I have an image where I need to detect an object as fast as possible. I also know that I only need to detect the object closest to the center.
AFAIK Opencv's MatchTemplate works somewhat like this (pseudocode):
for(x in width):
for(y in height):
value = calcSimilarity(inputImage, searchedImage, x, y)
matched[x][y] = value
After that, I have to loop through the resulting image and find the point closest to the center, which is all quite a waste.
So I'm wondering if I can do something like:
coordsGen = new CoordsGen() // a class that generates specific coords for me
while(!coordsGen.stop):
x, y = coordsGen.next()
value = calcSimilarity(inputImage, searchedImage, x, y)
if(value > treshold)
return x, y
Basically what I need here is the calcSimilarity function. This would allow me to optimize the process greatly.
There are many choices of similarity scoring methods for template matching in general.*
OpenCV has 3 available template matching modes:
Sum of square differences (Euclidean distance)
Cross-correlation
Pearson correlation coefficient
And in OpenCV each of those three have normed/scaled versions as well:
Normalized sum of square differences
Normalized cross-correlation
Normalized Pearson correlation coefficient
You can see the actual formulas used in the OpenCV docs under TemplateMatchModes though these agree with the general formulas you can find everywhere for the above methods.
You can code the template matching yourself instead of using OpenCV. However, note that OpenCV is optimized for these operations and in general is blazing fast at template matching. OpenCV uses a DFT to perform some of these computations to reduce the computational load. For e.g., see:
Why is opencv's Template Matching ... so fast?
OpenCV Sum of squared differences speed
You can also use OpenCV's minMaxLoc() to find the min/maximum value instead of looping through yourself. Also, you didn't specify how you're accessing your values but not all lookup methods are as fast as others. See How to scan images to see the fastest Mat access operations. Spoiler: raw pointers.
The main speedup your optimization would look to give you is early termination of the function. However, I don't think you'll achieve faster times in general by coding it yourself, unless there's a significantly smaller subset of the original image that the template is usually in.
A better method to reduce search time if your images are very big would be to use a pyramid resolution approach. Basically, make template and search images 1/2 your image since, 1/2 of that, 1/2 of that, and so on. Then you start the template matching on a small 1/16 or whatever sized image and find the general location of the template. Then you do the same for the next image size up, but you only search a small subset around where your template was at the previous scale. Then each time you grow the image size closer to the original, you're only looking for small differences of a few pixels to nail down the position more accurately. The general location is first found with the smallest scaled image, which only takes a fraction of the time to find compared to the original image size, and then you simply refine it by scaling up.
* Note that OpenCV doesn't include other template matching methods which you may see elsewhere. In particular, OpenCV has a sum of square differences but no sum of absolute distances method. Phase differences are also used as a similarity metric, but don't exist in OpenCV. Either way, cross-correlation and sum of square differences are both extremely common in image processing and unless you have a special image domain, should work fine.
Related
I am working on a program to detect split fields for remote sensing (ie. more than one colour/field type within each image, where the image corresponds to the land owned by one farmer) and have been trying to find a solution by reading in images and posterizing them with a clustering algorithm, then analysing the colours and shapes present to try and 'score' each image and decide if more than one type of field is present. My program works reasonably well although there are still quite a few obvious splits that it fails to detect.
Up until now I have been doing this using only standard libraries in c++, but I think now that I should be using openCV or something and I was wondering which techniques to start with. I see there are some image segmentation and blob detection algorithms, but I'm not sure they are applicable because the boundary between fields tends to be blurred or low in contrast. The following are some sample images that I would expect my program to detect as 'split':
(True colour Landsat)
http://imgur.com/m9qWBcq
http://imgur.com/OwqvUvs
Are there any thoughts on how I could go about solving this problem in a different way? Thanks!
1) Convert to HSV and take H or take gray-scaled form. Apply median filter to smooth the fields :P if images are high-resolution.
2) Extract histogram and find all the peaks. These peaks indicate the different colored fields.
3) (A) Now you can use simple thresholding around these peaks-value and then find canny edges for trapezium or similar shapes.
--OR--
(B) Find canny-edges around the peak value ie for peak with maxima value x, find edge for range of (x - dx) to (x + dx) where dx is a small value to be find experimentally.
4) Now you can extract count of contours at different levels/peaks.
I haven't added code because language is not specified and all these constructs are readily available in OpenCV. Its fun to learn. Feel free to ask further. Happy Coding.
Try the implementations of the MSER algorithm in MserFeatureDetector.
The original algorithm was thought for grayscale pictures, and I don't have good experiences with the color version of it, so try to do some preprocesing of the original frames to generate grayscales according to our needs.
I'm trying to detect a pattern like this in some images
The actual image looks something like this
It could be scaled and/or rotated. Is there a way to do that efficiently without resorting to neural nets or some learning algorithm? Can some detection be done based on the value gradient for example (dark-bright-dark-bright-dark)?
input image is MxN (in your example M<N ):
take mean RGB image
mean Y to get 1xN vector
derive
abs
threshold
calculate the distance between peaks.
search for a location where the ratio between the distances is as expected (from what i see in your example ~ 1:7:1)
if a place found, validate the colors in the middle of the distance (from your example should be white-black-white)
You might be able to use Gabor Filters at varying orientations, and do standard threshold to identify objects.
If you know the frequency of the pattern you could try using a bandpass filter to isolate objects at that frequency. If it is a very strong frequency, you might be able to identify it in the image's Fourier transform.
Without much other knowledge about what you are looking for in your image, it will be very difficult to identify a specific repeating pattern.
