Related
First, a disclaimer. I'm well aware of the std answer for X vs Y - "it depends". However, I'm working on a very general purpose product, and I'm trying to figure out "it depends on what". I'm also not really able to test the wide variety of hardware, so try-and-see is an imperfect measure at best.
I've been doing some googling, and I've found very little reference to using an offline render target/surface for hittesting. I'm not sure of the nomenclature, what I'm talking about though is using very simple shaders to render a geometry ID (for example) to a buffer, then reading the pixel value under the mouse to see what geometry is directly under the mouse pointer.
I have however, found 101 different tutorials on doing triangle intersection, a la D3DXIntersect & DirectX sample "Pick".
I'm a little curious on this - I would have thought using HW was the standard method. By all rights, it should be many orders of magnitude faster, and should scale far better.
I'm relatively new to graphics programming, so here are my assumptions, for you to disabuse.
1) A simple shader that does geometry transform & writes a Node + UV value should be nearly free.
2) The main cost in the HW pick method would be the buffer fetch, when getting the rendered surface back off the GPU for the CPU to read over. I have no idea how costly this is. us? ms? seconds? minutes?
3) This may be obvious, but I am assuming that Triangle Intersection (D3DXIntersect) is only possible on the CPU.
4) A possible cost people want to avoid is the cost of the extra render target(s) (zbuffer+surface). I'm a'guessing about 10 megs for 1024x1280 (std screen size?). This is acceptable to me, although if I could render a smaller surface (trade accuracy for memory) I would do so (is that possible?).
This all leads to a few thoughts.
1) For very simple scenes, triangle intersection may be faster. Quite what is simple/complex is hard to guess at this point. I'm looking at possible 100s of tris to 10000s. Probably not much more than that.
2) The HW buffer needs to be rendered regardless of whether or not its used (in my case). However, it can be reused without cost (ie, click-drag, where mouse tracks across a static scene)
2a) Possibly, triangle intersection may be preferable if my scene updates every frame, or if I have limited mouse interaction.
Now I've finished writing, I see a similar question has been asked: (3D Graphics Picking - What is the best approach for this scenario). My problem with this is (a) why would you need to re-render your picking surface for click-drag as your scene hasn't actually changed, and (b) wouldn't it still be faster than triangle intersection?
I welcome thoughts, criticism, and any manner of side-tracking :-)
I have a web cam that takes a picture every N seconds. This gives me a collection of images of the same scene over time. I want to process that collection of images as they are created to identify events like someone entering into the frame, or something else large happening. I will be comparing images that are adjacent in time and fixed in space - the same scene at different moments of time.
I want a reasonably sophisticated approach. For example, naive approaches fail for outdoor applications. If you count the number of pixels that change, for example, or the percentage of the picture that has a different color or grayscale value, that will give false positive reports every time the sun goes behind a cloud or the wind shakes a tree.
I want to be able to positively detect a truck parking in the scene, for example, while ignoring lighting changes from sun/cloud transitions, etc.
I've done a number of searches, and found a few survey papers (Radke et al, for example) but nothing that actually gives algorithms that I can put into a program I can write.
Use color spectroanalisys, without luminance: when the Sun goes down for a while, you will get similar result, colors does not change (too much).
Don't go for big changes, but quick changes. If the luminance of the image changes -10% during 10 min, it means the usual evening effect. But when the change is -5%, 0, +5% within seconds, its a quick change.
Don't forget to adjust the reference values.
Split the image to smaller regions. Then, when all the regions change same way, you know, it's a global change, like an eclypse or what, but if only one region's parameters are changing, then something happens there.
Use masks to create smart regions. If you're watching a street, filter out the sky, the trees (blown by wind), etc. You may set up different trigger values for different regions. The regions should overlap.
A special case of the region is the line. A line (a narrow region) contains less and more homogeneous pixels than a flat area. Mark, say, a green fence, it's easy to detect wheter someone crosses it, it makes bigger change in the line than in a flat area.
If you can, change the IRL world. Repaint the fence to a strange color to create a color spectrum, which can be identified easier. Paint tags to the floor and wall, which can be OCRed by the program, so you can detect wheter something hides it.
