I have found values of entropy, mean squared error and PSNR of edge detected images with respect to original images. I have different five edge detected images with different threshold and sigma values. To find which is the best combination of threshold and sigma, I need to find the best edge detected image.
Without visual inspection, Can I find it from the above values? I found from research paper that, if mean squared error image is low, detected edges are good. Can I use this concept? How does PSNR and Entropy affects?
Selection of the edge detection parameters is highly dependent on image quality, image content and the information that you want to extract form the image. So it is essentially application-dependent and subjective to a large extent.
No theory can help you. Probably the best you can do is to ajdust those parameters the way that pleases you on a subsample of your images, and feed this data together with the entropy, MSE and PSNR to a machine learning device.
Related
Suppose we have a series of digital images D1,...,Dn. For certainty, we consider this images to be of the same size. The problem is to find the largest common area -- the largest area that all of the input images share.
I suppose that if we have an algorithm to detect such area in two input images A and B, we can generalize it to the case of n images.
The most difficulty in this problem is that this area in image A doesn't have to be identically, pixel to pixel, equal to the the same area in image B. For example, we take two shots of a building using phone camera. Our hand shook and the second picture turned out to be a little dislodged. And the noise that's present in every picture adds uncertainty as well.
What algorithms should I look into to solve this kind of problem?
Simple but approximate solution, to begin with.
Rescale the images so that the amplitude of the shaking becomes smaller than a pixel.
Compute the standard deviation of every pixel across all images.
Consider the pixels with a deviation below a threshold.
As a second approximation, you can use the image at the full resolution as a template, but only in the areas obtained as above. Then register the other images with respect to it. The registration model can be translational only, but allowing rotation would be better.
Unfortunately, registration isn't an easy task. For your small displacements, Lucas-Kanade or Shi-Tomasi might be appropriate.
After registration, you can redo the deviation test to get better delineated regions.
I would use a method like SURF (or SIFT): you compute the SURF on each image and you see if there is common interest points. The common interest points will be the zone you are looking for. Thanks to SURF, the area does not have to be at the same place or scale.
I have been working a self project in image processing and robotics where instead robot as usual detecting colors and picking out the object, it tries to detect the holes(resembling different polygons) on the board. For a better understanding of the setup here is an image:
As you can see I have to detect these holes, find out their shapes and then use the robot to fit the object into the holes. I am using a kinect depth camera to get the depth image. The pic is shown below:
I was lost in thought of how to detect the holes with the camera, initially using masking to remove the background portion and some of the foreground portion based on the depth measurement,but this did not work out as, at different orientations of the camera the holes would merge with the board... something like inranging (it fully becomes white). Then I came across adaptiveThreshold function
adaptiveThreshold(depth1,depth3,255,ADAPTIVE_THRESH_GAUSSIAN_C,THRESH_BINARY,7,-1.0);
With noise removal using erode, dilate, and gaussian blur; which detected the holes in a better manner as shown in the picture below. Then I used the cvCanny edge detector to get the edges but so far it has not been good as shown in the picture below.After this I tried out various feature detectors from SIFT, SURF, ORB, GoodFeaturesToTrack and found out that ORB gave the best times and the features detected. After this I tried to get the relative camera pose of a query image by finding its keypoints and matching those keypoints for good matches to be given to the findHomography function. The results are as shown below as in the diagram:
In the end i want to get the relative camera pose between the two images and move the robot to that position using the rotational and translational vectors got from the solvePnP function.
So is there any other method by which I could improve the quality of the
holes detected for the keypoints detection and matching?
I had also tried contour detection and approxPolyDP but the approximated shapes are not really good:
I have tried tweaking the input parameters for the threshold and canny functions but
this is the best I can get
Also ,is my approach to get the camera pose correct?
UPDATE : No matter what I tried I could not get good repeatable features to map. Then I read online that a depth image is cheap in resolution and its only used for stuff like masking and getting the distances. So , it hit me that the features are not proper because of the low resolution image with its messy edges. So I thought of detecting features on a RGB image and using the depth image to get only the distances of those features. The quality of features I got were literally off the charts.It even detected the screws on the board!! Here are the keypoints detected using GoodFeaturesToTrack keypoint detection..