I'm creating a part scanner in C that pulls all possibilities for scanned parts as images in a directory. My code currently fetches all images from that directory and dumps them into a vector. I then produce groups of contours for all the images. The program then falls into a while loop where it constantly grabs images from a webcam, and generates contours for those as well. I have set up a jig for the part to rest on, so orientation and size are not a concern, however I don't want to have to calibrate the machine, so there may be movement between the template images and the part images taken.
What is the best way to compare the contours? I have tried several methods including matchTemplate without contours, but if you take a look at the two parts below, you can see that these two are very close to each other, so matchShapes and matchTemplate can't distinguish between them the way I was using them. I'm also not sure how to use cvMatchShapes. It works with just loading the images directly into match shapes, but the results are inconclusive. I think that contours is the way to go, I'm just not sure of how to go about implementing the comparison phase. Any help would be great.
You can view the templates here: http://www.cryogendesign.com/partDetection.html"
If you are ready for do-it-yourself, one approach could be to compute a "distance image" (assign every pixel the smallest Euclidean distance to the contour taken as the reference). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_transform.
Using this distance image, you can quickly compute the average distance of a new contour to the reference one (for every contour pixel, get the distance from the distance image). The average distance gives you an indication of the goodness-of-fit and will let you find the best match to a set of reference templates.
If the parts have some moving freedom, the situation is a bit harder: before computing the average distance, you must fit the new contour to the reference one. You will need to apply a suitable transform (translation, rotation, possibly scaling), and find the parameters that will minimize... the average distance.
You can calculate the chamfer distance between the two contours:
T and E are the set of edges of the template and the image and x is the point of reference where you start to compare the two set of edges. So for each x you get a different value.
DT is the distance transform of an image. Matlab provides the algorithm here.
If you want a more detailed version of how to calculate the chamfer distance, take a look here.
I'm using the EMGU OpenCV wrapper for c#. I've got a disparity map being created nicely. However for my specific application I only need the disparity values of very few pixels, and I need them in real time. The calculation is taking about 100 ms now, I imagine that by getting disparity for hundreds of pixel values rather than thousands things would speed up considerably. I don't know much about what's going on "under the hood" of the stereo solver code, is there a way to speed things up by only calculating the disparity for the pixels that I need?
First of all, you fail to mention what you are really trying to accomplish, and moreover, what algorithm you are using. E.g. StereoGC is a really slow (i.e. not real-time), but usually far more accurate) compared to both StereoSGBM and StereoBM. Those last two can be used real-time, providing a few conditions are met:
The size of the input images is reasonably small;
You are not using an extravagant set of parameters (for instance, a larger value for numberOfDisparities will increase computation time).
Don't expect miracles when it comes to accuracy though.
Apart from that, there is the issue of "just a few pixels". As far as I understand, the algorithms implemented in OpenCV usually rely on information from more than 1 pixel to determine the disparity value. E.g. it needs a neighborhood to detect which pixel from image A map to which pixel in image B. As a result, in general it is not possible to just discard every other pixel of the image (by the way, if you already know the locations in both images, you would not need the stereo methods at all). So unless you can discard a large border of your input images for which you know that you'll never find your pixels of interest there, I'd say the answer to this part of your question would be "no".
If you happen to know that your pixels of interest will always be within a certain rectangle of the input images, you can specify the input image ROIs (regions of interest) to this rectangle. Assuming OpenCV does not contain a bug here this should speedup the computation a little.
With a bit of googling you can to find real-time examples of finding stereo correspondences using EmguCV (or plain OpenCV) using the GPU on Youtube. Maybe this could help you.
Disclaimer: this may have been a more complete answer if your question contained more detail.
What are the ways in which to quantify the texture of a portion of an image? I'm trying to detect areas that are similar in texture in an image, sort of a measure of "how closely similar are they?"
So the question is what information about the image (edge, pixel value, gradient etc.) can be taken as containing its texture information.
Please note that this is not based on template matching.
Wikipedia didn't give much details on actually implementing any of the texture analyses.
Do you want to find two distinct areas in the image that looks the same (same texture) or match a texture in one image to another?
The second is harder due to different radiometry.
Here is a basic scheme of how to measure similarity of areas.
You write a function which as input gets an area in the image and calculates scalar value. Like average brightness. This scalar is called a feature
You write more such functions to obtain about 8 - 30 features. which form together a vector which encodes information about the area in the image
Calculate such vector to both areas that you want to compare
Define similarity function which takes two vectors and output how much they are alike.
You need to focus on steps 2 and 4.
Step 2.: Use the following features: std() of brightness, some kind of corner detector, entropy filter, histogram of edges orientation, histogram of FFT frequencies (x and y directions). Use color information if available.
Step 4. You can use cosine simmilarity, min-max or weighted cosine.
After you implement about 4-6 such features and a similarity function start to run tests. Look at the results and try to understand why or where it doesnt work. Then add a specific feature to cover that topic.
For example if you see that texture with big blobs is regarded as simmilar to texture with tiny blobs then add morphological filter calculated densitiy of objects with size > 20sq pixels.
Iterate the process of identifying problem-design specific feature about 5 times and you will start to get very good results.
I'd suggest to use wavelet analysis. Wavelets are localized in both time and frequency and give a better signal representation using multiresolution analysis than FT does.
Thre is a paper explaining a wavelete approach for texture description. There is also a comparison method.
You might need to slightly modify an algorithm to process images of arbitrary shape.
An interesting approach for this, is to use the Local Binary Patterns.
Here is an basic example and some explanations : http://hanzratech.in/2015/05/30/local-binary-patterns.html
See that method as one of the many different ways to get features from your pictures. It corresponds to the 2nd step of DanielHsH's method.