Hy!
I have organized point clouds from a Kinect sensor. Let's say I have a organized point cloud of a sofa with a table in front. What I would like the get are two clouds: sofa and table
I am searching for some algorithm to get the connected components.
Does anyone have some pseudo code or papers? Or maybe some code (Matlab)
My idea at the moment: I could use the 2D information to get neighboring pixels of a point.
Next I could check the euclidean distance to the neighboring pixels. If the distance is below a threshold, the pixel belongs to the same cluster. ...
Thanks
As #Amro pointed out, DBSCAN is the algorithm you should study. It is a clustering based on ''density-connected'' components.
Also note the GDBSCAN variant (Generalized DBSCAN). You are not restricted to primitive distances such as Euclidean, but you can make your "neighborhood" definition as complex as you'd like.
Matlab probably is not the best choice. For DBSCAN to be really fast, you need support for index acceleration. Recent scikit-learn (0.14 to be precise) just got basic index acceleration for DBSCAN, and ELKI has had it for years. ELKI seems to be more ''flexible'' wrt. to having GDBSCAN and having index structures that are easy to extend with custom distance functions. sklearn probably only accelerates a few built-in distances.
you can use the connected component segmentation plugin from "Tools>Segmentation>label connected component" from cloudcompare software
Related
Looking for an algorithm to compute actual distance from a latitude/longitude/elevation to the visible horizon taking into account the actual surrounding terrain and the curve of the earth. Assume you have enough terrain data for the surrounding several hundred miles from any of the open elevation datasets. The problem can be simplified to an approximate by checking a few cardinal directions. Ideally I'd like to be able to compute the real solution as well.
Disclosure: I'm the developer and maintainer of the below mentioned software package.
I'm not sure if you're still looking for a solution as this question is already a bit older. However, one solution for your problem would be to apply the open-source package HORAYZON (https://github.com/ChristianSteger/HORAYZON). It's based on the high-performance ray tracing library Intel Embree (https://www.embree.org) and thus very fast and it considers Earth's curvature. With this package, you can compute the horizon angle and the distance to the horizon line for one or multiple arbitrary location(s) on a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and set various options like the number of cardinal sampling directions, the maximal search distance for the horizon, etc. However - I'm not sure what you mean by "real solution". Do you mean the "perfect" solution - i.e. by considering elevation information from all DEM cells without doing a discrete sampling along the azimuth angle? Unfortunately, this cannot be done with the above mentioned package (but one could theoretically implement it).
I have a point cloud of an object, obtained with a laser scanner, and a CAD surface model of that object.
How can I match the point cloud to the surface, to obtain the translation and rotation between cloud and model?
I suppose I could sample the surface and try the Iterative Closest Point (ICP) algorithm to match the resulting sampled point cloud to the scanner point cloud.
Would that actually work?
And are there better algorithms for this task?
In new OpenCV, I have implemented a surface matching module to match a 3D model to a 3D scene. No initial pose is required and the detection process is fully automatic. The model also involves an ICP.
To get an idea, please check that out a video here (though it is not generated by the implementation in OpenCV):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFnqLFznuZU
The full source code is here and the documentation is here.
You mentioned that you needed to sample your CAD model. This is correct and we have given a sampling algorithm suited for point pair feature matching, such as the one implemented in OpenCV:
Birdal, Tolga, and Slobodan Ilic. A point sampling algorithm for 3D matching of irregular geometries. 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2017.
http://campar.in.tum.de/pub/tbirdal2017iros/tbirdal2017iros.pdf
Yes, ICP can be applied to this problem, as you suggest with sampling the surface. It would be best if you have all available faces in your laser scan otherwise you may have to remove invisible faces from your model (depending on how many of these there are).
One way of automatically preparing a model by getting rid of some of the hidden faces is to calculate the concave hull which can be used to discard hidden faces (which are for example faces that are not close to the concave hull). Depending on how involved the model is this may or may not be necessary.
ICP works well if given a good initial guess because it ignores points that are not close with respect to the current guess. If ICP is not coming up with a good alignment you may try it with multiple random restarts to try and fix this problem, choosing the best alignment.
A more involved solution is to do local feature matching. You sample and calculate an invariant descriptor like SHOT or FPFH. You find the best matches, reject non-consistent matches, use them to come up with a good initial alignment and then refine with ICP. But you may not need this step depending on how robust and fast the random-restart ICP is.
There's an open source library for point cloud algorithms which implements registration against other point clouds. May be you can try some of their methods to see if any fit.
As a starter, if they don't have anything specific to fit against a polygon mesh, you can treat the mesh vertices as another point cloud and fit your point cloud against it. This is something that they definitely support.
I'm doing a personal project of trying to find a person's look-alike given a database of photographs of other people all taken in a consistent manner - people looking directly into the camera, neutral expression and no tilt to the head (think passport photo).
I have a system for placing markers for 2d coordinates on the faces and I was wondering if there are any known approaches for finding a look alike of that face given this approach?
