lot of work.
Check out: https://theiszm.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/7-properties-of-the-2d-fourier-transform/
I need to remove the blur this image:
Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/63036721#N02/5733034767/
Any Ideas?
Although previous answers are right when they say that you can't recover lost information, you could investigate a little and make a few guesses.
I downloaded your image in what seems to be the original size (75x75) and you can see here a zoomed segment (one little square = one pixel)
It seems a pretty linear grayscale! Let's verify it by plotting the intensities of the central row. In Mathematica:
ListLinePlot[First /# ImageData[i][[38]][[1 ;; 15]]]
So, it is effectively linear, starting at zero and ending at one.
So you may guess it was originally a B&W image, linearly blurred.
The easiest way to deblur that (not always giving good results, but enough in your case) is to binarize the image with a 0.5 threshold. Like this:
And this is a possible way. Just remember we are guessing a lot here!
HTH!
You cannot generally retrieve missing information.
If you know what it is an image of, in this case a Gaussian or Airy profile then it's probably an out of focus image of a point source - you can determine the characteristics of the point.
Another technique is to try and determine the character tics of the blurring - especially if you have many images form the same blurred system. Then iteratively create a possible source image, blur it by that convolution and compare it to the blurred image.
This is the general technique used to make radio astronomy source maps (images) and was used for the flawed Hubble Space Telescope images
When working with images one of the most common things is to use a convolution filter. There is a "sharpen" filter that does what it can to remove blur from an image. An example of a sharpen filter can be found here:
http://www.panoramafactory.com/sharpness/sharpness.html
Some programs like matlab make convolution really easy: conv2(A,B)
And most nice photo editing have the filters under some name or another (sharpen usually).
But keep in mind that filters can only do so much. In theory, the actual information has been lost by the blurring process and it is impossible to perfectly reconstruct the initial image (no matter what TV will lead you to believe).
In this case it seems like you have a very simple image with only black and white. Knowing this about your image you could always use a simple threshold. Set everything above a certain threshold to white, and everything below to black. Once again most photo editing software makes this really easy.
You cannot retrieve missing information, but under certain assumptions you can sharpen.
Try unsharp masking.
Sometimes two image files may be different on a file level, but a human would consider them perceptively identical. Given that, now suppose you have a huge database of images, and you wish to know if a human would think some image X is present in the database or not. If all images had a perceptive hash / fingerprint, then one could hash image X and it would be a simple matter to see if it is in the database or not.
I know there is research around this issue, and some algorithms exist, but is there any tool, like a UNIX command line tool or a library I could use to compute such a hash without implementing some algorithm from scratch?
edit: relevant code from findimagedupes, using ImageMagick
try $image->Sample("160x160!");
try $image->Modulate(saturation=>-100);
try $image->Blur(radius=>3,sigma=>99);
try $image->Normalize();
try $image->Equalize();
try $image->Sample("16x16");
try $image->Threshold();
try $image->Set(magick=>'mono');
($blob) = $image->ImageToBlob();
edit: Warning! ImageMagick $image object seems to contain information about the creation time of an image file that was read in. This means that the blob you get will be different even for the same image, if it was retrieved at a different time. To make sure the fingerprint stays the same, use $image->getImageSignature() as the last step.
findimagedupes is pretty good. You can run "findimagedupes -v fingerprint images" to let it print "perceptive hash", for example.
Cross-correlation or phase correlation will tell you if the images are the same, even with noise, degradation, and horizontal or vertical offsets. Using the FFT-based methods will make it much faster than the algorithm described in the question.
The usual algorithm doesn't work for images that are not the same scale or rotation, though. You could pre-rotate or pre-scale them, but that's really processor intensive. Apparently you can also do the correlation in a log-polar space and it will be invariant to rotation, translation, and scale, but I don't know the details well enough to explain that.
MATLAB example: Registering an Image Using Normalized Cross-Correlation
Wikipedia calls this "phase correlation" and also describes making it scale- and rotation-invariant:
The method can be extended to determine rotation and scaling differences between two images by first converting the images to log-polar coordinates. Due to properties of the Fourier transform, the rotation and scaling parameters can be determined in a manner invariant to translation.
Colour histogram is good for the same image that has been resized, resampled etc.
If you want to match different people's photos of the same landmark it's trickier - look at haar classifiers. Opencv is a great free library for image processing.
I don't know the algorithm behind it, but Microsoft Live Image Search just added this capability. Picasa also has the ability to identify faces in images, and groups faces that look similar. Most of the time, it's the same person.
Some machine learning technology like a support vector machine, neural network, naive Bayes classifier or Bayesian network would be best at this type of problem. I've written one each of the first three to classify handwritten digits, which is essentially image pattern recognition.
resize the image to a 1x1 pixle... if they are exact, there is a small probability they are the same picture...
now resize it to a 2x2 pixle image, if all 4 pixles are exact, there is a larger probability they are exact...
then 3x3, if all 9 pixles are exact... good chance etc.
then 4x4, if all 16 pixles are exact,... better chance.
etc...
doing it this way, you can make efficiency improvments... if the 1x1 pixel grid is off by a lot, why bother checking 2x2 grid? etc.
If you have lots of images, a color histogram could be used to get rough closeness of images before doing a full image comparison of each image against each other one (i.e. O(n^2)).
There is DPEG, "The" Duplicate Media Manager, but its code is not open. It's a very old tool - I remember using it in 2003.
You could use diff to see if they are REALLY different.. I guess it will remove lots of useless comparison. Then, for the algorithm, I would use a probabilistic approach.. what are the chances that they look the same.. I'd based that on the amount of rgb in each pixel. You could also find some other metrics such as luminosity and stuff like that.