I'm writing an application which measures boxes from pictures. A sample picture after manipulation is shown below:
My application has identified pixels that are part of the box and changed the color to red. You can see that the image is pretty noisy and therefore creates pretty rough looking edges on the rectangle.
I've been reading about edge/corner detection algorithms, but before I pursue one of them I wanted to step back and see if such a complicated algorithm is really necessary. It seems like there probably is a simpler way to go about this, considering I have a few conditions that simplify things:
The image only contains a rectangle, not any other shape.
Each image only has 1 rectangle.
I do not need to be exact, though I'd like to achieve as best fit as I can.
My first go at a simple algorithm involved finding the top most, bottom most, left most and right most points. Those are the 4 corners. That works OK, but isn't super accurate for noisy edges like this. It is easy to eye ball a much better point as the corner.
Can anyone point me towards an algorithm for this?
You have already identified the region of the image that you are interested in(red region).
Using this same logic you should be able to binarize the image. Say the red region then results in white pixels and the rest is black.
Then trace the external contour of the white region using a contour tracing algorithm.
Now you have a point set that represents the external contour of the region.
Find the minimum-area-rectangle that bounds this point set.
You can easily do this using the OpenCV library. Take a look at threshold, findContours, and minAreaRect if you are planning to use OpenCV. Hope this information helps.
Related
I am trying to count the number of hairs transplanted in the following image. So practically, I have to count the number of spots I can find in the center of image.
(I've uploaded the inverted image of a bald scalp on which new hairs have been transplanted because the original image is bloody and absolutely disgusting! To see the original non-inverted image click here. To see the larger version of the inverted image just click on it). Is there any known image processing algorithm to detect these spots? I've found out that the Circle Hough Transform algorithm can be used to find circles in an image, I'm not sure if it's the best algorithm that can be applied to find the small spots in the following image though.
P.S. According to one of the answers, I tried to extract the spots using ImageJ, but the outcome was not satisfactory enough:
I opened the original non-inverted image (Warning! it's bloody and disgusting to see!).
Splited the channels (Image > Color > Split Channels). And selected the blue channel to continue with.
Applied Closing filter (Plugins > Fast Morphology > Morphological Filters) with these values: Operation: Closing, Element: Square, Radius: 2px
Applied White Top Hat filter (Plugins > Fast Morphology > Morphological Filters) with these values: Operation: White Top Hat, Element: Square, Radius: 17px
However I don't know what to do exactly after this step to count the transplanted spots as accurately as possible. I tried to use (Process > Find Maxima), but the result does not seem accurate enough to me (with these settings: Noise tolerance: 10, Output: Single Points, Excluding Edge Maxima, Light Background):
As you can see, some white spots have been ignored and some white areas which are not actually hair transplant spots, have been marked.
What set of filters do you advise to accurately find the spots? Using ImageJ seems a good option since it provides most of the filters we need. Feel free however, to advise what to do using other tools, libraries (like OpenCV), etc. Any help would be highly appreciated!
I do think you are trying to solve the problem in a bit wrong way. It might sound groundless, so I'd better show my results first.
Below I have a crop of you image on the left and discovered transplants on the right. Green color is used to highlight areas with more than one transplant.
The overall approach is very basic (will describe it later), but still it provides close to be accurate results. Please note, it was a first try, so there is a lot of room for enhancements.
Anyway, let's get back to the initial statement saying you approach is wrong. There are several major issues:
the quality of your image is awful
you say you want to find spots, but actually you are looking for hair transplant objects
you completely ignores the fact average head is far from being flat
it does look like you think filters will add some important details to your initial image
you expect algorithms to do magic for you
Let's review all these items one by one.
1. Image quality
It might be very obvious statement, but before the actual processing you need to make sure you have best possible initial data. You might spend weeks trying to find a way to process photos you have without any significant achievements. Here are some problematic areas:
I bet it is hard for you to "read" those crops, despite the fact you have the most advanced object recognition algorithms in your brain.
Also, your time is expensive and you still need best possible accuracy and stability. So, for any reasonable price try to get: proper contrast, sharp edges, better colors and color separation.
2. Better understanding of the objects to be identified
Generally speaking, you have a 3D objects to be identified. So you can analyze shadows in order to improve accuracy. BTW, it is almost like a Mars surface analysis :)
3. The form of the head should not be ignored
Because of the form of the head you have distortions. Again, in order to get proper accuracy those distortions should be corrected before the actual analysis. Basically, you need to flatten analyzed area.