I believe you are looking for Template Matching
Also i would suggest you to look on to Open CV
We had to contend with many of these issues in our interactive installations. It's tough to not get false positives without being able to control some of your environment (sounds like you will have some degree of control). In the end we looked at combining some techniques and we created an open piece of software named OpenTSPS (Open Toolkit for Sensing People in Spaces - http://www.opentsps.com). You can look at the C++ source in github (https://github.com/labatrockwell/openTSPS/).
We use ‘progressive background relearn’ to adjust to the changing background over time. Progressive relearning is particularly useful in variable lighting conditions – e.g. if lighting in a space changes from day to night. This in combination with blob detection works pretty well and the only way we have found to improve is to use 3D cameras like the kinect which cast out IR and measure it.
There are other algorithms that might be relevant, like SURF (http://achuwilson.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/object-detection-using-surf-in-opencv-part-1/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SURF) but I don't think it will help in your situation unless you know exactly the type of thing you are looking for in the image.
Sounds like a fun project. Best of luck.
The problem you are trying to solve is very interesting indeed!
I think that you would need to attack it in parts:
As you already pointed out, a sudden change in illumination can be problematic. This is an indicator that you probably need to achieve some sort of illumination-invariant representation of the images you are trying to analyze.
There are plenty of techniques lying around, one I have found very useful for illumination invariance (applied to face recognition) is DoG filtering (Difference of Gaussians)
The idea is that you first convert the image to gray-scale. Then you generate two blurred versions of this image by applying a gaussian filter, one a little bit more blurry than the first one. (you could use a 1.0 sigma and a 2.0 sigma in a gaussian filter respectively) Then you subtract from the less-blury image, the pixel intensities of the more-blurry image. This operation enhances edges and produces a similar image regardless of strong illumination intensity variations. These steps can be very easily performed using OpenCV (as others have stated). This technique has been applied and documented here.
This paper adds an extra step involving contrast equalization, In my experience this is only needed if you want to obtain "visible" images from the DoG operation (pixel values tend to be very low after the DoG filter and are veiwed as black rectangles onscreen), and performing a histogram equalization is an acceptable substitution if you want to be able to see the effect of the DoG filter.
Once you have illumination-invariant images you could focus on the detection part. If your problem can afford having a static camera that can be trained for a certain amount of time, then you could use a strategy similar to alarm motion detectors. Most of them work with an average thermal image - basically they record the average temperature of the "pixels" of a room view, and trigger an alarm when the heat signature varies greatly from one "frame" to the next. Here you wouldn't be working with temperatures, but with average, light-normalized pixel values. This would allow you to build up with time which areas of the image tend to have movement (e.g. the leaves of a tree in a windy environment), and which areas are fairly stable in the image. Then you could trigger an alarm when a large number of pixles already flagged as stable have a strong variation from one frame to the next one.
If you can't afford training your camera view, then I would suggest you take a look at the TLD tracker of Zdenek Kalal. His research is focused on object tracking with a single frame as training. You could probably use the semistatic view of the camera (with no foreign objects present) as a starting point for the tracker and flag a detection when the TLD tracker (a grid of points where local motion flow is estimated using the Lucas-Kanade algorithm) fails to track a large amount of gridpoints from one frame to the next. This scenario would probably allow even a panning camera to work as the algorithm is very resilient to motion disturbances.
Hope this pointers are of some help. Good Luck and enjoy the journey! =D
Use one of the standard measures like Mean Squared Error, for eg. to find out the difference between two consecutive images. If the MSE is beyond a certain threshold, you know that there is some motion.
Also read about Motion Estimation.
if you know that the image will remain reletivly static I would reccomend:
1) look into neural networks. you can use them to learn what defines someone within the image or what is a non-something in the image.
2) look into motion detection algorithms, they are used all over the place.
3) is you camera capable of thermal imaging? if so it may be worthwile to look for hotspots in the images. There may be existing algorithms to turn your webcam into a thermal imager.
I am hacking a vacuum cleaner robot to control it with a microcontroller (Arduino). I want to make it more efficient when cleaning a room. For now, it just go straight and turn when it hits something.
But I have trouble finding the best algorithm or method to use to know its position in the room. I am looking for an idea that stays cheap (less than $100) and not to complex (one that don't require a PhD thesis in computer vision). I can add some discrete markers in the room if necessary.
