Related
I am working on a hand detection project. There are many good project on web to do this, but what I need is a specific hand pose detection. It needs a totally open palm and the whole palm face to outwards, like the image below:
The first hand faces to inwards, so it will not be detected, and the right one faces to outwards, it will be detected. Now I can detect hand with OpenCV. but how to tell the hand orientation?
Problem of matching with the forehand belongs to the texture classification, it's a classic pattern recognition problem. I suggest you to try one of the following methods:
Gabor filters: it is good to detect the orientation and pixel intensities (as forehand has different features), opencv has getGaborKernel function, the very important params of this function is theta (orientation) and lambd: (frequencies). To make it simple you can apply this process on a cropped zone of palm (as you have already detected it, it would be easy to crop for example the thumb, or a rectangular zone around the gravity center..etc). Then you can convolute it with a small database of images of the same zone to get the a rate of matching, or you can use the SVM classifier, where you have to train your SVM on a set of images by constructing the training matrix needed for SVM (check this question), this paper
Local Binary Patterns (LBP): it's an important feature descriptor used for texture matching, you can apply it on whole palm image or on a cropped zone or finger of image, it's easy to use in opencv, a lot of tutorials with codes are available for this method. I recommend you to read this paper talking about Invariant Texture Classification
with Local Binary Patterns. here is a good tutorial
Haralick Texture: I've read that it works perfectly when a set of features quantifies the entire image (Global Feature Descriptors). it's not implemented in opencv but easy to be implemented, check this useful tutorial
Training Models: I've already suggested a SVM classifier, to be coupled with some descriptor, that can works perfectly.
Opencv has an interesting FaceRecognizer class for face recognition, it could be an interesting idea to use it replacing the face images by the palm ones, (do resizing and rotation to get an unique pose of palm), this class has three methods can be used, one of them is Local Binary Patterns Histograms, which is recommended for texture recognition. and why not to try the other models (Eigenfaces and Fisherfaces ) , check this tutorial
well if you go for a MacGyver way you can notice that the left hand has bones sticking out in a certain direction, while the right hand has all finger lines and a few lines in the hand palms.
These lines are always sort of the same, so you could try to detect them with opencv edge detection or hough lines. Due to the dark color of the lines, you might even be able to threshold them out of it. Then gather the information from those lines, like angles, regressions, see which features you can collect and train a simple decision tree.
That was assuming you do not have enough data, if you have then you go into deeplearning, just take a basic inceptionV3 model and retrain the last dense layer to classify between two classes with a softmax, or to predict the probablity if the hand being up/down with sigmoid. Check this link, Tensorflow got your back on the training of this one, pure already ready code to execute.
Questions? Ask away
Take a look at what leap frog has done with the oculus rift. I'm not sure what they're using internally to segment hand poses, but there is another paper that produces hand poses effectively. If you have a stereo camera setup, you can use this paper's methods: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.07214.pdf.
The only promising solutions I've seen for mono camera train on large datasets.
use Haar-Cascade classifier,
you can get the classifier model file then use it here.
Just search for 'Haarcascade detection of Palm in Google' or use below code.
import cv2
cam=cv2.VideoCapture(0)
ccfr2=cv2.CascadeClassifier('haar-cascade-files-master/palm.xml')
while True:
retval,image=cam.read()
grey=cv2.cvtColor(image,cv2.COLOR_BGR2GRAY)
palm=ccfr2.detectMultiScale(grey,scaleFactor=1.05,minNeighbors=3)
for x,y,w,h in palm:
image=cv2.rectangle(image,(x,y),(x+w,y+h),(256,256,256),2)
cv2.imshow("Window",image)
if cv2.waitKey(1) & 0xFF==ord('q'):
cv2.destroyAllWindows()
break
del(cam)
Best of Luck for your experience using HaarCascade.
I am looking for camera calibration techniques with OpenCV and saw the chessboard and circles methods, but I wanted to calibrate the camera with something that is in the real world and you don't have to print (printers are also not very accurate in what they print).
Is it possible to do calibration with complex shapes like the Coca Cola logo on the cans? Is it a problem that the surface is curved?
Thanks
Depending on what you want to achieve this is not at all necessarily a bad idea, and you are not the first one who had it. There was a technology that uses a CD, which is a strongly standardised object which at least used to exist on most households, for a simple camera calibration task. (There is little technical to be found online about this, as the technology was proprietary. This is business document, where the use of the CD is mentioned. Algorithmically, however, it is not difficult if you know camera calibration.)
