i need to clean this picture delete the writing "clean me" and make it bright.
as a part of my homework in image processing course i may use matlab functions ginput, to find specific points in the image (of course in the script you should hard code the coordinates you need).
You may use conv2, fft2, ifft2, fftshift etc.
You may also use median, mean, max, min, sort, etc.
my basic idea was to use the white and black values from the middle of the picture and insert them into the other parts of the black and white strips. however gives a very synthetic look to the picture.
can you please give me a direction what to do ? a median filter will not give good results.
The general technique to do such thing is called Inpainting. But in order to do it, you need a mask of the regions that you want to in paint. So, let us suppose that we managed to get a good mask and inpainted the original image considering a morphological dilation of this mask:
To get that mask, we don't need anything much fancy. Start with a binarization of the difference between the original image and the result of a median filtering of it:
You can remove isolated pixels; join the pixels representing the stars of your flag by a combination of dilation in horizontal followed by another dilation with a small square; remove this just created largest component; and then perform a geodesic dilation with the result so far against the initial mask. This gives the good mask above.
Now to inpaint there are many algorithms, but one of the simplest ones I've found is described at Fast Digital Image Inpainting, which should be easy enough to implement. I didn't use it, but you could and verify which results you can obtain.
EDIT: I missed that you also wanted to brighten the image.
An easy way to brighten an image, without making the brighter areas even brighter, is by applying a gamma factor < 1. Being more specific to your image, you could first apply a relatively large lowpass filter, negate it, multiply the original image by it, and then apply the gamma factor. In this second case, the final image will likely be darker than the first one, so you multiply it by a simple scalar value. Here are the results for these two cases (left one is simply a gamma 0.6):
If you really want to brighten the image, then you can apply a bilateral filter and binarize it:
I see two options for removing "clean me". Both rely on the horizontal similarity.
1) Use a long 1D low-pass filter in the horizontal direction only.
2) Use a 1D median filter maybe 10 pixels long
For both solutions you of course have to exlude the stars-part.
When it comes to brightness you could try a histogram equalization. However that won't fix the unevenness of the brightness. Maybe a high-pass before equalization can fix that.
Regards
The simplest way to remove the text is, like KlausCPH said, to use a long 1-d median filter in the region with the stripes. In order to not corrupt the stars, you would need to keep a backup of this part and replace it after the median filter has run. To do this, you could use ginput to mark the lower right side of the star part:
% Mark lower right corner of star-region
figure();imagesc(Im);colormap(gray)
[xCorner,yCorner] = ginput(1);
close
xCorner = round(xCorner); yCorner = round(yCorner);
% Save star region
starBackup = Im(1:yCorner,1:xCorner);
% Clean up stripes
Im = medfilt2(Im,[1,50]);
% Replace star region
Im(1:yCorner,1:xCorner) = starBackup;
This produces
To fix the exposure problem (the middle part being brighter than the corners), you could fit a 2-D Gaussian model to your image and do a normalization. If you want to do this, I suggest looking into fit, although this can be a bit technical if you have not been working with model fitting before.
My found 2-D gaussian looks something like this:
Putting these two things together, gives:
I used gausswin() function to make a gaus. mask:
Pic_usa_g = abs(1 - gausswin( size(Pic_usa,2) ));
Pic_usa_g = Pic_usa_g + 0.6;
Pic_usa_g = Pic_usa_g .* 2;
Pic_usa_g = Pic_usa_g';
C = repmat(Pic_usa_g, size(Pic_usa,1),1);
and after multiply the image with the mask you get the fixed image.
Related
I have a binary image below:
it's an image of random abstract picture, and by using matlab, what I wanna do is to detect, how many peaks does it have so I'll know that there are roughly 5 objects in it.
As you can see, there are, 5 peaks in it, so it means there are 5 objects in it.
I've tried using imregionalmax(), but I don't find it usefull, since my image already in binary image. I also tried to use regionprops('Area'), but it shows wrong number since there is no exact whitespace between each object. Thanks in advance
An easy way to do this would be to simply sum across the rows for each column and find the peaks of the result using findpeaks. In the example below, I have opted to use the inverse of the image which will result in positive peaks where the columns are.
rowSum = sum(1 - image, 1);
If we plot this, it looks like the bottom plot
We can then use findpeaks to identify the peaks in this plot. We will apply a 5-point moving average to it to help eliminate false peaks.
[peaks, locations, widths, prominences] = findpeaks(smooth(rowSum));
You can then select the "true" peaks by thresholding based on any of these outputs. For this example we can use prominences and find the more prominent peaks.
isPeak = prominences > 50;
nPeaks = sum(isPeak)
5
Then we can plot the peaks locations to confirm
plot(locations(isPeak), peaks(isPeak), 'r*');
If you have some prior knowledge about the expected widths of the peaks, you could adjust the smooth span to match this expected width and obtain some cleaner peaks when using findpeaks.
