The shape and positions of all the polygons are known beforehand. The polygons are not overlapping and will be of different colors and shapes, and there could be quite many of them. The polygons are defined in floating point based coordinates and will be painted on top of a JPEG photo as annotation.
How could I create the resulting image file as fast as possible after I get to know which color I should give each polygon?
If it would save time I would like to perform as much as possible of the computations beforehand. All information regarding geometry and positions of the polygons are known in advance. The JPEG photo is also known in advance. The only information not known beforehand is the color of each polygon.
The JPEG photo has a size of 250x250 pixels, so that would also be the image size of the resulting rasterised image.
The computations will be done on a Linux computer with a standard graphics card, so OpenGL might be a viable option. I know there are also rasterisation libraries like Cairo that could be used to paint polygons. What I wonder is if I could take advantage of the fact that I know so much of the input in advance and use that to speed up the computation. The only thing missing is the color of each polygon.
Preferably I would like to find a solution that would only precompute things in the form of data files. In other words as soon as the polygon colors are known, the algorithm would load the other information from datafiles (JPEG file, polygon geometry file and/or possibly precomputed datafiles). Of course it would be faster to start the computation out with a "warm" state ready in the GPU/CPU/RAM but I'd like to avoid that. The choice of programming language is not so import, but could for instance be C++.
To give some more background information: The JavaScript library OpenSeadragon that is running in a web browser requests image tiles from a web server. The idea is that measurement points (i.e. the polygons) could be plotted on-the-fly on to pregenerated Zooming Images (DZI format) by the web server. So for one image tile the algorithm would only need to be run one time. The aim is low latency.
Related
Trying to find the contour boundary points of a set of images as a list of x,y coordinates. Here is a set of sample images and I'm looking for the boundaries of the white, gray and the inner blue regions of the donut(cardiac segments). I'm able to get the coordinate of of each color based on levels however, finding the boundary coordinates efficiently is a challenge. Tried convex hull but with limited success. Any advice would be appreciated. Ideally a C++ library that may have a routine to efficiently compute the list. Since,there are lots of such images, efficiency is a key factor.
A list of images containing contours of interest.
OpenCV is a good image processing library with lots of features including findContours. There is a also a GPU support but i dont think for the findContours algorithm. But its free and easy to implement. Maybe the performance is still good enough.
What algorithms are used for augmented reality like zookazam ?
I think it analyze image and find planes by contrast, but i don't know how.
What topics should I read before starting with app like this?
[Prologue]
This is extremly broad topic and mostly off topic in it's current state. I reedited your question but to make your question answerable within the rules/possibilities of this site
You should specify more closely what your augmented reality:
should do
adding 2D/3D objects with known mesh ...
changing light conditions
adding/removing body parts/clothes/hairs ...
a good idea is to provide some example image (sketch) of input/output of what you want to achieve.
what input it has
video,static image, 2D,stereo,3D. For pure 2D input specify what conditions/markers/illumination/LASER patterns you have to help the reconstruction.
what will be in the input image? empty room, persons, specific objects etc.
specify target platform
many algorithms are limited to memory size/bandwidth, CPU power, special HW capabilities etc so it is a good idea to add tag for your platform. The OS and language is also a good idea to add.
[How augmented reality works]
acquire input image
if you are connecting to some device like camera you need to use its driver/framework or something to obtain the image or use some common API it supports. This task is OS dependent. My favorite way on Windows is to use VFW (video for windows) API.
I would start with some static file(s) from start instead to ease up the debug and incremental building process. (you do not need to wait for camera and stuff to happen on each build). And when your App is ready for live video then switch back to camera...
reconstruct the scene into 3D mesh
if you use 3D cameras like Kinect then this step is not necessary. Otherwise you need to distinguish the object by some segmentation process usually based on the edge detections or color homogenity.