The question is whether the precision you get is sufficient for your application. Don't expect any miracles here. Generally you can use almost any object you like to learn something about a camera, as long as you can detect it reliably and you know its geometry. Almost certainly you will have to take several pictures of the object. Curved surfaces are no problem per see. I regularly used a cylinder (larger than a beverage can, though, with a simple to detect pattern) to calibrate a complete camera rig of 12 SLRs.
Don't expect to find out of the box solutions and don't expect implementation to be trivial. You will have to work your way through the math. I recommend the book by Hartley and Zisserman, Multiple View Geometry for Computer vision. This paper describes an analysis-by-synthesis approach to calibration, which is the way to go for here (it does not describe exactly what you want, but the approach should generalise to arbitrary objects as long as you can detect them).
i can understand your wish, but it's a bad idea.
the calibration algorithm works by comparing real world points from the cam with a synthetical model ( yes, you have to supply that , too! ). so, while it's easy to calculate a 2d chessboard grid on the fly and use that, it will be very hard to do for your tin can, or any arbitrary household item you grab.
just give in, and print a rectangular chessbord grid to a piece of paper
(opencv comes with a pdf for that already).
don't use a real-life chessboard, a quadratic one is ambiguous to 90° rotation.
interesting idea.
What about displaying a checkerboard pattern (or sth else) on an lcd screen display and use that display as calibration pattern?? You would have to know the displaying size of the pattern though.
Googling I found this paper:
CAMERA CALIBRATION BASED ON LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY (LCD)
ZHAN Zongqian
http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXVII/congress/3b_pdf/04.pdf
comment: this doesn't answer the question about the coca-cola can but gives and idea for a solution to the grounding problem: camera calibration with a common object.
I am trying to detect and track hand in real time using opencv. I thought haar cascade classifiers would yield a fair result. After training with 10k and 20k positive and negative images respectively, I obtained a classifier xml file. Unfortunately, it detects hand only in certain positions, proving that it works best only for rigid objects. So I am now thinking of adopting another algorithm that can track hand, once detected through haar classifier.
My question is,if I make sure that haar classifier detects hand in a certain frame, certain position, what method would yield robust tracking of hand further?
I searched web a bit, and have understood I can go for optical flow of the detected hand , or kalman filter or particle filter, but also have come across their own disadvantages.
also, If I incorporate stereo vision, would it help me, as I can possibly reconstruct hand in 3d.
You concluded rightly about Haar features - they aren't that useful when it comes to non-rigid objects.
Take a look at the following papers which use skin colour to detect hands.
Interaction between hands and wearable cameras
Markerless inspection of augmented reality objects
and this paper that uses KLT features to track the hand after the first detection:
Fast 2D hand tracking with flocks of features and multi-cue integration
I would say that a stereo camera will not help your cause much, as 3D reconstruction of non-rigid objects isn't straightforward and would require a whole lot of innovation and development. However, you can take a look at the papers in the hand pose estimation section of this page if you wish to pursue 3D tracking.
EDIT: Also take a look at this recent paper, which seems to get good results.
Zhang et al.'s Real-time Compressive Tracking does a reasonable job of tracking an object, once it has been detected by some other method, provided that the motion is not too fast. They have an OpenCV implementation (but it would need a bit of work to reuse).
This research paper describes a method to track hands, without using gloves by using a stereo camera setup.
there have been similar questions on stack overflow...
have a look at my answer and that of others: https://stackoverflow.com/a/17375647/1463143
you can for certain get better results by avoiding haar training and detection for deformable entities.
CamShift algorithm is generally fast and accurate, if you want to track the hand as a single entity. OpenCV documentation contains a good, easy-to-understand demo program that you can easily modify.
If you need to track fingers etc., however, further modeling will be needed.
I'm attempting to implement an easter egg in a mobile app I'm working on. These easter egg will be triggered when a logo is detected in the camera view. The logo I'm trying to detect is this one: .
I'm not quite sure what the best way to approach this is as I'm pretty new to computer vision. I'm currently finding horizontal edges using the Canny algorithm. I then find line segments using the probabilistic Hough transform. The output of this looks as follows (blue lines represent the line segments detected by the probabilistic Hough transform):
The next step I was going to take would be to look for a group of around 24 lines (fitting within a nearly square rectangle), each line would have to be approximately the same length. I'd use these two signals to indicate the potential presence of the logo. I realise that this is probably a very naive approach and would welcome suggestions as to how to better detect this logo in a more reliable manner?
