I need to enlarge the image downloaded without affecting its clarity.but when resized its clarity has gone.Can any one help?
Given the context, by clarity I assume you mean visual appearance. You want your upscaled image, again I believe you are dealing with upscaling and not downscaling (it is not specified in your problem), to look visually good. We actually can magically create detail, but probably not a perfect one. There are techniques for specifically working with pixelated images, hqx or http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/kopf/pixelart/paper/pixel.pdf for instance. Since that is not clear from your description either, I'm simply assuming you have images of any kind.
With these considerations, you have yet to describe what you tried. Let me guess you tried a nearest neighbor interpolation, so you get something like:
There are other common types of interpolation. Like bicubic, Lanczos or something more modern like ICBI or http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~raananf/projects/lss_upscale/paper.pdf. Consider the first three of those, we get the respective results:
It may be a little hard to visualize the differences among these last three, but if you zoom into the actual images then you will be able to notice them. ICBI gives sharpest edges in this case.
Image resizing will always affect clarity, unless you downloaded a vector graphics image. See if the image has a vector graphics format, and if so, download that.
Failing that, you could try to see if larger image sizes are available, as generally shrinking hurts the image quality less than increasing.
Related
I am wondering if there is a pre-existing algorithm/library/framework to compare two images to see if one is a re-sized version of the other? The programming language doesn't matter at this stage.
If there is nothing out there, I'd need to write something up. What I have thought of so far:
(Expensive) Resize the larger to the smaller and compare pixel by pixel.
Better yet, just resize a few random "areas" on the picture and compare. If they match, convert more, etc...
Break the image into a number of rows and columns and do some sort of parity math on the color values.
The problem I see with the first two ideas especially, is that there are different ways to re-size a picture in the first place, so the math will likely not work out the same at all. Some re-sizing adds blur, etc....
If anyone could point me to some good literature on this subject, that would be great. My googling turns up mostly shareware applications which is not what I want.
The goal is to have this running in the back of a webserver.
The best approach depends on the characteristics of the images you are comparing, what percentage of probability it is that the images are the same, and when they are different, are they typically off by a lot or could it be as minute as a single pixel difference?
If the answers to the above is that the images you need to compare will be completely random then going with the expensive solution, or some available package might be the best bet.
If it is that you know that the images are different more often than not, and that the images typically differ quite a lot, and you really want to hand-roll a solution you could implement some initial 'quick compare' steps that would be less expensive and that would quickly identify a lot of the cases where the images are different.
For example you could resize the larger image, then either compare pixel-by-pixel (or calculate a hash of the pixel values) only a 'diagonal line' of the image (top left pixel to bottom right pixel) and by doing so exclude differing images and only do the more expensive comparison for those that pass this test.
Or take a pre-set number of points at whatever is a 'good distribution' depending on the type of image and only do the more expensive comparison for those that pass this test.
If you know a lot about the images you will be comparing, they have known characteristics and they are different more often than they are the same, implementing a cheap 'quick elimination compare' along the lines of the above could be worthwhile.
You need to look into dHash algorithm for this.
I wrote a pure java library just for this few days back. You can feed it with directory path(includes sub-directory), and it will list the duplicate images in list with absolute path which you want to delete. Alternatively, you can use it to find all unique images in a directory too.
It used awt api internally, so can't be used for Android though. Since, imageIO has problem reading alot of new types of images, i am using twelve monkeys jar which is internally used.
https://github.com/srch07/Duplicate-Image-Finder-API
Jar with dependencies bundled internally can be downloaded from, https://github.com/srch07/Duplicate-Image-Finder-API/blob/master/archives/duplicate_image_finder_1.0.jar
The api can find duplicates among images of different sizes too.
I need to remove the blur this image:
Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/63036721#N02/5733034767/
Any Ideas?
Although previous answers are right when they say that you can't recover lost information, you could investigate a little and make a few guesses.
I downloaded your image in what seems to be the original size (75x75) and you can see here a zoomed segment (one little square = one pixel)
It seems a pretty linear grayscale! Let's verify it by plotting the intensities of the central row. In Mathematica:
ListLinePlot[First /# ImageData[i][[38]][[1 ;; 15]]]
So, it is effectively linear, starting at zero and ending at one.
So you may guess it was originally a B&W image, linearly blurred.
The easiest way to deblur that (not always giving good results, but enough in your case) is to binarize the image with a 0.5 threshold. Like this:
And this is a possible way. Just remember we are guessing a lot here!