I met an another hurdle while getting the distancewith the distances of the points not coming out properly. I searched for possible causes and it occured to me after quite a while that there was a offset in the RGB and depth images because of the offset between the cameras.You can see this from the first two images. I then searched the net on how to compensate this offset but could not find a working solution.
If anyone one of you could help me in compensate the offset,it would be great!
UPDATE: I could not make good use of the goodFeaturesToTrack function. The function gives the corners in Point2f type .If you want to compute the descriptors we need the keypoints and converting Point2f to Keypoint with the code snippet below leads to the loss of scale and rotational invariance.
for( size_t i = 0; i < corners1.size(); i++ )
{
keypoints_1.push_back(KeyPoint(corners1[i], 1.f));
}
The hideous result from the feature matching is shown below .
I have to start on different feature matchings now.I'll post further updates. It would be really helpful if anyone could help in removing the offset problem.
Compensating the difference between image output and the world coordinates:
You should use good old camera calibration approach for calibrating the camera response and possibly generating a correction matrix for the camera output (in order to convert them into real scales).
It's not that complicated once you have printed out a checkerboard template and capture various shots. (For this application you don't need to worry about rotation invariance. Just calibrate the world view with the image array.)
You can find more information here: http://www.vision.caltech.edu/bouguetj/calib_doc/htmls/own_calib.html
--
Now since I can't seem to comment on the question, I'd like to ask if your specific application requires the machine to "find out" the shape of the hole on the fly. If there are finite amount of hole shapes, you may then model them mathematically and look for the pixels that support the predefined models on the B/W edge image.
Such as (x)^2+(y)^2-r^2=0 for a circle with radius r, whereas x and y are the pixel coordinates.
That being said, I believe more clarification is needed regarding the requirements of the application (shape detection).
If you're going to detect specific shapes such as the ones in your provided image, then you're better off using a classifer. Delve into Haar classifiers, or better still, look into Bag of Words.
Using BoW, you'll need to train a bunch of datasets, consisting of positive and negative samples. Positive samples will contain N unique samples of each shape you want to detect. It's better if N would be > 10, best if >100 and highly variant and unique, for good robust classifier training.
Negative samples would (obviously), contain stuff that do not represent your shapes in any way. It's just for checking the accuracy of the classifier.
Also, once you have your classifier trained, you could distribute your classifier data (say, suppose you use SVM).
Here are some links to get you started with Bag of Words:
https://gilscvblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/bag-of-words-models-for-visual-categorization/
Sample code:
http://answers.opencv.org/question/43237/pyopencv_from-and-pyopencv_to-for-keypoint-class/
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 create fingerprints of many images (about 100.000 existing, 1000 new per day, RGB, JPEG, max size 800x800) to compare every image to every other image very fast. I can't use binary compare methods because also images which are nearly similar should be recognized.
Best would be an existing library, but also some hints to existing algorithms would help me a lot.
Normal hashing or CRC calculation algorithms do not work well with image data. The dimensional nature of the information must be taken into account.
If you need extremely robust fingerprinting, such that affine transformations (scaling, rotation, translation, flipping) are accounted for, you can use a Radon transformation on the image source to produce a normative mapping of the image data - store this with each image and then compare just the fingerprints. This is a complex algorithm and not for the faint of heart.
a few simple solutions are possible:
Create a luminosity histogram for the image as a fingerprint
Create scaled down versions of each image as a fingerprint
Combine technique (1) and (2) into a hybrid approach for improved comparison quality
A luminosity histogram (especially one that is separated into RGB components) is a reasonable fingerprint for an image - and can be implemented quite efficiently. Subtracting one histogram from another will produce a new historgram which you can process to decide how similar two images are. Histograms, because the only evaluate the distribution and occurrence of luminosity/color information handle affine transformations quite well. If you quantize each color component's luminosity information down to an 8-bit value, 768 bytes of storage are sufficient for the fingerprint of an image of almost any reasonable size. Luminosity histograms produce false negatives when the color information in an image is manipulated. If you apply transformations like contrast/brightness, posterize, color shifting, luminosity information changes. False positives are also possible with certain types of images ... such as landscapes and images where a single color dominates others.