Right now, my robot has:
One webcam
Three proximity sensors (around 1 meter range)
Compass (no used for now)
Wi-Fi
Its speed can vary if the battery is full or nearly empty
A netbook Eee PC is embedded on the robot
Do you have any idea for doing this? Does any standard method exist for these kind of problems?
Note: if this question belongs on another website, please move it, I couldn't find a better place than Stack Overflow.
The problem of figuring out a robot's position in its environment is called localization. Computer science researchers have been trying to solve this problem for many years, with limited success. One problem is that you need reasonably good sensory input to figure out where you are, and sensory input from webcams (i.e. computer vision) is far from a solved problem.
If that didn't scare you off: one of the approaches to localization that I find easiest to understand is particle filtering. The idea goes something like this:
You keep track of a bunch of particles, each of which represents one possible location in the environment.
Each particle also has an associated probability that tells you how confident you are that the particle really represents your true location in the environment.
When you start off, all of these particles might be distributed uniformly throughout your environment and be given equal probabilities. Here the robot is gray and the particles are green.
When your robot moves, you move each particle. You might also degrade each particle's probability to represent the uncertainty in how the motors actually move the robot.
When your robot observes something (e.g. a landmark seen with the webcam, a wifi signal, etc.) you can increase the probability of particles that agree with that observation.
You might also want to periodically replace the lowest-probability particles with new particles based on observations.
To decide where the robot actually is, you can either use the particle with the highest probability, the highest-probability cluster, the weighted average of all particles, etc.
If you search around a bit, you'll find plenty of examples: e.g. a video of a robot using particle filtering to determine its location in a small room.
Particle filtering is nice because it's pretty easy to understand. That makes implementing and tweaking it a little less difficult. There are other similar techniques (like Kalman filters) that are arguably more theoretically sound but can be harder to get your head around.
A QR Code poster in each room would not only make an interesting Modern art piece, but would be relatively easy to spot with the camera!
If you can place some markers in the room, using the camera could be an option. If 2 known markers have an angular displacement (left to right) then the camera and the markers lie on a circle whose radius is related to the measured angle between the markers. I don't recall the formula right off, but the arc segment (on that circle) between the markers will be twice the angle you see. If you have the markers at known height and the camera is at a fixed angle of inclination, you can compute the distance to the markers. Either of these methods alone can nail down your position given enough markers. Using both will help do it with fewer markers.
Unfortunately, those methods are imperfect due to measurement errors. You get around this by using a Kalman estimator to incorporate multiple noisy measurements to arrive at a good position estimate - you can then feed in some dead reckoning information (which is also imperfect) to refine it further. This part is goes pretty deep into math, but I'd say it's a requirement to do a great job at what you're attempting. You can do OK without it, but if you want an optimal solution (in terms of best position estimate for given input) there is no better way. If you actually want a career in autonomous robotics, this will play large in your future. (
Once you can determine your position you can cover the room in any pattern you'd like. Keep using the bump sensor to help construct a map of obstacles and then you'll need to devise a way to scan incorporating the obstacles.
Not sure if you've got the math background yet, but here is the book:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Applied_optimal_estimation.html?id=KlFrn8lpPP0C
This doesn't replace the accepted answer (which is great, thanks!) but I might recommend getting a Kinect and use that instead of your webcam, either through Microsoft's recently released official drivers or using the hacked drivers if your EeePC doesn't have Windows 7 (presumably it does not).
That way the positioning will be improved by the 3D vision. Observing landmarks will now tell you how far away the landmark is, and not just where in the visual field that landmark is located.
Regardless, the accepted answer doesn't really address how to pick out landmarks in the visual field, and simply assumes that you can. While the Kinect drivers may already have feature detection included (I'm not sure) you can also use OpenCV for detecting features in the image.
One solution would be to use a strategy similar to "flood fill" (wikipedia). To get the controller to accurately perform sweeps, it needs a sense of distance. You can calibrate your bot using the proximity sensors: e.g. run motor for 1 sec = xx change in proximity. With that info, you can move your bot for an exact distance, and continue sweeping the room using flood fill.
Assuming you are not looking for a generalised solution, you may actually know the room's shape, size, potential obstacle locations, etc. When the bot exists the factory there is no info about its future operating environment, which kind of forces it to be inefficient from the outset.
