I know how to find connected components efficiently. I am looking for the best way to find if a binary image that contains a single component still contains only one component. Inbetween there are losses of one or two pixels.
I have heard of edge-based approches and I think something like that might be good, but I can't find anything about them on the internet except that they are inferior to other approaches in labeling connected components.
If you know anything related to this, please post a link.
Related
Recently I have been reading about KD-Trees, where we choose a cutting dimension (Whether arbitrarily or by variance) to split the data and build the tree.
Now am wondering is it possible somehow we can use, more than a single dimension as cutting dimension for KD-Tree? Like maybe use some kind of combination of 2 dimensions at each level, rather than one at each level.
If the idea is stupid, I would like to know why?
PS: I just want to know if there exists some related research or info on this topic which I can refer to, as I can't seem to find any.
Splitting in several dimensions can be a very good idea. Have a look at quadtrees, they split in every level in all dimensions. They are also widely used.
The description of my problem is simple, I fear that the problem isn't that simple. I would like to find the copied, duplicated part on an image. Which part of the image is copied and pasted back to the same image to another position(for example by using Photoshop)?
Please check the attached image. The red rectangle containing the value 20 is moved from the price field to the validity field. Please note that the rectangle size and position isn't fixed and unknown, it could vary, just the image is given, no other information.
Could you help me naming a theoretical method, idea, paper, people who are working on the problem above?
I posted my method to here(stackoverflow) instead of Computer Vision to reach as many people I can, because maybe the problem can be transformed. I could think a solution, like looking for the 2 largest rectangle which contain the same values inside a huge matrix(image).
Thanks for your help and time.
Note: I don't want to use the metadata to detect the forgery.
If you have access to the digital version of the forgery, and the forger (or the author of the forger-creation software) is a complete idiot, it can be as simple as looking at the image metadata for signs of 'shopping.
If digital files has been "washed" to remove said signs, or the forgery has been printed and then scanned back to you, it is a MUCH harder problem, again unless the forgers are complete idiots.
In the latter case you can only hope for making the forger's work harder, but there is no way to make it impossible - after all, banknotes can be forged, and they are much better protected than train tickets.
I'd start reading from here: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/spm09.pdf
SHIFT features can be used to identify "similar regions" that might have been copied from a different part of the image. A starting point can be to use OpenCV's SHIFT demo (included in the library) and use parts of the image as input, to see where a rough match is available. Detailed matching can follow to see if the region actually is a copy.
pl. help me with this noob questions. I want to show a network with large number (70000) of nodes, and 2.1 million links in force layout. Looking for a good and scalable way to do this.
How do we actually show such large nodes practically, can we do some kind of approximation and show semantically same network (e.g: http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project.cfm?id=76 )
How do we actually reduce such data in back end [ say using KDE ? We cannot afford to use science.js in front end as the volume is large ]
Initial view can be the network with pre-determined locations of the nodes or clusters. How do we predertmine the locations in back end, before sending the data to d3js. Do we have to use topojson ?
Any such examples are available using d3js (and a backend - say java, python etc) ?
Sorry about the question, but do you really need to show all that information in one shot?
If you really need it, have first a look with Gephi and see what it looks like, then pass to the next step.
If you see that you can focus on specific nodes or patterns at the beginning and then explore the result of the chart, probably this is the best solution from a performance point of view.
In case the discovery approach works but you are still having troubles with many items on the screen, just control the force layout with a time based threshold. It's not perfect but it will work for hundred nodes.
Next step
If you decide to go anyway on this path, I would recommend the followings:
Aggregate: that's probably the most useful thing you can do here: let the user interact with the data and dig in it to see more in detail. That is the best solution if you have to serve many clients.
Do not run the force directed layout on the front end with the entire network as is: it will eat all the browser resources for at least tens of minutes in any case.
Compute the layout on the back end - e.g. using JUNG or Gephi core itself in Java or NetworkX in Python - and then just display the result.
Cache the result of the point above as well: they are many even for the server if you have many clients, so cache it.
When the user drag the network, hide the links: it should speed up the computation ( sigmajs uses this trick)
I have a big problem detecting objects within an image - I know this topic was already highly discusses in many forums, but I spend the last 4 days searching for an answer and was not able.
In fact: I have a picture from a branch (http://cl.ly/image/343Y193b2m1c). My goal is to count every single needle in this picture. So I have to face several problems:
Separate the branch with its needles from the background (which in this case is no problem).
Select the borders of the needles. This is a huge problem; I tried different ways including all edges() functions but the problem is always the same - the borders around the needles are not closed and - which leads to the last problem:
Needles are overlapping! This leads in "squares between the needles" which are, if I use imfill() or equal formula, filled in instead of the needles. And: the places where the needles are concentrated (many needles at one place) are nearly impossible to distinguish.