Using scaled images is another way to reduce the information density of the image to a level that is easier to compare. Reductions below 10% of the original image size generally lose too much of the information to be of use - so an 800x800 pixel image can be scaled down to 80x80 and still provide enough information to perform decent fingerprinting. Unlike histogram data, you have to perform anisotropic scaling of the image data when the source resolutions have varying aspect ratios. In other words, reducing a 300x800 image into an 80x80 thumbnail causes deformation of the image, such that when compared with a 300x500 image (that's very similar) will cause false negatives. Thumbnail fingerprints also often produce false negatives when affine transformations are involved. If you flip or rotate an image, its thumbnail will be quite different from the original and may result in a false positive.
Combining both techniques is a reasonable way to hedge your bets and reduce the occurence of both false positives and false negatives.
There is a much less ad-hoc approach than the scaled down image variants that have been proposed here that retains their general flavor, but which gives a much more rigorous mathematical basis for what is going on.
Take a Haar wavelet of the image. Basically the Haar wavelet is the succession of differences from the lower resolution images to each higher resolution image, but weighted by how deep you are in the 'tree' of mipmaps. The calculation is straightforward. Then once you have the Haar wavelet appropriately weighted, throw away all but the k largest coefficients (in terms of absolute value), normalize the vector and save it.
If you take the dot product of two of those normalized vectors it gives you a measure of similarity with 1 being nearly identical. I posted more information over here.
You should definitely take a look at phash.
For image comparison there is this php project :
https://github.com/kennethrapp/phasher
And my little javascript clone:
https://redaktor.me/phasher/demo_js/index.html
Unfortunately this is "bitcount"-based but will recognize rotated images.
Another approach in javascript was to build a luminosity histogram from the image by the help of canvas. You can visualize a polygon histogram on the canvas and compare that polygon in your database (e.g. mySQL spatial ...)
A long time ago I worked on a system that had some similar characteristics, and this is an approximation of the algorithm we followed:
Divide the picture into zones. In our case we were dealing with 4:3 resolution video, so we used 12 zones. Doing this takes the resolution of the source images out of the picture.
For each zone, calculate an overall color - the average of all pixels in the zone
For the entire image, calculate an overall color - the average of all zones
So for each image, you're storing n + 1 integer values, where n is the number of zones you're tracking.
For comparisons, you also need to look at each color channel individually.
For the overall image, compare the color channels for the overall colors to see if they are within a certain threshold - say, 10%
If the images are within the threshold, next compare each zone. If all zones also are within the threshold, the images are a strong enough match that you can at least flag them for further comparison.
This lets you quickly discard images that are not matches; you can also use more zones and/or apply the algorithm recursively to get stronger match confidence.
Similar to Ic's answer - you might try comparing the images at multiple resolutions. So each image get saved as 1x1, 2x2, 4x4 .. 800x800. If the lowest resolution doesn't match (subject to a threshold), you can immediately reject it. If it does match, you can compare them at the next higher resolution, and so on..
Also - if the images share any similar structure, such as medical images, you might be able to extract that structure into a description that is easier/faster to compare.
As of 2015 (back to the future... on this 2009 question which is now high-ranked in Google) image similarity can be computed using Deep Learning techniques. The family of algorithms known as Auto Encoders can create a vector representation which is searchable for similarity. There is a demo here.
One way you can do this is to resize the image and drop the resolution significantly (to 200x200 maybe?), storing a smaller (pixel-averaged) version for doing the comparison. Then define a tolerance threshold and compare each pixel. If the RGB of all pixels are within the tolerance, you've got a match.
Your initial run through is O(n^2) but if you catalog all matches, each new image is just an O(n) algorithm to compare (you only have to compare it to each previously inserted image). It will eventually break down however as the list of images to compare becomes larger, but I think you're safe for a while.
After 400 days of running, you'll have 500,000 images, which means (discounting the time to resize the image down) 200(H)*200(W)*500,000(images)*3(RGB) = 60,000,000,000 comparisons. If every image is an exact match, you're going to be falling behind, but that's probably not going to be the case, right? Remember, you can discount an image as a match as soon as a single comparison falls outside your threshold.