3D model source
4. Filters might not help
Filters do not add information, but they can easily remove some important details. You've mentioned Hough transform, so here is interesting question: Find lines in shape
I will use this question as an example. Basically, you need to extract a geometry from a given picture. Lines in shape looks a bit complex, so you might decide to use skeletonization
All of a sadden, you have more complex geometry to deal with and virtually no chances to understand what actually was on the original picture.
5. Sorry, no magic here
Please be aware of the following:
You must try to get better data in order to achieve better accuracy and stability. The model itself is also very important.
Results explained
As I said, my approach is very simple: image was posterized and then I used very basic algorithm to identify areas with a specific color.
Posterization can be done in a more clever way, areas detection can be improved, etc. For this PoC I just have a simple rule to highlight areas with more than one implant. Having areas identified a bit more advanced analysis can be performed.
Anyway, better image quality will let you use even simple method and get proper results.
Finally
How did the clinic manage to get Yondu as client? :)
Update (tools and techniques)
Posterization - GIMP (default settings,min colors)
Transplant identification and visualization - Java program, no libraries or other dependencies
Having areas identified it is easy to find average size, then compare to other areas and mark significantly bigger areas as multiple transplants.
Basically, everything is done "by hand". Horizontal and vertical scan, intersections give areas. Vertical lines are sorted and used to restore the actual shape. Solution is homegrown, code is a bit ugly, so do not want to share it, sorry.
The idea is pretty obvious and well explained (at least I think so). Here is an additional example with different scan step used:
Yet another update
A small piece of code, developed to verify a very basic idea, evolved a bit, so now it can handle 4K video segmentation in real-time. The idea is the same: horizontal and vertical scans, areas defined by intersected lines, etc. Still no external libraries, just a lot of fun and a bit more optimized code.
Additional examples can be found on YouTube: RobotsCanSee
or follow the progress in Telegram: RobotsCanSee
I've just tested this solution using ImageJ, and it gave good preliminary result:
On the original image, for each channel
Small (radius 1 or 2) closing in order to get rid of the hairs (black part in the middle of the white one)
White top-hat of radius 5 in order to detect the white part around each black hair.
Small closing/opening in order to clean a little bit the image (you can also use a median filter)
Ultimate erode in order to count the number of white blob remaining. You can also certainly use a LoG (Laplacian of Gaussian) or a distance map.
[EDIT]
You don't detect all the white spots using the maxima function, because after the closing, some zones are flat, so the maxima is not a point, but a zone. At this point, I think that an ultimate opening or an ultimate eroded would give you the center or each white spot. But I am not sure that there is a function/pluggin doing it in ImageJ. You can take a look to Mamba or SMIL.
A H-maxima (after white top-hat) may also clean a little bit more your results and improve the contrast between the white spots.
As Renat mentioned, you should not expect algorithms to do magic for you, however I'm hopeful to come up with a reasonable estimate of the number of spots. Here, I'm going to give you some hints and resources, check them out and call me back if you need more information.
First, I'm kind of hopeful to morphological operations, but I think a perfect pre-processing step may push the accuracy yielded by them dramatically. I want you put my finger on the pre-processing step. Thus I'm going ti work with this image:
That's the idea:
Collect and concentrate the mass around the spot locations. What do I mean my concentrating the masses? Let's open the book from the other side: As you see, the provided image contains some salient spots surrounded by some noisy gray-level dots.
By dots, I mean the pixels that are not part of a spot, but their gray-value are larger than zero (pure black) - which are available around the spots. It is clear that if you clear these noisy dots, you surely will come up with a good estimate of spots using other processing tools such as morphological operations.
Now, how to make the image more sharp? What if we could make the dots to move forward to their nearest spots? This is what I mean by concentrating the masses over the spots. Doing so, only the prominent spots will be present in the image and hence we have made a significant step toward counting the prominent spots.
How to do the concentrating thing? Well, the idea that I just explained is available in this paper, which its code is luckily available. See the section 2.2. The main idea is to use a random walker to walk on the image for ever. The formulations is stated such that the walker will visit the prominent spots far more times and that can lead to identifying the prominent spots. The algorithm is modeled Markov chain and The equilibrium hitting times of the ergodic Markov chain holds the key for identifying the most salient spots.
What I described above is just a hint and you should read that short paper to get the detailed version of the idea. Let me know if you need more info or resources.
That is a pleasure to think on such interesting problems. Hope it helps.
You could do the following:
Threshold the image using cv::threshold
Find connected components using cv::findcontour
Reject the connected components of size larger than a certain size as you seem to be concerned about small circular regions only.
Count all the valid connected components.
Hopefully, you have a descent approximation of the actual number of spots.