I tried watershed, I tried to enhance the contrast, Kmeans clustering, I tried imerose, imdilate and related functions with subsequent edge detection. I tried as well to filter and smooth the picture a bit in order to "unsharp" the needles a bit so that not every small change in color is recognized as a border (which is another problem).
I am relatively new to matlab, so I dont know what I have to look for. I tried to follow the MatLab tutorial used for Nuclei detection - but with this I just can get all the green objects (all needles at once).
I hope this questions did not came up before - if yes, I apologize deeply for the double post. If anybody has an idea what to do or what methods to use, it would be awesome and would safe this really bad beginning of the week.
Thank you very much in advance,
Phillip
Distinguishing overlapping objects is very, very hard, particularly if you do not know how many objects you have to distinguish. Your brain is much better at distinguishing overlapping objects than any segmentation algorithm I'm aware of, since it is able to integrate a lot of information that is difficult to encode. Therefore: If you're not able to distinguish some of the features yourself, forget about doing it via code.
Having said that, there may be a way for you to be able to get an approximate count of the needles: If you can segment the image pixels into two classes: "needle" versus "not needle", and you know how much area in your picture is covered by a needle (it may help to include a ruler when you take the picture), you can then divide number of "needle"-pixels by the number of pixels covered by a single needle to estimate the total number of needles in the image. This will somewhat underestimate the needle count due to overlaps, and it will underestimate more the denser the needles are (due to more overlaps), but it should allow you to compare automatically between branches with lots of needles and branches with few needles, as well as to identify changes in time, should that be one of your goals.
I agree with #Jonas = you got yourself one HUGE problem.
Let me make a few suggestions.
First, along #Jonas' direction, instead of getting an accurate count, another way of getting a rough estimate is by counting the tips of the needles. Obviously, not all the tips are clearly visible. But, if you can get a clear mask of the branch it might be relatively easy to identify the tips of the needles using some of the morphological operations you mentioned yourself.
Second, is there any way you can get more information? For example, if you could have depth information it might help a little in distinguishing the needles from one another (it will not completely solve the task but it may help). You may get depth information from stereo - that is, taking two pictures of the branch while moving the camera a bit. If you have a Kinect device at your disposal (or some other range-camera) you can get a depth map directly...
I'm a member of a small but fairly sociable online forum, and just for fun we've been plotting a chart of who's met who in real life. Here's what it looked like fairly recently.
(The colour is the "distance" from the currently-selected user, e.g., yellow is someone who's met someone who's met them. And no, I'm not Zak.) Apologies for the faded lines, they don't seem to have weathered the SO upload process very well.
It's generated as SVG, with a big block of JSON defining who's met who. The position (x,y) of each member on the chart is hard-coded into that JSON. Until now, it's been fairly easy to cope when someone meets someone else - at worst, maybe two or three people need to be shuffled around - but it does involve editing the co-ordinates manually. And now that the European and North American contingents are meeting up, and a few on the periphery are showing up at meets, all hell is breaking loose...
We can put some effort into making all the nodes draggable, which would make the job of re-arranging a bit less tiresome. But it seems more sensible to let the computer take care of positioning them, especially as the problem will only get harder with more members.
So, does anyone know of an algorithm for positioning these nodes on the chart, based on which other nodes they're linked with?
Ideally, it would
minimise or avoid long links
avoid having lines run underneath unrelated nodes
take account of the fact that well-connected nodes are bigger
do its best to show the wider "all these guys met each other" relationships (the big circle at the bottom is largely the result of one meet, for example, though the chart has no idea of when any two people met)
but if it gets us close enough to tweak it, that's progress.
And, what's the real name for these charts? I believe they're called "link charts", but I'm not getting good results from Google using that name or anything else I can think of.
We'll likely be implementing this in PHP or Javascript, but right now it's how to begin approaching the problem that's the bigger question.
Edit: Some great answers coming already. I would be very interested in the actual algorithm(s) used, though, as well as tools that do the job.
What you are looking for are f.e. force-based algorithms. There are quite a few libraries, and some have been named already, like prefuse, yWorks. Here a few more: jung, gvf, jGraph.
The real name for it is "graph". To generate graph, and have a good layout algorithm, the best is to use a software which will do the job.
I advise you to use Gephi.
This soft is able to do all the things you want to.
Have a look at the yWorks tools.
You can google for graph visualization. There are more libraries for this, including GraphViz, but probably not all your requirements will be met.
If you can deal w/ Java, take a look at prefuse.
Have a look at NodeXL
Also, this book may be relevant.