I have started my first project in the field of Image recognition using Feature Point detectors and descriptors. I have no prior knowledge on the topics of Image recognition techniques before starting of this project and then I have researched on the available detectors and descriptors and came to know about the differences between them. Finally, I have opted out to work with the ORB detectors and descriptors for Image recognition (If it didn't worked according to my requiremnets then I would like to go out with the BRISK later).
As of now am in a stage of getting the results for Image recognition using ORB. At this Point, I was thinking of to use Gaussian Filters in my code so that I can get better results even though the Input Image is a bit blur.
My questions:
1) Is it possible to use Gaussian filters with ORB to get much better results for Image recognition?
2) When I read the paper on ORB I came to know that the lines below
FAST does not produce a measure of cornerness, and we have found that it has large
responses along edges. We employ a Harris corner measure [11] to order the FAST keypoints.
For a target number N of keypoints, we first set the threshold low enough to get more than
N keypoints, then order them according to the Harris measure, and pick the top N points.
FAST does not produce multi-scale features. We employ a scale pyramid of the image, and
produce FAST Features (filtered by Harris) at each level in the pyramid.
ORB provides the Harris Corner inorder to detect the corners in an image and is it worth for me to use Gaussian Filters along with ORB?
3) ORB uses only Harris Corner to detect the corners or any other?
Please let me know about this and just enlighten me on the above mentioned questions.
Related
When reading about classic computer vision I am confused on how multiscale feature matching works.
Suppose we use an image pyramid,
How do you deal with the same feature being detected at multiple scales? How do you decide which to make a deacriptor for?
How do you connected features between scales? For example let's say you have a feature detected and matched to a descriptor at scale .5. Is this location then translated to its location in the initial scale?
I can share something about SIFT that might answer question (1) for you.
I'm not really sure what you mean in your question (2) though, so please clarify?
SIFT (Scale-Invariant Feature Transform) was designed specifically to find features that remains identifiable across different image scales, rotations, and transformations.
When you run SIFT on an image of some object (e.g. a car), SIFT will try to create the same descriptor for the same feature (e.g. the license plate), no matter what image transformation you apply.
Ideally, SIFT will only produce a single descriptor for each feature in an image.
However, this obviously doesn't always happen in practice, as you can see in an OpenCV example here:
OpenCV illustrates each SIFT descriptor as a circle of different size. You can see many cases where the circles overlap. I assume this is what you meant in question (1) by "the same feature being detected at multiple scales".
And to my knowledge, SIFT doesn't really care about this issue. If by scaling the image enough you end up creating multiple descriptors from "the same feature", then those are distinct descriptors to SIFT.
During descriptor matching, you simply brute-force compare your list of descriptors, regardless of what scale it was generated from, and try to find the closest match.
The whole point of SIFT as a function, is to take in some image feature under different transformations, and produce a similar numerical output at the end.
So if you do end up with multiple descriptors of the same feature, you'll just end up having to do more computational work, but you will still essentially match the same pair of feature across two images regardless.
Edit:
If you are asking about how to convert coordinates from the scaled images in the image pyramid back into original image coordinates, then David Lowe's SIFT paper dedicates section 4 on that topic.
The naive approach would be to simply calculate the ratios of the scaled coordinates vs the scaled image dimensions, then extrapolate back to the original image coordinates and dimensions. However, this is inaccurate, and becomes increasingly so as you scale down an image.
Example: You start with a 1000x1000 pixel image, where a feature is located at coordinates (123,456). If you had scaled down the image to 100x100 pixel, then the scaled keypoint coordinate would be something like (12,46). Extrapolating back to the original coordinates naively would give the coordinates (120,460).
So SIFT fits a Taylor expansion of the Difference of Gaussian function, to try and locate the original interesting keypoint down to sub-pixel levels of accuracy; which you can then use to extrapolate back to the original image coordinates.
Unfortunately, the math for this part is quite beyond me. But if you are fluent in math, C programming, and want to know specifically how SIFT is implemented; I suggest you dive into Rob Hess' SIFT implementation, lines 467 through 648 is probably the most detailed you can get.
Well, I am clear about Feature Detection and Feature Descriptor. Feature detection is finding some interesting points in an image and we can describe them by descriptor like SIFT, HoG etc. My doubt is very specific. Suppose I have an image(I), I applied Harris Detector and found x,y positions of the corners in that image. Now, I want to apply SIFT to find SIFT features so how should I do it ? Should I make a new image with detected corners only and then should apply SIFT over it ? Or SIFT should be applied on image I (but that serves no purpose I guess) ?
Please help me to have some clarity on practical grounds.
The SIFT descriptor, as you say, describes the feature point. However, SIFT also tries to be scale invariant. This means that the SIFT detector also examines potential key-points with respect to their response to various scales. The detector then records not only the x,y, but also the scale information.