If that's you case, you can hardcode that info, and then use basic measurements (ie. rotary encoders on wheels + compass) to precisely figure out its location in the room/house. No need for wifi triangulation or crazy sensor setups in my opinion. At least for a start.
Ever considered GPS? Every position on earth has a unique GPS coordinates - with resolution of 1 to 3 metres, and doing differential GPS you can go down to sub-10 cm range - more info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
And Arduino does have lots of options of GPS-modules:
http://www.arduino.cc/playground/Tutorials/GPS
After you have collected all the key coordinates points of the house, you can then write the routine for the arduino to move the robot from point to point (as collected above) - assuming it will do all those obstacles avoidance stuff.
More information can be found here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=GPS+localization+robots&num=100
And inside the list I found this - specifically for your case: Arduino + GPS + localization:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7evnfTAVyM
I was thinking about this problem too. But I don't understand why you can't just triangulate? Have two or three beacons (e.g. IR LEDs of different frequencies) and a IR rotating sensor 'eye' on a servo. You could then get an almost constant fix on your position. I expect the accuracy would be in low cm range and it would be cheap. You can then map anything you bump into easily.
Maybe you could also use any interruption in the beacon beams to plot objects that are quite far from the robot too.
You have a camera you said ? Did you consider looking at the ceiling ? There is little chance that two rooms have identical dimensions, so you can identify in which room you are, position in the room can be computed from angular distance to the borders of the ceiling and direction can probably be extracted by the position of doors.
This will require some image processing but the vacuum cleaner moving slowly to be efficiently cleaning will have enough time to compute.
Good luck !
Use Ultra Sonic Sensor HC-SR04 or similar.
As above told sense the walls distance from robot with sensors and room part with QR code.
When your are near to a wall turn 90 degree and move as width of your robot and again turn 90deg( i.e. 90 deg left turn) and again move your robot I think it will help :)
I am thinking of implement a image processing based solution for industrial problem.
The image is consists of a Red rectangle. Inside that I will see a matrix of circles. The requirement is to count the number of circles under following constraints. (Real application : Count the number of bottles in a bottle casing. Any missing bottles???)
The time taken for the operation should be very low.
I need to detect the red rectangle as well. My objective is to count the
items in package and there are no
mechanism (sensors) to trigger the
camera. So camera will need to capture
the photos continuously but the
program should have a way to discard
the unnecessary images.
Processing should be realtime.
There may be a "noise" in image capturing. You may see ovals instead of circles.
My questions are as follows,
What is the best edge detection algorithm that matches with the given
scenario?
Are there any other mechanisms that I can use other than the edge
detection?
Is there a big impact between the language I use and the performance of
the system?
AHH - YOU HAVE NOW TOLD US THE BOTTLES ARE IN FIXED LOCATIONS!
IT IS AN INCREDIBLY EASIER PROBLEM.
All you have to do is look at each of the 12 spots and see if there is a black area there or not. Nothing could be easier.
You do not have to do any edge or shape detection AT ALL.
It's that easy.
You then pointed out that the box might be rotatated, things could be jiggled. That the box might be rotated a little (or even a lot, 0 to 360 each time) is very easily dealt with. The fact that the bottles are in "slots" (even if jiggled) massively changes the nature of the problem. You're main problem (which is easy) is waiting until each new red square (crate) is centered under the camera. I just realised you meant "matrix" literally and specifically in the sentence in your original questions. That changes everything totally, compared to finding a disordered jumble of circles. Finding whether or not a blob is "on" at one of 12 points, is a wildly different problem to "identifying circles in an image". Perhaps you could post an image to wrap up the question.
Finally I believe Kenny below has identified the best solution: blob analysis.
"Count the number of bottles in a bottle casing"...
Do the individual bottles sit in "slots"? ie, there are 4x3 = 12 holes, one for each bottle.
In other words, you "only" have to determine if there is, or is not, a bottle in each of the 12 holes.
Is that correct?
If so, your problem is incredibly easier than the more general problem of a pile of bottles "anywhere".
Quite simply, where do we see the bottles from? The top, sides, bottom, or? Do we always see the tops/bottoms, or are they mixed (ie, packed top-to-tail). These issues make huge, huge differences.
Surf/Sift = overkill in this case you certainly don't need it.
If you want real time speed (about 20fps+ on a 800x600 image) I recommend using Cuda to implement edge detection using a standard filter scheme like sobel, then implement binarization + image closure to make sure the edges of circles are not segmented apart.