HTH!
You cannot generally retrieve missing information.
If you know what it is an image of, in this case a Gaussian or Airy profile then it's probably an out of focus image of a point source - you can determine the characteristics of the point.
Another technique is to try and determine the character tics of the blurring - especially if you have many images form the same blurred system. Then iteratively create a possible source image, blur it by that convolution and compare it to the blurred image.
This is the general technique used to make radio astronomy source maps (images) and was used for the flawed Hubble Space Telescope images
When working with images one of the most common things is to use a convolution filter. There is a "sharpen" filter that does what it can to remove blur from an image. An example of a sharpen filter can be found here:
http://www.panoramafactory.com/sharpness/sharpness.html
Some programs like matlab make convolution really easy: conv2(A,B)
And most nice photo editing have the filters under some name or another (sharpen usually).
But keep in mind that filters can only do so much. In theory, the actual information has been lost by the blurring process and it is impossible to perfectly reconstruct the initial image (no matter what TV will lead you to believe).
In this case it seems like you have a very simple image with only black and white. Knowing this about your image you could always use a simple threshold. Set everything above a certain threshold to white, and everything below to black. Once again most photo editing software makes this really easy.
You cannot retrieve missing information, but under certain assumptions you can sharpen.
Try unsharp masking.
Is there a tool that would reveal whether an image contains a watermark and read, alter or remove a watermark if used by someone who is not the creator of the watermark?
Edit to try to reflect Kerzin's intent, as indicated in the comments: This is not for the purpose of knowing how to do it, but whether it can be done by others to remove watermarks from created images, and how it can be made more difficult.
In general:
to detect a watermark that is not visible to the naked eye you need to have some idea of the encoding scheme
it is possible to come up with a watermarking scheme that yields a watermark one cannot read or definitively confirm the presence of without knowing a secret, however in general that is not the purpose of a watermark
a watermark that does not distort the image sufficiently to be obvious to the naked eye should in general be removable by manipulations that similarly do not degrade the signal sufficiently to be obvious to the naked eye; however, coming up with the required manipulations may be hard and will certainly require specific knowledge of the watermarking scheme.
It depends on the type of watermark you're creating. I'm assuming you're talking about an opaque or semitransparent logo or text that is usually placed in a corner of the image.
There is a balancing act here. If the watermark is small enough, users can always just crop it out. But if you make it too large, you make the image unusable. Sometimes this is the intent (for example, look at iStockPhoto.com: they use big watermarks over the center of the image so that you can't use the image without buying it). Other times, you don't want to do this (say you're posting a wallpaper to DeviantArt: you still want people to use the image, but no one's going to use it if the watermark takes up a third of the screen).
If the watermark covers a part of the image that is not too detailed, users who know what they're doing can use the clone brush or other tools to photoshop it out of the image. (The same way I once removed ugly power lines from an otherwise beautiful sunset photo.)
Also, if the watermark is in the same place on all images, and it is transparent enough, sophisticated users can build a filter based on the common pixels from several of your images. In the right circumstances, such a filter can work like magic. (But usually it won't.)
Most of the time you won't be able to remove the watermark. Not even manually.
Unless it is a real simple and/or badplaced watermark and the image itself is easy to reconstruct too.
There are a few tools that claim to be able to remove watermarks but I don't know of any which really are up to the task
Sometimes two image files may be different on a file level, but a human would consider them perceptively identical. Given that, now suppose you have a huge database of images, and you wish to know if a human would think some image X is present in the database or not. If all images had a perceptive hash / fingerprint, then one could hash image X and it would be a simple matter to see if it is in the database or not.
I know there is research around this issue, and some algorithms exist, but is there any tool, like a UNIX command line tool or a library I could use to compute such a hash without implementing some algorithm from scratch?
edit: relevant code from findimagedupes, using ImageMagick
try $image->Sample("160x160!");
try $image->Modulate(saturation=>-100);
try $image->Blur(radius=>3,sigma=>99);
try $image->Normalize();
try $image->Equalize();
try $image->Sample("16x16");
try $image->Threshold();
try $image->Set(magick=>'mono');
($blob) = $image->ImageToBlob();
edit: Warning! ImageMagick $image object seems to contain information about the creation time of an image file that was read in. This means that the blob you get will be different even for the same image, if it was retrieved at a different time. To make sure the fingerprint stays the same, use $image->getImageSignature() as the last step.
findimagedupes is pretty good. You can run "findimagedupes -v fingerprint images" to let it print "perceptive hash", for example.