This means that you're probably better off using the detector that comes with SIFT along with the descriptor. Both Matlab and OpenCV implementations easily allow you to detect and describe points.
I am using Open CV for an image processing application that involves contour estimation in images. What I would like to know is whether Thresholding the image (like how they have done here) or using Canny Edge Algorithm (here) yields a better result. Does this involve algorithmic analysis or am I missing something?
Canny Edge Detection obviously. It does a whole bunch of things to ensure that only strong edges come out of the result. Thresholding just takes a look at intensities and sees whether or not each value is smaller or larger and we get "edge" points respectively. However, depending on the complexity of the scene, thresholding and edge detection would yield the same thing. For example, if you had a clean image with multiple crisp objects that have a clear intensity difference between the foreground and background, then either edge detection or thresholding would work. If you had a more complex image where the contrast is different in different areas, or if you had multiple objects with different intensities, then thresholding will not give you good results because you would inevitably be including in pixels that don't belong to any proper objects. This is why edge detection is better, as it's a local operator, and thresholding is global. Thresholding applies a set principle to every single pixel in the image. Edge detection decomposes your image into patches and figures out whether something is happening in each of the patches.
If you want to take something out of this, the difference between them both is that thresholding is more used for object extraction, while edge detection is a pre-processing step in a processing pipeline, such as contour estimation, object detection and recognition and feature analysis. Thresholding is a rather quick and dirty way to see whether or not something is happening, or extracting out "active" things while edge detection is more for computer vision related tasks.
Instead of explaining how Canny Edge Detection is better, I'm going to refer you to some literature.
This page from Drexel University was a great thing to get me started: http://dasl.mem.drexel.edu/alumni/bGreen/www.pages.drexel.edu/_weg22/can_tut.html
This page from Computer Vision Online goes into more depth: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/canny.htm
Hope this helps!
I had asked this on photo stackexchange but thought it might be relevant here as well, since I want to implement this programatically in my implementation.
I am trying to implement a blur detection algorithm for my imaging pipeline. The blur that I want to detect is both -
1) Camera Shake: Pictures captured using hand which moves/shakes when shutter speed is less.
2) Lens focussing errors - (Depth of Field) issues, like focussing on a incorrect object causing some blur.
3) Motion blur: Fast moving objects in the scene, captured using a not high enough shutter speed. E.g. A moving car a night might show a trail of its headlight/tail light in the image as a blur.
How can one detect this blur and quantify it in some way to make some decision based on that computed 'blur metric'?
What is the theory behind blur detection?
I am looking of good reading material using which I can implement some algorithm for this in C/Matlab.
thank you.
-AD.
Motion blur and camera shake are kind of the same thing when you think about the cause: relative motion of the camera and the object. You mention slow shutter speed -- it is a culprit in both cases.
Focus misses are subjective as they depend on the intent on the photographer. Without knowing what the photographer wanted to focus on, it's impossible to achieve this. And even if you do know what you wanted to focus on, it still wouldn't be trivial.
With that dose of realism aside, let me reassure you that blur detection is actually a very active research field, and there are already a few metrics that you can try out on your images. Here are some that I've used recently:
Edge width. Basically, perform edge detection on your image (using Canny or otherwise) and then measure the width of the edges. Blurry images will have wider edges that are more spread out. Sharper images will have thinner edges. Google for "A no-reference perceptual blur metric" by Marziliano -- it's a famous paper that describes this approach well enough for a full implementation. If you're dealing with motion blur, then the edges will be blurred (wide) in the direction of the motion.
Presence of fine detail. Have a look at my answer to this question (the edited part).
Frequency domain approaches. Taking the histogram of the DCT coefficients of the image (assuming you're working with JPEG) would give you an idea of how much fine detail the image has. This is how you grab the DCT coefficients from a JPEG file directly. If the count for the non-DC terms is low, it is likely that the image is blurry. This is the simplest way -- there are more sophisticated approaches in the frequency domain.
There are more, but I feel that that should be enough to get you started. If you require further info on either of those points, fire up Google Scholar and look around. In particular, check out the references of Marziliano's paper to get an idea about what has been tried in the past.
There is a great paper called : "analysis of focus measure operators for shape-from-focus" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234073157_Analysis_of_focus_measure_operators_in_shape-from-focus) , which does a comparison about 30 different techniques.