To be statistically more accurate, you could repeat 1-4 for a range of thresholds and take the average.
This is what you get after applying unsharpen radius 22, amount 5, threshold 2 to your image.
This increases the contrast between the dots and the surrounding areas. I used the ballpark assumption that the dots are somewhere between 18 and 25 pixels in diameter.
Now you can take the local maxima of white as a "dot" and fill it in with a black circle until the circular neighborhood of the dot (a circle of radius 10-12) erases the dot. This should let you "pick off" the dots joined to each other in clusters more than 2. Then look for local maxima again. Rinse and repeat.
The actual "dot" areas are in stark contrast to the surrounding areas, so this should let you pick them off as well as you would by eyeballing it.
i would like to write an algorithm that allows me to automatically identify an unlabeled object from an image on matlab. So came across a suggestion that involves calculating the bwperim and simply filling in holes, however i dont quite understand how this works. I would really appreciate a point in the right direction.
Regards
Well, for starters, here is bwperim reference.
It seems to return a b/w image, where the detected boundaries* are marked with white but it will not say which object is which (as it is quite tough decision), for that you need to come up with a representation.
As you may find "holes" in the boundary lines, 'growing' the lines could be necessary (see: "erode/dilate"). Then you could decide for a black area surrounded by white pixels, which you fill up with white, then again use erode to clear the other boundaries; labeling done.
(*) perimeter candidates of objects
If someone scans their right hand pressed against the glass of a scanner, the result would look like this:
(without the orange and white annotations). How could we determine someone's 2D:4D ratio from an image of their hand?
You've already tagged this opencv which is great - I'd highly recommend taking a look at openFrameworks and the openCV addon, as the basic examples there will give you some great starting blocks for this.
The general approach to this I would take is to first distill the image to light and dark areas, detect the edges of the hand and fingers, and then simplify your data until you have lines representing the edges and tips of the fingers. Finally, take the lower inseam between 2nd and 3rd finger, stopping at the tip of the 2nd, and the inseam of the 3rd and 4th, stopping at the tip of the 4th, which should give you your 2D:4D ratio.
First, you'll need to process your images to get to black and white images openCV can easily handle. You may have to play with various thresholds to get both the outline of the hand and the inseams of the fingers to be detected. (You may even need two passes to detect both the outline and inseams)
While there are many approaches to feature detection, OpenCV will generally return arrays of "blobs" detected. With the right thresholds, I believe you would be able to reliably and simply find contiguous horizontal blobs (or nearly contiguous, allowing for some distance between nearby blobs) for the inseams of each finger.
A simple algorithm for detecting the inseams would be to walk through the detected blobs starting from the top left and proceeding left-to-right through the image, as if reading a page. Assemble an array of detected horizontal lines from the blobs in your image, and play with various image processing thresholds, minimum accepted line length, and distance allowances between detected blobs which you still consider part of the same line until you're satisfied you're detecting the finger edges well.
Once you have detected the horizontal lines, you can process the blobs again, looking for the vertical lines that represent the tips of the fingers (stopping when you hit the previously detected horizontal lines)
Finally, find the lines which represent the correct inseams, measure them until they intersect with the appropriate fingertips, and you should have your ratio!
Interesting question. I'd go about it this way:
First, binarize the image by Otsu's thresholding. Then find the skeleton of the image using a Medial-Axis Transform (MAT). This would mean doing a distance transform on the image, then using adaptive thresholding to get the local maxima in the distance transform. This gives a rough and ready skeleton of your image. Sample code from here.
The obtained hand-skeleton may be slightly disconnected, in which case use the OpenCV morphology "CLOSE" (not "open") function can connect it into a single skeleton. Then checking convexity defects of the resulting hand should give an estimate.
To give you some background as to what I'm doing: I'm trying to quantitatively record variations in flow of a compressible fluid via image analysis. One way to do this is to exploit the fact that the index of refraction of the fluid is directly related to its density. If you set up some kind of image behind the flow, the distortion in the image due to refractive index changes throughout the fluid field leads you to a density gradient, which helps to characterize the flow pattern.
I have a set of routines that do this successfully with a regular 2D pattern of dots. The dot pattern is slightly distorted, and by comparing the position of the dots in the distorted image with that in the non-distorted image, I get a displacement field, which is exactly what I need. The problem with this method is resolution. The resolution is limited to the number of dots in the field, and I'm exploring methods that give me more data.