Using an expected width of 40 for your image, findpeaks was able to perfectly detect all 5 peaks with no false positive.
findpeaks(smooth(rowSum, 40));
As your they are peaks, they are vertical structures. So in this particular case, you case use projection histograms (also know as histogram projection function): you make all the black pixels fall as if they were effected by gravity. Then you will find a curve of black pixels on the bottom of your image. Then you can count the number of peaks.
Here is the algorithm:
Invert the image (black is normally the absence of information)
Histogram projection
Closing and opening in order to clean the signal and get the final result.
You can add a maxima detection to get the top of the peaks.
My short question
How to detect the black dots in the following images? (I paste only one test image to make the question look compact. More images can be found →here←).
My long question
As shown above, the background color is roughly blue, and the dots color is "black". If pick one black pixel and measure its color in RGB, the value can be (0, 44, 65) or (14, 69, 89).... Therefore, we cannot set a range to tell the pixel is part of the black dot or the background.
I test 10 images of different colors, but I hope I can find a method to detect the black dots from more complicated background which may be made up of three or more colors, as long as human eyes can identify the black dots easily. Some extremely small or blur dots can be omitted.
Previous work
Last month, I have asked a similar question at stackoverflow, but have not got a perfect solution, some excellent answers though. Find more details about my work if you are interested.
Here are the methods I have tried:
Converting to grayscale or the brightness of image. The difficulty is that I can not find an adaptive threshold to do binarization. Obviously, turning a color image to grayscale or using the brightness (HSV) will lose much useful information. Otsu algorithm which calculates adaptive threshold can not work either.
Calculating RGB histogram. In my last question, natan's method is to estimate the black color by histogram. It is time-saving, but the adaptive threshold is also a problem.
Clustering. I have tried k-means clustering and found it quite effective for the background that only has one color. The shortage (see my own answer) is I need to set the number of clustering center in advance but I don't know how the background will be. What's more, it is too slow! My application is for real time capturing on iPhone and now it can process 7~8 frames per second using k-means (20 FPS is good I think).
Summary
I think not only similar colors but also adjacent pixels should be "clustered" or "merged" in order to extract the black dots. Please guide me a proper way to solve my problem. Any advice or algorithm will be appreciated. There is no free lunch but I hope a better trade-off between cost and accuracy.
I was able to get some pretty nice first pass results by converting to HSV color space with rgb2hsv, then using the Image Processing Toolbox functions imopen and imregionalmin on the value channel:
rgb = imread('6abIc.jpg');
hsv = rgb2hsv(rgb);
openimg = imopen(hsv(:, :, 3), strel('disk', 11));
mask = imregionalmin(openimg);
imshow(rgb);
hold on;
[r, c] = find(mask);
plot(c, r, 'r.');
And the resulting images (for the image in the question and one chosen from your link):
You can see a few false positives and missed dots, as well as some dots that are labeled with multiple points, but a few refinements (such as modifying the structure element used in the opening step) could clean these up some.
I was curios to test with my old 2d peak finder code on the images without any threshold or any color considerations, really crude don't you think?
im0=imread('Snap10.jpg');
im=(abs(255-im0));
d=rgb2gray(im);
filter=fspecial('gaussian',16,3.5);
p=FastPeakFind(d,0,filter);
imagesc(im0); hold on
plot(p(1:2:end),p(2:2:end),'r.')
The code I'm using is a simple 2D local maxima finder, there are some false positives, but all in all this captures most of the points with no duplication. The filter I was using was a 2d gaussian of width and std similar to a typical blob (the best would have been to get a matched filter for your problem).
A more sophisticated version that does treat the colors (rgb2hsv?) could improve this further...
Here is an extraodinarily simplified version, that can be extended to be full RGB, and it also does not use the image procesing library. Basically you can do 2-D convolution with a filter image (which is an example of the dot you are looking for), and from the points where the convolution returns the highest values, are the best matches for the dots. You can then of course threshold that. Here is a simple binary image example of just that.