Cross-correlation or phase correlation will tell you if the images are the same, even with noise, degradation, and horizontal or vertical offsets. Using the FFT-based methods will make it much faster than the algorithm described in the question.
The usual algorithm doesn't work for images that are not the same scale or rotation, though. You could pre-rotate or pre-scale them, but that's really processor intensive. Apparently you can also do the correlation in a log-polar space and it will be invariant to rotation, translation, and scale, but I don't know the details well enough to explain that.
MATLAB example: Registering an Image Using Normalized Cross-Correlation
Wikipedia calls this "phase correlation" and also describes making it scale- and rotation-invariant:
The method can be extended to determine rotation and scaling differences between two images by first converting the images to log-polar coordinates. Due to properties of the Fourier transform, the rotation and scaling parameters can be determined in a manner invariant to translation.
Colour histogram is good for the same image that has been resized, resampled etc.
If you want to match different people's photos of the same landmark it's trickier - look at haar classifiers. Opencv is a great free library for image processing.
I don't know the algorithm behind it, but Microsoft Live Image Search just added this capability. Picasa also has the ability to identify faces in images, and groups faces that look similar. Most of the time, it's the same person.
Some machine learning technology like a support vector machine, neural network, naive Bayes classifier or Bayesian network would be best at this type of problem. I've written one each of the first three to classify handwritten digits, which is essentially image pattern recognition.
resize the image to a 1x1 pixle... if they are exact, there is a small probability they are the same picture...
now resize it to a 2x2 pixle image, if all 4 pixles are exact, there is a larger probability they are exact...
then 3x3, if all 9 pixles are exact... good chance etc.
then 4x4, if all 16 pixles are exact,... better chance.
etc...
doing it this way, you can make efficiency improvments... if the 1x1 pixel grid is off by a lot, why bother checking 2x2 grid? etc.
If you have lots of images, a color histogram could be used to get rough closeness of images before doing a full image comparison of each image against each other one (i.e. O(n^2)).
There is DPEG, "The" Duplicate Media Manager, but its code is not open. It's a very old tool - I remember using it in 2003.
You could use diff to see if they are REALLY different.. I guess it will remove lots of useless comparison. Then, for the algorithm, I would use a probabilistic approach.. what are the chances that they look the same.. I'd based that on the amount of rgb in each pixel. You could also find some other metrics such as luminosity and stuff like that.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I would like to compare a screenshot of one application (could be a Web page) with a previously taken screenshot to determine whether the application is displaying itself correctly. I don't want an exact match comparison, because the aspect could be slightly different (in the case of a Web app, depending on the browser, some element could be at a slightly different location). It should give a measure of how similar are the screenshots.
Is there a library / tool that already does that? How would you implement it?
This depends entirely on how smart you want the algorithm to be.
For instance, here are some issues:
cropped images vs. an uncropped image
images with a text added vs. another without
mirrored images
The easiest and simplest algorithm I've seen for this is just to do the following steps to each image:
scale to something small, like 64x64 or 32x32, disregard aspect ratio, use a combining scaling algorithm instead of nearest pixel
scale the color ranges so that the darkest is black and lightest is white
rotate and flip the image so that the lighest color is top left, and then top-right is next darker, bottom-left is next darker (as far as possible of course)
Edit A combining scaling algorithm is one that when scaling 10 pixels down to one will do it using a function that takes the color of all those 10 pixels and combines them into one. Can be done with algorithms like averaging, mean-value, or more complex ones like bicubic splines.
Then calculate the mean distance pixel-by-pixel between the two images.
To look up a possible match in a database, store the pixel colors as individual columns in the database, index a bunch of them (but not all, unless you use a very small image), and do a query that uses a range for each pixel value, ie. every image where the pixel in the small image is between -5 and +5 of the image you want to look up.
This is easy to implement, and fairly fast to run, but of course won't handle most advanced differences. For that you need much more advanced algorithms.
The 'classic' way of measuring this is to break the image up into some canonical number of sections (say a 10x10 grid) and then computing a histogram of RGB values inside of each cell and compare corresponding histograms. This type of algorithm is preferred because of both its simplicity and it's invariance to scaling and (small!) translation.
Use a normalised colour histogram. (Read the section on applications here), they are commonly used in image retrieval/matching systems and are a standard way of matching images that is very reliable, relatively fast and very easy to implement.