One idea I've had is to use a regular grid of horizontal and vertical lines. This image will distort the same way, but instead of getting only the displacement of a dot, I'll have the continuous distortion of a grid. It seems like there must be some standard algorithm or procedure to compare one geometric grid to another and infer some kind of displacement field. Nonetheless, I haven't found anything like this in my research.
Does anyone have some ideas that might point me in the right direction? FYI, I am not a computer scientist -- I'm an engineer. I say that only because there may be some obvious approach I'm neglecting due to coming from a different field. But I can program. I'm using MATLAB, but I can read Python, C/C++, etc.
Here are examples of the type of images I'm working with:
Regular: Distorted:
--------
I think you are looking for the Digital Image Correlation algorithm.
Here you can see a demo.
Here is a Matlab Implementation.
From Wikipedia:
Digital Image Correlation and Tracking (DIC/DDIT) is an optical method that employs tracking & image registration techniques for accurate 2D and 3D measurements of changes in images. This is often used to measure deformation (engineering), displacement, and strain, but it is widely applied in many areas of science and engineering.
Edit
Here I applied the DIC algorithm to your distorted image using Mathematica, showing the relative displacements.
Edit
You may also easily identify the maximum displacement zone:
Edit
After some work (quite a bit, frankly) you can come up to something like this, representing the "displacement field", showing clearly that you are dealing with a vortex:
(Darker and bigger arrows means more displacement (velocity))
Post me a comment if you are interested in the Mathematica code for this one. I think my code is not going to help anybody else, so I omit posting it.
I would also suggest a line tracking algorithm would work well.
Simply start at the first pixel line of the image and start following each of the vertical lines downwards (You just need to start this at the first line to get the starting points. This can be done by a simple pattern that moves orthogonally to the gradient of that line, ergo follows a line. When you reach a crossing of a horizontal line you can measure that point (in x,y coordinates) and compare it to the corresponding crossing point in your distorted image.
Since your grid is regular you know that the n'th measured crossing point on the m'th vertical black line are corresponding in both images. Then you simply compare both points by computing their distance. Do this for each line on your grid and you will get, by how far each crossing point of the grid is distorted.
This following a line algorithm is also used in basic Edge linking algorithms or the Canny Edge detector.
(All this are just theoretic ideas and I cannot provide you with an algorithm to it. But I guess it should work easily on distorted images like you have there... but maybe it is helpful for you)
I'm searching for an certain object in my photograph:
Object: Outline of a rectangle with an X in the middle. It looks like a rectangular checkbox. That's all. So, no fill, just lines. The rectangle will have the same ratios of length to width but it could be any size or any rotation in the photograph.
I've looked a whole bunch of image recognition approaches. But I'm trying to determine the best for this specific task. Most importantly, the object is made of lines and is not a filled shape. Also, there is no perspective distortion, so the rectangular object will always have right angles in the photograph.
Any ideas? I'm hoping for something that I can implement fairly easily.
Thanks all.
You could try using a corner detector (e.g. Harris) to find the corners of the box, the ends and the intersection of the X. That simplifies the problem to finding points in the right configuration.
Edit (response to comment):
I'm assuming you can find the corner points in your image, the 4 corners of the rectangle, the 4 line endings of the X and the center of the X, plus a few other corners in the image due to noise or objects in the background. That simplifies the problem to finding a set of 9 points in the right configuration, out of a given set of points.
My first try would be to look at each corner point A. Then I'd iterate over the points B close to A. Now if I assume that (e.g.) A is the upper left corner of the rectangle and B is the lower right corner, I can easily calculate, where I would expect the other corner points to be in the image. I'd use some nearest-neighbor search (or a library like FLANN) to see if there are corners where I'd expect them. If I can find a set of points that matches these expected positions, I know where the symbol would be, if it is present in the image.
You have to try if that is good enough for your application. If you have too many false positives (sets of corners of other objects that accidentially form a rectangle + X), you could check if there are lines (i.e. high contrast in the right direction) where you would expect them. And you could check if there is low contrast where there are no lines in the pattern. This should be relatively straightforward once you know the points in the image that correspond to the corners/line endings in the object you're looking for.
I'd suggest the Generalized Hough Transform. It seems you have a fairly simple, fixed shape. The generalized Hough transform should be able to detect that shape at any rotation or scale in the image. You many need to threshold the original image, or pre-process it in some way for this method to be useful though.
You can use local features to identify the object in image. Feature detection wiki
For example, you can calculate features on some referent image which contains only the object you're looking for and save the results, let's say, to a plain text file. After that you can search for the object just by comparing newly calculated features (on images with some complex scenes containing the object) with the referent ones.
Here's some good resource on local features:
Local Invariant Feature Detectors: A Survey