I need to calculate distance between two points using a webcam. Now the catch is I don't need it to be any way related to actual measurements in cm or whatever. What I want is to use different webcams of different resolutions and they should all give the same measurement. I'll explain.
Suppose I am viewing a square shape using a webcam of 640x480 and it measures as one unit. I then view the same object from the same positions using a webcam of 1024x768 and it should still measure as 1 unit. How do I do this?
You didn't mentioned about the process by which you are measuring the dimensions of the object. I'm gonna assume you are measuring by using a single camera. You can take this method as a reference & this can be applied to any methodology.
Here are the steps to measure the size of object:
How will you measure length of a line drawn in this picture?
You need a ruler as a reference. To make this ruler you have to know the real world ruler size which will be in pixels in our case.
Now make a graph. I'm gonna take a unit line as a reference graph. I'm taking centimeter scale as reference.
Place this graph in front of the camera & detect the Two red dots. Now calculate the number of pixels between this two points ref. Lets assume the distance is 1000 pixels. So 1 cm is taking 1000 pixels. So 1 pixel is equal to 0.1 cm & take this as a Reference_pixels_count.
Repeat this step 4 for all the resolutions & find the Reference_pixels_count for that Resolution.
Now place an object & get the size of image.find corners & cycle through each corner and find the distance between each corner. Multiply this distance with the Reference_pixels_count to get the actual dimension of the object.
NOTE: This method can work only for flat object with negligible depth change.
Related
I am trying to evaluate an optical system by calculating the MTF with the slanted edge method. For this I use the following ImageJ plugin:
https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/plugins/se-mtf/index.html
No I want to calculate the MTF with the frequency units "lp/mm". For this I have to insert the "Sensor size (mm)" and the "Number of photodetectors". Sadly I cannot find any description and what these values are exactly. If I use the diagonal of the sensor in mm and the number of pixels my sensor has as the second value, I get nonsense values (very high frequencies, higher than 100000 lp/mm).
Does anyone have experience with this tool and can give me a hint on what values I need here?
Thanks a lot in advance!
I am also not 100% sure but I guess its the sensor width and the number of pixels along the sensor width
The 2 input values are just there to fix the scale, even it could have been reduced to 1 = xx µm/mm.
So, "Sensor size (mm)" = whatever size (mm) in the image considered, just choose it coherent with the real size of the image (just for logic).
Then, "Number of photodetectors" = the number (qty) of Voxels corresponding to this "whatever size (mm)" input above.
Then ImageJ is having the scale into the image made of Voxel.
Last but not least, 2 things : (1) do not forget in your ROI selection (square) that void shall be on the Left Hand side ; (2) The more accurate result is obtained when material wall is vertical on your image (otherwise, when bended, you will have bias vs.vertical wall.
I need to implement dimension inspection of an object with a tolerance of 20 microns using image processing. To measure the dimension in mm, i need the mm per pixel value for pixel to mm conversion.
Camera and lens Specifications:
5 MP Matrix vision camera (2592 x 1944)
25 mm lens
How i tried to do it:
I used a 30 cm ruler to get the actual field of view in mm covered by the camera.I got a plot of the image using Matplotlib function in OpenCV as shown in the fig.
Image for scaling
From the image i got 31 mm as the actual width covered by the camera and the camera resolution is 2592 x 1944. So i obtained mm/pixel = 31/2952 = 0.011959876.
But i want to know if it is the correct way to find the mm/pixel value using a centimeter scale specially when tolerance of 20 micron is needed in dimension inspection. If this is not the correct way, then a solution procedure for finding mm/pixel value would be really helpful.
I believe what you are doing really borderline. First of all, to be as precise as possible I would use the right (or left) edge of the most left and most right ruler ticks like I sketched here:
and then use this value in pixel to calculate the mm/pixel calibration value. Even using this method 20 mu is really tough to achieve. Let's say we can determine the ruler tick edge position with a precision of 2 pixels (very optimistic) then you would have an error of about 31mm/2580 * 2, which is about 25 mu.
If you really need the 20mu calibration precision I would go for a microscope calibration target. I've been always used one of those for this kind of calibration task.
20 microns over a field of view of 31 mm = 31000 µm corresponds to 1.7 pixel, so your measurement error must be smaller than that. This is a stringent requirement. Your ruler and manual operation are not appropriate.
In the first place, you should check the magnitude of the lens distortion, which could very well exceed these 1.7 pixels. You will need a precise calibration procedure that can fit a deformation model to the image. For this purpose you should use a certified calibration target such as grid of dots or a chessboard pattern.
At the same time as the calibration software measures and compensates the distortion, it will provide the scale factor between physical units (knowing the grid spacing) and pixels. You can measure feature location on the target by blob analysis or gauging techniques, then use least-squares fitting of a model.
Software packages made for machine vision applications do contain such tools.
Also be aware that there can be a bias in the dimensional measurement of the object due to mis-location of the edges. Simply moving the light source can result in variations of the measured size.
If your objects are always the same and at the same place in the field of view, a cheap solution is to establish a repeatable measurement procedure in pixels, and physically measure one of the parts. This will give you a scale factor valid in the same conditions.