Thanks
You may want to go with SIFT using Rob Hess' SIFT Library. It's using OpenCV and also pretty fast. I guess that easier than your current way of approaching the logo detection :)
Try also looking for SURF, which claims to be faster & robuster than SIFT. This Feature Detection tutorial will help you.
You may just want to use LogoGrab's technology. It's the best out there and offers all sorts of APIs (both mobile and HTTP). http://www.logograb.com/technologyteam/
I'm not quite sure if you would find such features in the logo to go with a SIFT/SURF approach. As an alternative you can try training a Haar-like feature classifier and use it for detecting the logo, just like opencv does for face detection.
You could also try the Tensorflow's object detection API here:
https://github.com/tensorflow/models/tree/master/research/object_detection
The good thing about this API is that it contains State-of-the-art models in Object Detection & Classification. These models that tensorflow provide are free to train and some of them promise quite astonishing results. I have already trained a model for the company I am working on, that does quite amazing job in LOGO detection from Images & Video Streams. You can check more about my work here:
https://github.com/kochlisGit/LogoLens
If I take a picture with a camera, so I know the distance from the camera to the object, such as a scale model of a house, I would like to turn this into a 3D model that I can maneuver around so I can comment on different parts of the house.
If I sit down and think about taking more than one picture, labeling direction, and distance, I should be able to figure out how to do this, but, I thought I would ask if someone has some paper that may help explain more.
What language you explain in doesn't matter, as I am looking for the best approach.
Right now I am considering showing the house, then the user can put in some assistance for height, such as distance from the camera to the top of that part of the model, and given enough of this it would be possible to start calculating heights for the rest, especially if there is a top-down image, then pictures from angles on the four sides, to calculate relative heights.
Then I expect that parts will also need to differ in color to help separate out the various parts of the model.
As mentioned, the problem is very hard and is often also referred to as multi-view object reconstruction. It is usually approached by solving the stereo-view reconstruction problem for each pair of consecutive images.
Performing stereo reconstruction requires that pairs of images are taken that have a good amount of visible overlap of physical points. You need to find corresponding points such that you can then use triangulation to find the 3D co-ordinates of the points.
Epipolar geometry
Stereo reconstruction is usually done by first calibrating your camera setup so you can rectify your images using the theory of epipolar geometry. This simplifies finding corresponding points as well as the final triangulation calculations.
If you have:
the intrinsic camera parameters (requiring camera calibration),
the camera's position and rotation (it's extrinsic parameters), and
8 or more physical points with matching known positions in two photos (when using the eight-point algorithm)
you can calculate the fundamental and essential matrices using only matrix theory and use these to rectify your images. This requires some theory about co-ordinate projections with homogeneous co-ordinates and also knowledge of the pinhole camera model and camera matrix.
If you want a method that doesn't need the camera parameters and works for unknown camera set-ups you should probably look into methods for uncalibrated stereo reconstruction.
Correspondence problem
Finding corresponding points is the tricky part that requires you to look for points of the same brightness or colour, or to use texture patterns or some other features to identify the same points in pairs of images. Techniques for this either work locally by looking for a best match in a small region around each point, or globally by considering the image as a whole.
If you already have the fundamental matrix, it will allow you to rectify the images such that corresponding points in two images will be constrained to a line (in theory). This helps you to use faster local techniques.
There is currently still no ideal technique to solve the correspondence problem, but possible approaches could fall in these categories:
Manual selection: have a person hand-select matching points.
Custom markers: place markers or use specific patterns/colours that you can easily identify.
Sum of squared differences: take a region around a point and find the closest whole matching region in the other image.
Graph cuts: a global optimisation technique based on optimisation using graph theory.
For specific implementations you can use Google Scholar to search through the current literature. Here is one highly cited paper comparing various techniques:
A Taxonomy and Evaluation of Dense Two-Frame Stereo Correspondence Algorithms.
Multi-view reconstruction
Once you have the corresponding points, you can then use epipolar geometry theory for the triangulation calculations to find the 3D co-ordinates of the points.
This whole stereo reconstruction would then be repeated for each pair of consecutive images (implying that you need an order to the images or at least knowledge of which images have many overlapping points). For each pair you would calculate a different fundamental matrix.