Do you literally want to compare every image against the others? What is the application? Maybe you just need some kind of indexing and retrieval of images based on certain descriptors? Then for example you can look at MPEG-7 standard for Multimedia Content Description Interface. Then you could compare the different image descriptors, which will be not that accurate but much faster.
So you want to do "fingerprint matching" that's pretty different than "image matching". Fingerprints' analysis has been deeply studied during the past 20 years, and several interesting algorithms have been developed to ensure the right detection rate (with respect to FAR and FRR measures - False Acceptance Rate and False Rejection Rate).
I suggest you to better look to LFA (Local Feature Analysis) class of detection techniques, mostly built on minutiae inspection. Minutiae are specific characteristics of any fingerprint, and have been classified in several classes. Mapping a raster image to a minutiae map is what actually most of Public Authorities do to file criminals or terrorists.
See here for further references
For iPhone image comparison and image similarity development check out:
http://sites.google.com/site/imagecomparison/
To see it in action, check out eyeBuy Visual Search on the iTunes AppStore.
It seems that specialised image hashing algorithms are an area of active research but perhaps a normal hash calculation of the image bytes would do the trick.
Are you seeking byte-identical images rather than looking for images that are derived from the same source but may be a different format or resolution (which strikes me as a rather hard problem).
How do I segment a 2D image into blobs of similar values efficiently? The given input is a n array of integer, which includes hue for non-gray pixels and brightness of gray pixels.
I am writing a virtual mobile robot using Java, and I am using segmentation to analyze the map and also the image from the camera. This is a well-known problem in Computer Vision, but when it's on a robot performance does matter so I wanted some inputs. Algorithm is what matters, so you can post code in any language.
Wikipedia article: Segmentation (image processing)
[PPT] Stanford CS-223-B Lecture 11 Segmentation and Grouping (which says Mean Shift is perhaps the best technique to date)
Mean Shift Pictures (paper is also available from Dorin Comaniciu)
I would downsample,in colourspace and in number of pixels, use a vision method(probably meanshift) and upscale the result.
This is good because downsampling also increases the robustness to noise, and makes it more likely that you get meaningful segments.
You could use floodfill to smooth edges afterwards if you need smoothness.
Some more thoughts (in response to your comment).
1) Did you blend as you downsampled? y[i]=(x[2i]+x[2i+1])/2 This should eliminate noise.
2)How fast do you want it to be?
3)Have you tried dynamic meanshift?(also google for dynamic x for all algorithms x)
Not sure if it is too efficient, but you could try using a Kohonen neural network (or, self-organizing map; SOM) to group the similar values, where each pixel contains the original color and position and only the color is used for the Kohohen grouping.
You should read up before you implement this though, as my knowledge of the Kohonen network goes as far as that it is used for grouping data - so I don't know what the performance/viability options are for your scenario.
There are also Hopfield Networks. They can be mangled into grouping from what I read.
What I have now:
Make a buffer of the same size as the input image, initialized to UNSEGMENTED.
For each pixel in the image where the corresponding buffer value is not UNSEGMENTED, flood the buffer using the pixel value.
a. The border checking of the flooding is done by checking if pixel is within EPSILON (currently set to 10) of the originating pixel's value.
b. Flood filling algorithm.
Possible issue:
The 2.a.'s border checking is called many times in the flood filling algorithm. I could turn it into a lookup if I could precalculate the border using edge detection, but that may add more time than current check.
private boolean isValuesCloseEnough(int a_lhs, int a_rhs) {
return Math.abs(a_lhs - a_rhs) <= EPSILON;
}
Possible Enhancement:
Instead of checking every single pixel for UNSEGMENTED, I could randomly pick a few points. If you are expecting around 10 blobs, picking random points in that order may suffice. Drawback is that you might miss a useful but small blob.
Check out Eyepatch (eyepatch.stanford.edu). It should help you during the investigation phase by providing a variety of possible filters for segmentation.
An alternative to flood-fill is the connnected-components algorithm. So,
Cheaply classify your pixels. e.g. divide pixels in colour space.
Run the cc to find the blobs
Retain the blobs of significant size
This approach is widely used in early vision approaches. For example in the seminal paper "Blobworld: A System for Region-Based Image Indexing and Retrieval".