But simply moving the object will have a noticeable effect, both by changing the light reflection/shadows on edges and by having a different distortion.
If a program displays a pixel at X,Y on a display with resolution A, can I precisely predict at what coordinates the same pixel will display at resolution B?
MORE INFORMATION
The 2 display resolutions are:
A-->1366 x 768
B-->1600 x 900
Dividing the max resolutions in each direction yields:
X-direction scaling factor = 1600/1366 = 1.171303075
Y-direction scaling factor = 900/768 = 1.171875
Say for example that the only red pixel on display A occurs at pixel (1,1). If I merely scale up using these factors, then on display B, that red pixel will be displayed at pixel (1.171303075, 1.171875). I'm not sure how to interpret that, as I'm used to thinking of pixels as integer values. It might help if I knew the exact geometry of pixel coordinates/placement on a screen. e.g., do pixel coordinates (1,1) mean that the center of the pixel is at (1,1)? Or a particular corner of the pixel is at (1,1)? I'm sure diagrams would assist in visualizing this--if anyone can post a link to helpful resources, I'd appreciate it. And finally, I may be approaching this all wrong.
Thanks in advance.
I think, your problem is related to the field of scaling/resampling images. Bitmap-, or raster images are digital photographs, so they are the most common form to represent natural images that are rich in detail. The term bitmap refers to how a given pattern (bits in a pixel) maps to a specific color. A bitmap images take the form of an array, where the value of each element, called a pixel picture element, correspond to the color of that region of the image.
Sampling
When measuring the value for a pixel, one takes the average color of an area around the location of the pixel. A simplistic model is sampling a square, and a more accurate measurement is to calculate a weighted Gaussian average. When perceiving a bitmap image the human eye should blend the pixel values together, recreating an illusion of the continuous image it represents.
Raster dimensions
The number of horizontal and vertical samples in the pixel grid is called raster dimensions, it is specified as width x height.
Resolution
Resolution is a measurement of sampling density, resolution of bitmap images give a relationship between pixel dimensions and physical dimensions. The most often used measurement is ppi, pixels per inch.
Scaling / Resampling
Image scaling is the name of the process when we need to create an image with different dimensions from what we have. A different name for scaling is resampling. When resampling algorithms try to reconstruct the original continuous image and create a new sample grid. There are two kind of scaling: up and down.
Scaling image down
The process of reducing the raster dimensions is called decimation, this can be done by averaging the values of source pixels contributing to each output pixel.
Scaling image up
When we increase the image size we actually want to create sample points between the original sample points in the original raster, this is done by interpolation the values in the sample grid, effectively guessing the values of the unknown pixels. This interpolation can be done by nearest-neighbor interpolation, bilinear interpolation, bicubic interpolation, etc. But the scaled up/down image must be also represented over discrete grid.
I have a digital image, and I want to make some calculation based on distances on it. So I need to get the Milimeter/Pixel proportion. What I'm doing right now, is to mark two points wich I know the real world distance, to calculate the Euclidian distance between them, and than obtain the proportion.
The question is, Only with two points can I make the correct Milimeter/Pixel's proportion, or do I need to use 4 points, 2 for the X-Axis and 2 for Y-axis?
If your image is of a flat surface and the camera direction is perpendicular to that surface, then your scale factor should be the same in both directions.
If your image is of a flat surface, but it is tilted relative to the camera, then marking out a rectangle of known proportions on that surface would allow you to compute a perspective transform. (See for example this question)
If your image is of a 3D scene, then of course there is no way in general to convert pixels to distances.
If you know the distance between the points A and B measured on the picture(say in inch) and you also know the number of pixels between the points, you can easily calculate the pixels/inch ratio by dividing <pixels>/<inches>.
I suggest to take the points on the picture such that the line which intersects them is either horizontal either vertical such that calculations do not have errors taking into account the pixels have a rectangular form.
I was wondering how would I figure out the actual size of the object, using the kinect depth values.
For example, if the kinect sees a round object in front of it, and the round object take 100 pixels of space in the image, and the depth value the kinect gives is x, how would I know the actual size of the round object?
I don't need it in units like meters or anything, I am just trying to find a formula to calculate the size of object that is independant from how far the object is from the kinect.
I am using OpenCV and the kinect SDK, if anything is useful there please let me know.
Thanks in advance.
To find the size in 3d, given a size in 2d, you just do:
3d_rad = 2d_rad * depth
So if the ball appears on the screen as 10 pixels wide and is 1 metre away, it really is 10 "units" wide. Do a little playing to find out the units returned, I'm unsure what they will be.
Suppose you have a 20 pixel radius ball on screen and the depth is returned as 30, the real size of the ball is 20*30 = 600 units. Again, I'm unsure what unit exactly, it depends on the camera, but it is a constant so play around with it. Put a 1 metre ball in front of the camera, far enough away that it looks like 100 pixels. The reciprocal of that distance should be the conversion factor to turn the units you have into centimetres and can be used as a constant. For example:
3d_rad_in_cm = conversion * 2d_rad * depth