I found the following facial recognition algorithms:
http://www.face-rec.org/algorithms/
But none deal with the specific task of finding a look-alike.
Thanks for your time.
I believe you can also try searching for "Face Verification" rather than just "Face Recognition". This might give you more relevant results.
Strictly speaking, the 2 are actually different things in scientific literature but are sometimes lumped under face recognition. For details on their differences and some sample code, take a look here: http://www.idiap.ch/~marcel/labs/faceverif.php
However, for your purposes, what others such as Edvard and Ari has kindly suggested would work too. Basically they are suggesting a K-nearest neighbor style face recognition classifier.
As a start, you can probably try that. First, compute a feature vector for each of your face images in your database. One possible feature to use is the Local Binary Pattern (LBP). You can find the code by googling it. Do the same for your query image. Now, loop through all the feature vectors and compare them to that of your query image using euclidean distance and return the K nearest ones.
While the above method is easy to code, it will generally not be as robust as some of the more sophisticated ones because they generally fail badly when faces are not aligned (known as unconstrained pose. Search for "Labelled Faces in the Wild" to see the results for state of the art for this problem.) or taken under different environmental conditions. But if the faces in your database are aligned and taken under similar conditions as you mentioned, then it might just work. If they are not aligned, you can use the face key points, which you mentioned you are able to compute, to align the faces. In general, comparing faces which are not aligned is a very difficult problem in computer vision and is still a very active area of research. But, if you only consider faces that look alike and in the same pose to be similar (i.e. similar in pose as well as looks) then this shouldn't be a problem.
The website your gave have links to the code for Eigenfaces and Fisherfaces. These are essentially 2 methods for computing feature vectors for your face images. Faces are identified by doing a K nearest neighbor search for faces in the database with feature vectors (computed using PCA and LDA respectively) closest to that of the query image.
I should probably also mention that in the Fisherfaces method, you will need to have "labels" for the faces in your database to identify the faces. This is because Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), the classification method used in Fisherfaces, needs this information to compute a projection matrix that will project feature vectors for similar faces close together and dissimilar ones far apart. Comparison is then performed on these projected vectors. Here lies the difference between Face Recognition and Face Verification: for recognition, you need to have "labels" your training images in your database i.e. you need to identify them.
For verification, you are only trying to tell whether any 2 given faces are of the same person. Often, you don't need the "labelled" data in the traditional sense (although some methods might make use of auxiliary training data to help in the face verification).
The code for computing Eigenfaces and Fisherfaces are available in OpenCV in case you use it.
As a side note:
A feature vector is actually just a vector in your linear algebra sense. It is simply n numbers packed together. The word "feature" refers to something like a "statistic" i.e. a feature vector is a vector containing statistics that characterizes the object it represents. For e.g., for the task of face recognition, the simplest feature vector would be the intensity values of the grayscale image of the face. In that case, I just reshape the 2D array of numbers into a n rows by 1 column vector, each entry containing the value of one pixel. The pixel value here is the "feature", and the n x 1 vector of pixel values is the feature vector. In the LBP case, roughly speaking, it computes a histogram at small patches of pixels in the image and joins these histograms together into one histogram, which is then used as the feature vector. So the Local Binary Pattern is the statistic and the histograms joined together is the feature vector. Together they described the "texture" and facial patterns of your face.
Hope this helps.
These two would seem like the equivalent problem, but I do not work in the field. You essentially have the following two problems:
Face recognition: Take a face and try to match it to a person.
Find similar faces: Take a face and try to find similar faces.
Aren't these equivalent? In (1) you start with a picture that you want to match to the owner and you compare it to a database of reference pictures for each person you know. In (2) you pick a picture in your reference database and run (1) for that picture against the other pictures in the database.
Since the algorithms seem to give you a measure of how likely two pictures belong to the same person, in (2) you just sort the measures in decreasing order and pick the top hits.
I assume you should first analyze all the picture in your database with whatever approach you are using. You should then have a set of metrics for each picture which you can compare a specific picture with and statistically find the closest match.
For example, if you can measure the distance between the eyes, you can find faces that have the same distance. You can then find the face that has the overall closest match and return that.
I have set of binary images, on which i need to find the cross (examples attached). I use findcontours to extract borders from the binary image. But i can't understand how can i determine is this shape (border) cross or not? Maybe opencv has some built-in methods, which could help to solve this problem. I thought to solve this problem using Machine learning, but i think there is a simpler way to do this. Thanks!
Viola-Jones object detection could be a good start. Though the main usage of the algorithm (AFAIK) is face detection, it was actually designed for any object detection, such as your cross.
The algorithm is Machine-Learning based algorithm (so, you will need a set of classified "crosses" and a set of classified "not crosses"), and you will need to identify the significant "features" (patterns) that will help the algorithm recognize crosses.
The algorithm is implemented in OpenCV as cvHaarDetectObjects()
From the original image, lets say you've extracted sets of polygons that could potentially be your cross. Assuming that all of the cross is visible, to the extent that all edges can be distinguished as having a length, you could try the following.