The hardest part will be fitting circles. This is assuming you already got to the step where you have taken edges and made sure they are connected using image closure (morphology.) At this point I would proceed as follows:
run blob analysis/connected components to segment out circles that do not touch. If circles can touch the next step will be trickier
for each connected componet/blob fit a circle or rectangle using RANSAC which can run in realtime (as opposed to Hough Transform which I believe is very hard to run in real time.)
Step 2 will be much harder if you can not segment the connected components that form circles seperately, so some additional thought should be invested on how to guarantee that condition.
Good luck.
Edit
Having thought about it some more, I feel like RANSAC is ideal for the case where the circle connected components do touch. RANSAC should hypothetically fit the circle to only a part of the connected component (due to its ability to perform well in the case of mostly outlier points.) This means that you could add an extra check to see if the fitted circle encompasses the entire connected component and if it does not then rerun RANSAC on the portion of the connected component that was left out. Rinse and repeat as many times as necessary.
Also I realize that I say circle but you could just as easily fit an ellipse instead of circles using RANSAC.
Also, I'd like to comment that when I say CUDA is a good choice I mean CUDA is a good choice to implement the sobel filter + binirization + image closing on. Connected components and RANSAC are probably best left to the CPU, but you can try pushing them onto CUDA though I don't know how much of an advantage a GPU will give you for those 2 over a CPU.
For the circles, try the Hough transform.
other mechanisms: dunno
Compiled languages will possibly be faster.
SIFT should have a very good response to circular objects - it is patented, though. GLOHis a similar algorithm, but I do not know if there are any implementations readily available.
Actually, doing some more research, SURF is an improved version of SIFT with quite a few implementations available, check out the links on the wikipedia page.
Sum of colors + convex hull to detect boundary. You need, mostly, 4 corners of a rectangle, and not it's sides?
No motion, no second camera, a little choice - lot of math methods against a little input (color histograms, color distribution matrix). Dunno.
Java == high memory consumption, Lisp == high brain consumption, C++ == memory/cpu/speed/brain use optimum.
If the contrast is good, blob analysis is the algorithm for the job.
What is the principle behind creating rain effect or water drops regardless of using any particular language. I've seen a few impressive rain and water effects done in Flash, but how does it actually work?
Rain Effect Example
Rain Drop Water Effect Example
You are asking a question as if the two examples were related, but you actually have
1) simulating drops of rain as seen in air (drop trails; simple but the realism depends on lighting very much)
for this you to simulate following events:
for each time step:
create new drops
move existing drops vertically down
remove (or/and animate) the drops hitting the ground
as pointed in other answers new drops (size and position) can be created with various algorithms.
as for speed they move with constant speed.
finally to show your trails you need to look at simple projections
2) simulating splash waves (water simulation, and in the example a reflective surface is shown)
For this you only need to know where the drops fall and how big they are, the rest is wave propagation. However that's only really visible if there is a reflection and that can be a bit tricky.
NOTES:
There are many things that determines realism, but mostly it boils down to detail.
For example rain is usually seen clearly only in strange lighting conditions - close to lamps or on high contrast background. Otherwise it is quite bleak.
Also the details in interaction - splashing on surfaces that it hits, which can leave bubbles (if close enough to notice), or create waves.
Another example - if you look at this tutorial, which is not really realistic, but it does illustrate one point, you will see that even though the rain looks more like a snow it exposes the 'flatness' of your first example (which has absolutely no depth).
So, it is all about detail.
Try to model what you have in terms of events that you have to simulate and then solve simulating each one separately - for example using fractals for seeding rain might be an overkill, but if you nicely model your work you start with random seeding and latter substitute with more accurate/complex methods.
Here's a paper by Mandelbrot and Lovejoy which is one of the most cited works on developing fractal models to represent rain.
The second one (Rain Drop Water Effect Example) is probably done with a wave equation simulator
They probably use particle effects mostly.
An old school way that is dirt cheap is to use palette cycling. Basically, you setup a ramp of colors and move one color into the next in fixed intervals. The moving colors give the illusion of motion. I've worked on games where rain, wind, snow, waterfalls, fire, etc. have all been animated using palette cycling. It's a dying art, but it still works. :)