I have a dataset of images with a single rectangular (credit) card in the middle. My goal is to filter out the pixels of the card.
I would say the particular difficulties of this task are that the cards are always different (the only constant is the size proportions -54mm by 86mm-), oriented differently and the background is rather noisy.
The things I think could be exploited are that there is always a single card, in the middle of the image, and there is always a hand holding the card from an edge.
I first tried using Canny edge detector techniques which didn't yield very good results.
I then tried labelling by hand 100 images and implemented and trained a UNet with the resulting masked dataset. This did not really work well either.
Which technique do you think would make more sense in this particular case?
The idea I'm thinking about now is to exploit the fact that there is a single card, and try detecting 2 couples of parallel lines, do you think I could exploit the labeled dataset to train a model on predicting this? Ideally inputing an image and outputting 4 px-coordinates. Would this make sense?
Related
My problem is very similar to detecting birds flying in a flock. The objects have few features, can be positioned with different angles in images. Objects can be positioned quite ocasionally in a group (not a regular grid), but they never intersect. I tried YoloV3: at start, as I had <30 training images, it worked quite good (overfitted, but at least it worked for training images). As I increased the number of training images, it stopped working, the network does not learn the data (underfitting). I think the main problem is, that the objects have not enough features for CNN, i.e. separate objects are too simple. I wanted to somehow use the fact that they always come in groups, i.e. somehow consider neighbors. There may be different number of them in groups, at least 3, but mostly > 10. They may look differently (like birds with different positions of wings), but the size of all objects in a group is about the same. I am a newbie in neural networks, so maybe someone with more experience could point me in the right direction.
I tried to use template matching from OpenCV: I must use many templates (>20), because objects may look quite differently (different positions of wings); and also multiscale matching is needed, that all takes much execution time. But more important is that, under different settings, template matching finds either too few objects, or too many false positives. So I think neural networks fit better for this task. Please correct me if I am wrong. I thought maybe it could make sense to mask "useful" regions with a pass through a Mask-RCNN, and then somehow separate the objects in these regions (because I have to mark them separately for the user). Could this work, or maybe there are some other ways I could try? Any hints would be greatly appreciated!
EDIT: I also have many other objects in images (not just sky and birds), for example like trees. And the leaves or groups of leaves give false positives. They may be of different color (green, orange, dark-green, black), so filtering them on color is hardly possible.
Quote from YOLO introduction article:
2.4. Limitations of YOLO
YOLO imposes strong spatial constraints on bounding box predictions since each grid cell only predicts two boxes and can only have one class. This spatial constraint limits the number of nearby objects that our model can predict. Our model struggles with small objects that appear ingroups, such as flocks of birds.
Since YOLO version 1 the recognition of small and multiscale objects improved a lot but I didn't find any evidence that it got better in small grouped objects recognition (correct me if I am wrong please).
It will be problematic to recognise very small objects on large high-res images, as YOLOv3 will downscale them to 416x416 (or 320x320 if you use YOLOv3 320) resolution. You can feed YOLOv3 regions of an image if it is too big. Or you can find some existing solutions for such cases.
In this article guys combined a CNN-based detector with a fully convolutional network and a superpixel-based semantic segmentation by using support vector machines to achieve high performance in detecting small objects in large images. They claim to achieve high detection precision.
But often you can utilize much easier approaches that involve only a little bit of algorithmical image processing, if the relative difference between object you want ot detect and its environment is obvious and simple to calculate.
You can try to detect a flock by high color contrast between birds and sky. Usually birds appear much darker on sky background. You may find this and this this OpenCV docs about image thresholding helpful for that.
int main(){
Mat src = imread("1.jpg");
Mat gray;
cvtColor(src, gray, CV_BGR2GRAY);
Mat thresholded;
threshold(gray, thresholded, 100, 255, CV_THRESH_BINARY_INV);
imwrite("2.jpg", thresholded);
return 0;
}
I got this:
Now you can extract white bird blobs with findContours() or SimpleBlobDetector (and match them against templates or do additional recognition/classification if that is required).
I am new to AI/ML and am trying to use the same for solving the following problem.
I have a set of (custom) images which while having common characteristics also will have a unique pattern/signature and color value. What set of algorithms should I use to have the pass in following manner:
1. Recognize the common characteristic (like presence of a triangle at any position in a 10x10mm image). If present, proceed, else exit.
2. Identify the unique pattern/signature to identify each image individually. The pattern/signature could be shape (visible to human eye or hidden like using an overlay shape using background image with no boundaries).
3. Store color tone/hue/saturation to determine any loss/difference (maybe because the capture source is different from the original one).
While this is in way similar to face recognition algo, for me saturation/shadow will matter while being direction independent.