Essentially a colour histogram will capture the colour distribution of the image. This can then be compared with another image to see if the colour distributions match.
This type of matching is pretty resiliant to scaling (once the histogram is normalised), and rotation/shifting/movement etc.
Avoid pixel-by-pixel comparisons as if the image is rotated/shifted slightly it may lead to a large difference being reported.
Histograms would be straightforward to generate yourself (assuming you can get access to pixel values), but if you don't feel like it, the OpenCV library is a great resource for doing this kind of stuff. Here is a powerpoint presentation that shows you how to create a histogram using OpenCV.
Don't video encoding algorithms like MPEG compute the difference between each frame of a video so they can just encode the delta? You might look into how video encoding algorithms compute those frame differences.
Look at this open source image search application http://www.semanticmetadata.net/lire/. It describes several image similarity algorighms, three of which are from the MPEG-7 standard: ScalableColor, ColorLayout, EdgeHistogram and Auto Color Correlogram.
You could use a pure mathematical approach of O(n^2), but it will be useful only if you are certain that there's no offset or something like that. (Although that if you have a few objects with homogeneous coloring it will still work pretty well.)
Anyway, the idea is the compute the normalized dot-product of the two matrices.
C = sum(Pij*Qij)^2/(sum(Pij^2)*sum(Qij^2)).
This formula is actually the "cosine" of the angle between the matrices (wierd).
The bigger the similarity (lets say Pij=Qij), C will be 1, and if they're completely different, lets say for every i,j Qij = 1 (avoiding zero-division), Pij = 255, then for size nxn, the bigger n will be, the closer to zero we'll get. (By rough calculation: C=1/n^2).
You'll need pattern recognition for that. To determine small differences between two images, Hopfield nets work fairly well and are quite easy to implement. I don't know any available implementations, though.
A ruby solution can be found here
From the readme:
Phashion is a Ruby wrapper around the pHash library, "perceptual hash", which detects duplicate and near duplicate multimedia files
How to measure similarity between two images entirely depends on what you would like to measure, for example: contrast, brightness, modality, noise... and then choose the best suitable similarity measure there is for you. You can choose from MAD (mean absolute difference), MSD (mean squared difference) which are good for measuring brightness...there is also available CR (correlation coefficient) which is good in representing correlation between two images. You could also choose from histogram based similarity measures like SDH (standard deviation of difference image histogram) or multimodality similarity measures like MI (mutual information) or NMI (normalized mutual information).
Because this similarity measures cost much in time, it is advised to scale images down before applying these measures on them.
I wonder (and I'm really just throwing the idea out there to be shot down) if something could be derived by subtracting one image from the other, and then compressing the resulting image as a jpeg of gif, and taking the file size as a measure of similarity.
If you had two identical images, you'd get a white box, which would compress really well. The more the images differed, the more complex it would be to represent, and hence the less compressible.
Probably not an ideal test, and probably much slower than necessary, but it might work as a quick and dirty implementation.
You might look at the code for the open source tool findimagedupes, though it appears to have been written in perl, so I can't say how easy it will be to parse...
Reading the findimagedupes page that I liked, I see that there is a C++ implementation of the same algorithm. Presumably this will be easier to understand.
And it appears you can also use gqview.
Well, not to answer your question directly, but I have seen this happen. Microsoft recently launched a tool called PhotoSynth which does something very similar to determine overlapping areas in a large number of pictures (which could be of different aspect ratios).
I wonder if they have any available libraries or code snippets on their blog.
to expand on Vaibhav's note, hugin is an open-source 'autostitcher' which should have some insight on the problem.
There's software for content-based image retrieval, which does (partially) what you need. All references and explanations are linked from the project site and there's also a short text book (Kindle): LIRE
You can use Siamese Network to see if the two images are similar or dissimilar following this tutorial. This tutorial cluster the similar images whereas you can use L2 distance to measure the similarity of two images.
Beyond Compare has pixel-by-pixel comparison for images, e.g.,
If this is something you will be doing on an occasional basis and doesn't need automating, you can do it in an image editor that supports layers, such as Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro (probably GIMP or Paint.Net too, but I'm not sure about those). Open both screen shots, and put one as a layer on top of the other. Change the layer blending mode to Difference, and everything that's the same between the two will become black. You can move the top layer around to minimize any alignment differences.
Well a really base-level method to use could go through every pixel colour and compare it with the corresponding pixel colour on the second image - but that's a probably a very very slow solution.