Reject all polygons that did not have exactly 12 vertices required to
form your polygon.
Re-order the vertices such that the shortest edge length is first.
Create a best fit perspective transformation that maps your vertices onto a cross of uniform size
Examine the residuals generated by using this transformation to project your cross back onto the uniform cross, where the residual for any given point is the distance between the projected point and the corresponding uniform point.
If all the residuals are within your defined tolerance, you've found a cross.
Note that this works primarily due to the simplicity of the geometric shape you're searching for. Your contours will also need to have noise removed for this to work, e.g. each line within the cross needs to be converted to a single simple line.
Depending on your requirements, you could try some local feature detector like SIFT or SURF. Check OpenSURF which is an interesting implementation of the latter.
after some days of struggle, i came to a conclusion that the only robust way here is to use SVM + HOG. That's all.
You could erode each blob and analyze their number of pixels is going down. No mater the rotation scaling of the crosses they should always go down with the same ratio, excepted when you're closing down on the remaining center. Again, when the blob is small enough you should expect it to be in the center of the original blob. You won't need any machine learning algorithm or training data to resolve this.
I have a lot of polygons. Ideally, all the polygons must not overlap one other, but they can be located adjacent to one another.
But practically, I would have to allow for slight polygon overlap ( defined by a certain tolerance) because all these polygons are obtained from user hand drawing input, which is not as machine-precised as I want them to be.
My question is, is there any software library components that:
Allows one to input a range of polygons
Check if the polygons are overlapped more than a prespecified tolerance
If yes, then stop, or else, continue
Create mesh in terms of coordinates and elements for the polygons by grouping common vertex and edges together?
More importantly, link back the mesh edges to the original polygon(s)'s edge?
Or is there anyone tackle this issue before?
This issue is a daily "bread" of GIS applications - this is what is exactly done there. We also learned that at a GIS course. Look into GIS systems how they address this issue. E.g. ArcGIS define so called topology rules and has some functions to check if the edited features are topologically correct. See http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.2/index.cfm?TopicName=Topology_rules
This is pretty long, only because the question is so big. I've tried to group my comments based on your bullet points.
Components to draw polygons
My guess is that you'll have limited success without providing more information - a component to draw polygons will be very much coupled to the language and UI paradigm you are using for the rest of your project, ie. code for a web component will look very different to a native component.
Perhaps an alternative is to separate this element of the process out from the rest of what you're trying to do. There are some absolutely fantastic pre-existing editors that you can use to create 2d and 3d polygons.
Inkscape is an example of a vector graphics editor that makes it easy to enter 2d polygons, and has the advantage of producing output SVG, which is reasonably easy to parse.
In three dimensions Blender is an open source editor that can be used to produce arbitrary geometries that can be exported to a number of formats.
If you can use a google-maps API (possibly in an native HTML rendering control), and you are interested in adding spatial points on a map overlay, you may be interested in related click-to-draw polygon question on stackoverflow. From past experience, other map APIs like OpenLayers support similar approaches.
Check whether polygons are overlapped
Thomas T made the point in his answer, that there are families of related predicates that can be used to address this and related queries. If you are literally just looking for overlaps and other set theoretic operations (union, intersection, set difference) in two dimensions you can use the General Polygon Clipper
You may also need to consider the slightly more generic problem when two polygons that don't overlap or share a vertex when they should. You can use a Minkowski sum to dilate (enlarge) two and three dimensional polygons to avoid such problems. The Computational Geometry Algorithms Library has robust implementations of these algorithms.
I think that it's more likely that you are really looking for a piece of software that can perform vertex welding, Christer Ericson's book Real-time Collision Detection includes extensive and very readable description of the basics in this field, and also on related issues of edge snapping, crack detection, T-junctions and more. However, even though code snippets are included for that book, I know of no ready made library that addresses these problems, in particular, no complete implementation is given for anything beyond basic vertex welding.
Obviously all 3D packages (blender, maya, max, rhino) all include built in software and tools to solve this problem.
Group polygons based on vertices
From past experience, this turned out to be one of the most time consuming parts of developing software to solve problems in this area. It requires reasonable understanding of graph theory and algorithms to traverse boundaries. It is worth relying upon a solid geometry or graph library to do the heavy lifting for you. In the past I've had success with igraph.
Link the updated polygons back to the originals.
Again, from past experience, this is just a case of careful bookkeeping, and some very careful design of your mesh classes up-front. I'd like to give more advice, but even after spending a big chunk of the last six months on this, I'm still struggling to find a "nice" way to do this.
Other Comments
If you're interacting with users, I would strongly recommend avoiding this issue where possible by using an editor that "snaps", rounding all user entered points onto a grid. This will hopefully significantly reduce the amount of work that you have to do.
Yes, you can use OGR. It has python bindings. Specifically, the Geometry class has an Intersects method. I don't fully understand what you want in points 4 and 5.