I figure that using CNN may be the way to go for step#2 and SVN for step#1, any input on training, specifics will be appreciated. What about step#3, use BGR2HSV? The objective is to use ML/AI and not get into machine-vision.
Recognize the common characteristic (like presence of a triangle at any position in a 10x10mm image). If present, proceed, else exit.
In a sense, what you want is a classifier that can detect patterns in an image. However, we can train classifiers to detect certain types of patterns in images.
For example, I can train a classifier to recognise squares and circles, but if I show it an image with a triangle in it, I cannot expect it to tell me it is a triangle, because it has never seen it before. The downside is, your classifier will end up misclassifying it as one of the shapes it knows to exist: either square or circle. The upside is, you can prevent this.
Identify the unique pattern/signature to identify each image individually.
What you want to do is train a classifier on a large amount of labelled data. If you want the classifier to detect squares, circles, or triangles in an image, you must train it with a large amount of labelled images of squares, circles and triangles.
Store color tone/hue/saturation to determine any loss/difference (maybe because the capture source is different from the original one).
Now, you are leaving the territory of simple image labelling and entering the world of computer vision. This is not as simple as a vanilla image classifier, but it is possible and there are a lot of online tools to help you do this. For example, you may take a look at OpenCV. They have an implementation in python and C++.
I figure that using CNN may be the way to go for step#2 and SVN for
step#1
You can combine step 1 and step 2 with a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). You do not need to use a two step prediction process. However, beware, if you pass the CNN an image of a car, it will still label it as a shape. You can, again circumvent this by training it on a million positive samples of shapes, and a million negative samples of random other images with the class "Other". This way, anything that is not a shape will get classified into "Other". This is one possibility.
What about step#3, use BGR2HSV? The objective is to use ML/AI and not
get into machine-vision.
With the inclusion of this step, there is no option but to get into computer vision. I am not exactly sure how to go about this, but I can guarantee OpenCV will provide you a way to do this. In fact, with OpenCV, you will no longer need to implement your own CNN, because OpenCV has its own image labelling libraries.
As we know, faster-RCNN has two main parts: one is region proposal network(RPN), and another one is fast-RCNN.
My question is, now that region proposal network(RPN) can output class scores and bounding boxes and is trainable, why do we need Fast-RCNN?
Am I thinking it right that the RPN is enough for detection (red circle), and Fast-RCNN is now becoming redundant (blue circle)?
Short answer: no they are not redundant.
The R-CNN article and its variants popularized the use of what we used to call a cascade.
Back then for detection it was fairly common to use different detectors often very similar in structures to do detection because of their complementary power.
If the detections are partly orthogonal it allows to remove false positive along the way.
Furthermore by definition both parts of R-CNN have different roles the first one is used to discriminate objects from background and the second one to discriminate fine grained categories of objects from themselves (and from the background also).
But you are right if there is only 1 class vs the background one could use only the RPN part to to detection but even in that case it would probably better the result to chain two different classifiers (or not see e.g. this article)
PS: I answered because I wanted to but this question is definitely unsuited for stackoverflow
If you just add a class head to the RPN Network, you would indeed get detections, with scores and class estimates.
However, the second stage is used mainly to obtain more accurate detection boxes.
Faster-RCNN is a two-stage detector, like Fast R-CNN.
There, Selective Search was used to generate rough estimates of the location of objects and the second stage then refines them, or rejects them.
Now why is this necessary for the RPN? So why are they only rough estimates?
One reason is the limited receptive field:
The input image is transformed via a CNN into a feature map with limited spatial resolution. For each position on the feature map, the RPN heads estimate if the features at that position correspond to an object and the heads regress the detection box.
The box regression is done based on the final feature map of the CNN. In particular, it may happen that the correct bounding box on the image is larger than the corresponding receptive field due to the CNN.
Example: Lets say we have an image depicting a person and the features at one position of the feature map indicate a high possibiliy for the person. Now, if the corresponding receptive field contains only the body parts, the regressor has to estimate a box enclosing the entire person, although it "sees" only the body part.
Therefore, RPN creates a rough estimate of the bounding box. The second stage of Faster RCNN uses all features contained in the predicted bounding box and can correct the estimate.
In the example, RPN creates a too large bounding box, which is enclosing the person (since it cannot the see the pose of the person), and the second stage uses all information of this box to reshape it such that it is tight. This however can be done much more accurate, since more content of the object is accessable for the network.
faster-rcnn is a two-stage method comparing to one stage method like yolo, ssd, the reason faster-rcnn is accurate is because of its two stage architecture where the RPN is the first stage for proposal generation and the second classification and localisation stage learn more precise results based on the coarse grained result from RPN.
So yes, you can, but your performance is not good enough
I think the blue circle is completely redundant and just adding a class classification layer (gives class for each bounding box containing object) should work just fine and that's what the single shot detectors do with compromised accuracy.