Out of all the different techniques, the "Laplacian" based methods seem to have the best performance. Most image processing programs like : MATLAB or OPENCV have already implemented this method . Below is an example using OpenCV : http://www.pyimagesearch.com/2015/09/07/blur-detection-with-opencv/
One important point to note here is that an image can have some blurry areas and some sharp areas. For example, if an image contains portrait photography, the image in the foreground is sharp whereas the background is blurry. In sports photography, the object in focus is sharp and the background usually has motion blur. One way to detect such a spatially varying blur in an image is to run a frequency domain analysis at every location in the image. One of the papers which addresses this topic is "Spatially-Varying Blur Detection Based on Multiscale Fused and Sorted Transform Coefficients of Gradient Magnitudes" (cvpr2017).
the authors look at multi resolution DCT coefficients at every pixel. These DCT coefficients are divided into low, medium, and high frequency bands, out of which only the high frequency coefficients are selected.
The DCT coefficients are then fused together and sorted to form the multiscale-fused and sorted high-frequency transform coefficients
A subset of these coefficients are selected. the number of selected coefficients is a tunable parameter which is application specific.
The selected subset of coefficients are then sent through a max pooling block to retain the highest activation within all the scales. This gives the blur map as the output, which is then sent through a post processing step to refine the map.
This blur map can be used to quantify the sharpness in various regions of the image. In order to get a single global metric to quantify the bluriness of the entire image, the mean of this blur map or the histogram of this blur map can be used
Here are some examples results on how the algorithm performs:
The sharp regions in the image have a high intensity in the blur_map, whereas blurry regions have a low intensity.
The github link to the project is: https://github.com/Utkarsh-Deshmukh/Spatially-Varying-Blur-Detection-python
The python implementation of this algorithm can be found on pypi which can easily be installed as shown below:
pip install blur_detector
A sample code snippet to generate the blur map is as follows:
import blur_detector
import cv2
if __name__ == '__main__':
img = cv2.imread('image_name', 0)
blur_map = blur_detector.detectBlur(img, downsampling_factor=4, num_scales=4, scale_start=2, num_iterations_RF_filter=3)
cv2.imshow('ori_img', img)
cv2.imshow('blur_map', blur_map)
cv2.waitKey(0)
For detecting blurry images, you can tweak the approach and add "Region of Interest estimation".
In this github link: https://github.com/Utkarsh-Deshmukh/Blurry-Image-Detector , I have used local entropy filters to estimate a region of interest. In this ROI, I then use DCT coefficients as feature extractors and train a simple multi-layer perceptron. On testing this approach on 20000 images in the "BSD-B" dataset (http://cg.postech.ac.kr/research/realblur/) I got an average accuracy of 94%
Just to add on the focussing errors, these may be detected by comparing the psf of the captured blurry images (wider) with reference ones (sharper). Deconvolution techniques may help correcting them but leaving artificial errors (shadows, rippling, ...). A light field camera can help refocusing to any depth planes since it captures the angular information besides the traditional spatial ones of the scene.
I have some conceptual issues in understanding SURF and SIFT algorithm All about SURF. As far as my understanding goes SURF finds Laplacian of Gaussians and SIFT operates on difference of Gaussians. It then constructs a 64-variable vector around it to extract the features. I have applied this CODE.
(Q1 ) So, what forms the features?
(Q2) We initialize the algorithm using SurfFeatureDetector detector(500). So, does this means that the size of the feature space is 500?
(Q3) The output of SURF Good_Matches gives matches between Keypoint1 and Keypoint2 and by tuning the number of matches we can conclude that if the object has been found/detected or not. What is meant by KeyPoints ? Do these store the features ?
(Q4) I need to do object recognition application. In the code, it appears that the algorithm can recognize the book. So, it can be applied for object recognition. I was under the impression that SURF can be used to differentiate objects based on color and shape. But, SURF and SIFT find the corner edge detection, so there is no point in using color images as training samples since they will be converted to gray scale. There is no option of using colors or HSV in these algorithms, unless I compute the keypoints for each channel separately, which is a different area of research (Evaluating Color Descriptors for Object and Scene Recognition).
So, how can I detect and recognize objects based on their color, shape? I think I can use SURF for differentiating objects based on their shape. Say, for instance I have a 2 books and a bottle. I need to only recognize a single book out of the entire objects. But, as soon as there are other similar shaped objects in the scene, SURF gives lots of false positives. I shall appreciate suggestions on what methods to apply for my application.
The local maxima (response of the DoG which is greater (smaller) than responses of the neighbour pixels about the point, upper and lover image in pyramid -- 3x3x3 neighbourhood) forms the coordinates of the feature (circle) center. The radius of the circle is level of the pyramid.
It is Hessian threshold. It means that you would take only maximas (see 1) with values bigger than threshold. Bigger threshold lead to the less number of features, but stability of features is better and visa versa.
Keypoint == feature. In OpenCV Keypoint is the structure to store features.
No, SURF is good for comparison of the textured objects but not for shape and color. For the shape I recommend to use MSER (but not OpenCV one), Canny edge detector, not local features. This presentation might be useful