%creating a dummy image with a bunch of small white crosses
im = zeros(100,100);
numPoints = 10;
% randomly chose the location to put those crosses
points = randperm(numel(im));
% keep only certain number of points
points = points(1:numPoints);
% get the row and columns (x,y)
[xVals,yVals] = ind2sub(size(im),points);
for ii = 1:numel(points)
x = xVals(ii);
y = yVals(ii);
try
% create the crosses, try statement is here to prevent index out of bounds
% not necessarily the best practice but whatever, it is only for demonstration
im(x,y) = 1;
im(x+1,y) = 1;
im(x-1,y) = 1;
im(x,y+1) = 1;
im(x,y-1) = 1;
catch err
end
end
% display the randomly generated image
imshow(im)
% create a simple cross filter
filter = [0,1,0;1,1,1;0,1,0];
figure; imshow(filter)
% perform convolution of the random image with the cross template
result = conv2(im,filter,'same');
% get the number of white pixels in filter
filSum = sum(filter(:));
% look for all points in the convolution results that matched identically to the filter
matches = find(result == filSum);
%validate all points found
sort(matches(:)) == sort(points(:))
% get x and y coordinate matches
[xMatch,yMatch] = ind2sub(size(im),matches);
I would highly suggest looking at the conv2 documentation on MATLAB's website.
I have a grid of wells in an image and I'm trying to analyze this in Matlab. I want to create a box around each well to use as a mask. The way I am trying to go about this is to find the offset vectors from the X and Y normal and then use that to make a grid since I know the size of the wells.
I can mask out some of the wells but not all of them---but this doesn't matter since I know that there is a well in every position (see here). I can use regionprops to get the centers but I can't figure out how to move to the next step.
Here is an image with the centers I can extract
Some people have suggested that I do an FFT of the image but I can't get it to work. Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
Edit: Here is the mask with the centers from the centroid feature of regionprops.
here's a quick and dirty 2 cents:
First blur and invert the image so that the well lines will have high intensity values vs the rest, and further analysis will be less sensitive to noise:
im=double(imread('im.jpg'));
im=conv2(im,fspecial('Gaussian',10,1),'same');
im2=abs(im-max(im(:)));
Then, take a local threshold using the average intensity around a neighborhood of (more or less) a well size (~200 pixels)
im3=imfilter(im2,fspecial('average',200),'replicate');
im4=im2-im3;
bw=im2bw(im4,0);
Fill holes (or wells):
[bw2,locations] = imfill(bw,'holes');
Remove objects smaller than some size:
bw3 = bwareaopen(bw2, 2000, 8);
imagesc(bw3);
You can take it from there...
I have an image processing problem. I have pictures of yarn:
The individual strands are partly (but not completely) aligned. I would like to find the predominant direction in which they are aligned. In the center of the example image, this direction is around 30-34 degrees from horizontal. The result could be the average/median direction for the whole image, or just the average in each local neighborhood (producing a vector map of local directions).
What I've tried: I rotated the image in small steps (1 degree) and calculated statistics in the vertical vs horizontal direction of the rotated image (for example: standard deviation of summed rows or summed columns). I reasoned that when the strands are oriented exactly vertically or exactly horizontally the difference in statistics would be greatest, and so that angle of rotation is the correct direction in the original image. However, for at least several kinds of statistical properties I tried, this did not work.
I further thought that perhaps this wasn't working because there were too many different directions at the same time in the whole image, so I tired it in a small neighborhood. In this case, there is always a very clear preferred direction (different for each neighborhood), but it is not the direction that the fibers really go... I can post my sample code but it is basically useless.
I keep thinking there has to be some kind of simple linear algebra/statistical property of the whole image, or some value derived from the 2D FFT that would give the correct direction in one step... but how?
What probably won't work: detecting individual fibers. They are not necessarily the same color, and the image can shade from light to dark so edge detectors don't work well, and the image may not even be in focus sometimes. Because of that, it is not always even possible to see individual fibers for a human (see top-right in the example), they kinda have to be detected as preferred direction in a statistical sense.
You might try doing this in the frequency domain. The output of a Fourier Transform is orientation dependent so, if you have some kind of oriented pattern, you can apply a 2D FFT and you will see a clustering around a specific orientation.
For example, making a greyscale out of your image and performing FFT (with ImageJ) gives this:
You can see a distinct cluster that is oriented orthogonally with respect to the orientation of your yarn. With some pre-processing on your source image, to remove noise and maybe enhance the oriented features, you can probably achieve a much stronger signal in the FFT. Once you have a cluster, you can use something like PCA to determine the vector for the major axis.
For info, this is a technique that is often used to enhance oriented features, such as fingerprints, by applying a selective filter in the FFT and then taking the inverse to obtain a clearer image.
An alternative approach is to try a series of Gabor filters see here pre-built with a selection of orientations and frequencies and use the resulting features as a metric for identifying the most likely orientation. There is a scikit article that gives some examples here.