Of course, due to noise or inaccuracies at each of these steps you might want to consider how to solve the problem in a more global manner. For instance, if you have a series of images that are taken around an object and form a loop, this provides extra constraints that can be used to improve the accuracy of earlier steps using something like bundle adjustment.
As you can see, both stereo and multi-view reconstruction are far from solved problems and are still actively researched. The less you want to do in an automated manner the more well-defined the problem becomes, but even in these cases quite a bit of theory is required to get started.
Alternatives
If it's within the constraints of what you want to do, I would recommend considering dedicated hardware sensors (such as the XBox's Kinect) instead of only using normal cameras. These sensors use structured light, time-of-flight or some other range imaging technique to generate a depth image which they can also combine with colour data from their own cameras. They practically solve the single-view reconstruction problem for you and often include libraries and tools for stitching/combining multiple views.
Epipolar geometry references
My knowledge is actually quite thin on most of the theory, so the best I can do is to further provide you with some references that are hopefully useful (in order of relevance):
I found a PDF chapter on Multiple View Geometry that contains most of the critical theory. In fact the textbook Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision should also be quite useful (sample chapters available here).
Here's a page describing a project on uncalibrated stereo reconstruction that seems to include some source code that could be useful. They find matching points in an automated manner using one of many feature detection techniques. If you want this part of the process to be automated as well, then SIFT feature detection is commonly considered to be an excellent non-real-time technique (since it's quite slow).
A paper about Scene Reconstruction from Multiple Uncalibrated Views.
A slideshow on Methods for 3D Reconstruction from Multiple Images (it has some more references below it's slides towards the end).
A paper comparing different multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms can be found here. It limits itself to algorithms that "reconstruct dense object models from calibrated views".
Here's a paper that goes into lots of detail for the case that you have stereo cameras that take multiple images: Towards robust metric reconstruction
via a dynamic uncalibrated stereo head. They then find methods to self-calibrate the cameras.
I'm not sure how helpful all of this is, but hopefully it includes enough useful terminology and references to find further resources.
Research has made significant progress and these days it is possible to obtain pretty good-looking 3D shapes from 2D images. For instance, in our recent research work titled "Synthesizing 3D Shapes via Modeling Multi-View Depth Maps and Silhouettes With Deep Generative Networks" took a big step in solving the problem of obtaining 3D shapes from 2D images. In our work, we show that you can not only go from 2D to 3D directly and get a good, approximate 3D reconstruction but you can also learn a distribution of 3D shapes in an efficient manner and generate/synthesize 3D shapes. Below is an image of our work showing that we are able to do 3D reconstruction even from a single silhouette or depth map (on the left). The ground-truth 3D shapes are shown on the right.
The approach we took has some contributions related to cognitive science or the way the brain works: the model we built shares parameters for all shape categories instead of being specific to only one category. Also, it obtains consistent representations and takes the uncertainty of the input view into account when producing a 3D shape as output. Therefore, it is able to naturally give meaningful results even for very ambiguous inputs. If you look at the citation to our paper you can see even more progress just in terms of going from 2D images to 3D shapes.
This problem is known as Photogrammetry.
Google will supply you with endless references, just be aware that if you want to roll your own, it's a very hard problem.
Check out The Deadalus Project, althought that website does not contain a gallery with illustrative information about the solution, it post several papers and info about the working method.
I watched a lecture from one of the main researchers of the project (Roger Hubbold), and the image results are quite amazing! Althought is a complex and long problem. It has a lot of tricky details to take into account to get an approximation of the 3d data, take for example the 3d information from wall surfaces, for which the heuristic to work is as follows: Take a photo with normal illumination of the scene, and then retake the picture in same position with full flash active, then substract both images and divide the result by a pre-taken flash calibration image, apply a box filter to this new result and then post-process to estimate depth values, the whole process is explained in detail in this paper (which is also posted/referenced in the project website)
Google Sketchup (free) has a photo matching tool that allows you to take a photograph and match its perspective for easy modeling.
EDIT: It appears that you're interested in developing your own solution. I thought you were trying to obtain a 3D model of an image in a single instance. If this answer isn't helpful, I apologize.
Hope this helps if you are trying to construct 3d volume from 2d stack of images !! You can use open source tool such as ImageJ Fiji which comes with 3d viewer plugin..
https://quppler.com/creating-a-classifier-using-image-j-fiji-for-3d-volume-data-preparation-from-stack-of-images/