The quality of the 3D mesh depends on what you want to achieve and what is your input. For example if you want realistic shadows and lighting then you need very good mesh. If the camera is fixed in some room you can predefine the mesh manually (hard code it) and compute just the objects in view. Also the objects detection/segmentation can be done very simply by substracting the empty room image from current view image so the pixels with big difference are the objects.
you can also use planes instead of real 3D mesh as you suggested in the OP but then you can forget about more realistic quality of effects like lighting,shadows,intersections... if you assume the objects are standing straight then you can use room metrics to obtain the distance from camera. see:
selection criteria for different projections
estimate measure of photographed things
For pure 2D input you can also use the illumination to estimate the 3D mesh see:
Turn any 2D image into 3D printable sculpture with code
render
Just render the scene back to some image/video/screen... with added/removed features. If you are not changing the light conditions too much you can also use the original image and render directly to it. Shadows can be achieved by darkening the pixels ... For better results with this the illumination/shadows/spots/etc. are usually filtered out from the original image and then added directly by rendering instead. see
White balance (Color Suppression) Formula?
Enhancing dynamic range and normalizing illumination
The rendering process itself is also platform dependent (unless you are doing it by low level graphics in memory). You can use things like GDI,DX,OpenGL,... see:
Graphics rendering
You also need camera parameters for rendering like:
Transformation of 3D objects related to vanishing points and horizon line
[Basic topics to google/read]
2D
DIP digital image processing
Image Segmentation
3D
Vector math
Homogenous coordinates
3D scene reconstruction
3D graphics
normal shading
paltform dependent
image acquisition
rendering
For my bachelor thesis I need to analyse images taken in the ocean to count and measure the size of water particles.
my problem:
besides the wanted water particles, the images show hexagonal patches all over the image in:
- different sizes
- not regular shape
- different greyscale values
(Example image below!)
It is clear that these patches will falsify my image analysis concerning the size and number of particles.
For this reason this patches need to be detected and deleted somehow.
Since it will be just a little part of the work in my thesis, I don't want to spend much time in it and already tried classic ways like: (imageJ)
playing with the threshold (resulting in also deleting wanted water particles)
analyse image including the hexagonal patches and later sort out the biggest areas (the hexagonal patches have quite the biggest areas, but you will still have a lot of haxagons)
playing with filters: using gaussian filter on a duplicated image and subtract the copy from the original deletes many patches (in reducing the greyscale value) but also deletes little wanted water particles and so again falsifies the result
a more complicated and time consuming solution would be to use a implemented library in for example matlab or opencv to detect points, that describe the shapes.
but so far I could not find any code that fits my task.
Does anyone of you have created such a code I could use for my task or any other idea?
You can see a lot of hexagonal patches in different depths also.
the little spots with an greater pixel value are the wanted particles!
Image processing is quite an involved area so there are no hard and fast rules.
But if it was me I would 'Mask' the image. This involves either defining what you want to keep or remove as a pixel 'Mask'. You then scan the mask over the image recursively and compare the mask to the image portion selected. You then select or remove the section (depending on your method) if it meets your criterion.
One such example of a criteria would be the spatial and grey-scale error weighted against a likelihood function (eg Chi-squared, square mean error etc.) or a Normal distribution that you define the uncertainty..
Some food for thought
Maybe you can try with the Hough transform:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hough_transform
Matlab have an built-in function, hough, wich implements this, but only works for lines. Maybe you can start from that and change it to recognize hexagons.
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/
i am going to develope a system which will take a 2D still image as a input & 3D image as a output.
So the steps are:
1. creating a depth map from 2D image
2. creating 3D image from depth map and original image.
Can anybody suggest me the algorithms to generate the depth map of 2D image?
As far as I know, there's no 100% bullet proof algorithm that can convert a 2D image to a 3D model. Simply said, there's not enough information inside a 2D image to fully construct something 3D. Some 3D TV sets manage to do some fake 3D from the 2D input but nothing really convincing (and sometimes wrong.)
What famous softwares do (like the one in the Kinect), is use several sources instead of one single 2D image. With pictures from different angles, you can track some particular features in the images and with geometric computations output something 3D. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_reconstruction_from_multiple_images for full explanation.
If you're stuck with a single image, the best known tool is the human eye... Humans can easily reconstruct 3D from a picture, by unconsciously merging several factors, such as their experience of the scene, the focus blur, "far-away fog effect", etc... So the best way for you to have a result, is to do the depth map yourself in any image editing software...
Julien