UPDATE
Just playing with ImageJ to give an idea of some possible approaches to this - I started with the FFT shown above, then - in the following image, I performed these operations (clockwise from top left) - Threshold => Close => Holefill => Erode x 3:
Finally, rather than using PCA, I calculated the spatial moments of the lower left blob using this ImageJ Plugin which handily calculates the orientation of the longest axis based on the 2nd order moment. The result gives an orientation of approximately -38 degrees (with respect to the X axis):
Depending on your frame of reference you can calculate the approximate average orientation of your yarn from this rather than from PCA.
I tried to use Gabor filters to enhance the orientations of your yarns. The parameters I used are:
phi = x*pi/16; % x = 1, 3, 5, 7
theta = 3;
sigma = 0.65*theta;
filterSize = 3;
And the imag part of the convoluted image are shown below:
As you mentioned, the most orientations lies between 30-34 degrees, thus the filter with phi = 5*pi/16 in left bottom yields the best contrast among the four.
I would consider using a Hough Transform for this type of problem, there is a nice write-up here.
I have the following image:
What I want to do is "id" the individual strips based on their dominant color. What is the best approach to do this?
What I've done is used the image's value (HSV) and make a distribution on that value's occurrence. The problem is, for strip0 values [27=32191, 28=5433, others=8] strip1 values [26=7107, 27=23111, others=22]. I can't get a definitive distinction.
The project's main goal is to compare an actual yellow-colored paper to the strips and determine which strip is the most similar.
First, since you know the boundaries of each strip in the reference image, the only problem possible here is that your reference image is noisy. A relatively overkill way to handle that is clustering the colors in each strip and taking the cluster's centroid as the representative color of the strip. In order to get a more meaningful response here, consider the CIELAB colorspace for this step. Doing this, and converting the results back to RGB, for the first strip I get the rgb triplet (0.949375, 0.879872, 0.147898), and for the second strip (0.945324, 0.857322, 0.129756) (each channel in range [0, 1]).
When you get a new image, you perform the same operation. But there are a lot of problems here. For instance, how are you handling the white balance in this input image ? Supposing you have no such problem, then now it is only a matter of finding the nearest color to the one you just found by the same process. To find the nearest color you have to use a meaningful colorspace for such thing too, and CIELAB is recommended again since the well established Delta-E functions are defined on it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_difference for some such metrics, the simplest being the euclidean distance in CIELAB.
Calibrate your equipment. If you do not calibrate your equipment, you will have arbitrary errors between the test sample and the reference. Lighting is part of your equipment.
Use edge detection and your knowledge of the reference strip's geometry (strips are equal width) to determine sampling regions. For each sampling region, extract an internal patch.
For the test strip, compute an image where each pixel is the max difference within a sampling window (e.g. 5x5). This will let you identify a relatively homogeneous region which is dissimilar to the outside region (i.e. the paper). Extract a patch.
Use downsampling to find an integrated color for each patch per svnpenn's advice. You can look at other computation methods later, but this should work quite well.
For weights wh, ws, wv, compute similarity = whabs(h0-h1) + wsabs(s0-s1) + wv*abs(v0-v1) between the test color and each reference color. You can look at other distance measures later, but this should work quite well. Start with equal weights. One perk to this method is that it behaves well regardless of the dimension or combination of dimensions under which the reference strip varies.
Sort the results to find the most similar and second most similar matches. Note that similarity is set up so zero is an exact match, and a big number is a poor match. Use the ratio of these two results to estimate the quality of the most similar match - if the first two matches are very close, it's probably not a great match to either.
You can scan through all the colors and use a hashtable to keep track of how many pixels of each color there are.
Take those numbers and, remembering which colors they correspond to, sort them in decreasing order.
Look at the sorted list of numbers and find the difference between each consecutive pair of numbers. Keep track the indices in the list of the two numbers that resulted in each difference. Sort this difference list.
Look at the maximum number in the difference list. You now have the biggest drop-off between two sets of pixels. Go find which was the bigger one. Everything with this number of pixels and above is a dominant color. Everything below is a sub-dominant color. Now you know how many dominant colors you have, and what they are.
Should be pretty easy from there to do whatever it is you want to do.
The only time this wouldn't work is if some of the noise was of the same color as a strip, so much so that it corrupted your data.
In this case, you would use a different approach, which you can also use in the first case - looking at runs. Go through the pixels, and each time you find a new color, look at how many of the following pixels are of the same color.
Use the method described earlier to cluster the colors into dominant and non-dominant, for the same result.
In both cases, if you know that the picture is of vertical strips, you could limit the number of horizontal lines of colors you look at to make things go faster.
You could split the image into sections, then resize each section to one pixel. This is an example using the whole image
$ convert Y82IirS.jpg -resize 1x1 txt:
# ImageMagick pixel enumeration: 1,1,255,srgb
0,0: (220,176, 44) #DCB02C srgb(220,176,44)
Average colour of an image