According to my understanding, RPN is just for binary checking if you have Objects in the bbox or not and final Detector part is for classifying the classes ex) car, human, phones, etc
I have images of mosquitos similar to these ones and I would like to automatically circle around the head of each mosquito in the images. They are obviously in different orientations and there are random number of them in different images. some error is fine. Any ideas of algorithms to do this?
This problem resembles a face detection problem, so you could try a naïve approach first and refine it if necessary.
First you would need to recreate your training set. For this you would like to extract small images with examples of what is a mosquito head or what is not.
Then you can use those images to train a classification algorithm, be careful to have a balanced training set, since if your data is skewed to one class it would hit the performance of the algorithm. Since images are 2D and algorithms usually just take 1D arrays as input, you will need to arrange your images to that format as well (for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Row-major_order).
I normally use support vector machines, but other algorithms such as logistic regression could make the trick too. If you decide to use support vector machines I strongly recommend you to check libsvm (http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvm/), since it's a very mature library with bindings to several programming languages. Also they have a very easy to follow guide targeted to beginners (http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/papers/guide/guide.pdf).
If you have enough data, you should be able to avoid tolerance to orientation. If you don't have enough data, then you could create more training rows with some samples rotated, so you would have a more representative training set.
As for the prediction what you could do is given an image, cut it using a grid where each cell has the same dimension that the ones you used on your training set. Then you pass each of this image to the classifier and mark those squares where the classifier gave you a positive output. If you really need circles then take the center of the given square and the radius would be the half of the square side size (sorry for stating the obvious).
So after you do this you might have problems with sizes (some mosquitos might appear closer to the camera than others) , since we are not trained the algorithm to be tolerant to scale. Moreover, even with all mosquitos in the same scale, we still might miss some of them just because they didn't fit in our grid perfectly. To address this, we will need to repeat this procedure (grid cut and predict) rescaling the given image to different sizes. How many sizes? well here you would have to determine that through experimentation.
This approach is sensitive to the size of the "window" that you are using, that is also something I would recommend you to experiment with.
There are some research may be useful:
A Multistep Approach for Shape Similarity Search in Image Databases
Representation and Detection of Shapes in Images
From the pictures you provided this seems to be an extremely hard image recognition problem, and I doubt you will get anywhere near acceptable recognition rates.
I would recommend a simpler approach:
First, if you have any control over the images, separate the mosquitoes before taking the picture, and use a white unmarked underground, perhaps even something illuminated from below. This will make separating the mosquitoes much easier.
Then threshold the image. For example here i did a quick try taking the red channel, then substracting the blue channel*5, then applying a threshold of 80:
Use morphological dilation and erosion to get rid of the small leg structures.
Identify blobs of the right size to be moquitoes by Connected Component Labeling. If a blob is large enough to be two mosquitoes, cut it out, and apply some more dilation/erosion to it.
Once you have a single blob like this
you can find the direction of the body using Principal Component Analysis. The head should be the part of the body where the cross-section is the thickest.
I'm trying to understand Viola Jones method, and I've mostly got it.
It uses simple Haar like features boosted into strong classifiers and organized into layers /cascade in order to accomplish better performances (not bother with obvious 'non object' regions).
I think I understand integral image and I understand how are computed values for the features.
The only thing I can't figure out is how is algorithm dealing with the face size variations.
As far as I know they use 24x24 subwindow that slides over the image, and within it algorithm goes through classifiers and tries to figure out is there a face/object on it, or not.
And my question is - what if one face is 10x10 size, and other 100x100? What happens then?
And I'm dying to know what are these first two features (in first layer of the cascade), how do they look like (keeping in mind that these two features, acording to Viola&Jones, will almost never miss a face, and will eliminate 60% of the incorrect ones) ? How??
And, how is possible to construct these features to work with these statistics for different face sizes in image?
Am I missing something, or maybe I've figured it all wrong?
If I'm not clear enough, I'll try to explain better my confusion.
Training
The Viola-Jones classifier is trained on 24*24 images. Each of the face images contains a similarly scaled face. This produces a set of feature detectors built out of two, three, or four rectangles optimised for a particular sized face.
Face size
Different face sizes are detected by repeating the classification at different scales. The original paper notes that good results are obtained by trying different scales a factor of 1.25 apart.
Note that the integral image means that it is easy to compute the rectangular features at any scale by simply scaling the coordinates of the corners of the rectangles.
Best features
The original paper contains pictures of the first two features selected in a typical cascade (see page 4).
The first feature detects the wide dark rectangle of the eyes above a wide brighter rectangle of the cheeks.
----------
----------
++++++++++
++++++++++
The second feature detects the bright thin rectangle of the bridge of the nose between the darker rectangles on either side containing the eyes.
---+++---
---+++---
---+++---