I’m a making an iOS application that will find instances of a smaller (similar) image inside a larger image. For example, something like:
The image we are searching inside
The image we are searching for
The matched image
The main things to consider are, the smallImage size will match the size of the target in the bigImage, but the object may be slightly obscured in the bigImage (as in they won’t always be identical). Also, the images I am dealing with are quite a bit smaller than my examples here, the image that I am trying to match (the smallImage) is between 32 x 32 pixels and 80 x 80 pixels, and the big image around 1000 x 600 pixels. Other than potentially being slightly obscured, the smallImage will match the object in the big image in every way (size, color, rotation etc..)
I have tried out a few methods using OpenCV. Feature matching didn’t seem accurate enough and gave me hundreds of meaningless results, so I am trying template matching. My code looks something like:
cv::Mat ref = [bigImage CVMat];
cv::Mat tpl = [smallImage CVMat];
cv::Mat gref, gtpl;
cv::cvtColor(ref, gref, CV_LOAD_IMAGE_COLOR);
cv::cvtColor(tpl, gtpl, CV_LOAD_IMAGE_COLOR);
cv::Mat res(ref.rows-tpl.rows+1, ref.cols-tpl.cols+1, CV_32FC1);
cv::matchTemplate(gref, gtpl, res, CV_TM_CCOEFF_NORMED);
cv::threshold(res, res, [tolerance doubleValue], 1., CV_THRESH_TOZERO);
double minval, maxval, threshold = [tolerance doubleValue];
cv::Point minloc, maxloc;
cv::minMaxLoc(res, &minval, &maxval, &minloc, &maxloc);
if (maxval >= threshold) {
// match
bigImage is the large image in which we are tryign to find the target
smallImage is the image we are looking for within the bigImage
tolerance is the tolerance for matches (between 0 and 1)
This does work, but there are a few issues.
I originally tried using a full image of the image object that I am trying to match (ie; an image of the entire fridge), but I found that it was very inaccurate, when the tolerance was high it found nothing, and when it was low it found many incorrect matches.
Next I tested out using smaller portions of the image, for example:
This increased the accuracy of finding the target in the big image, but also results in a lot of incorrect matches as well.
I have tried all the available methods for matchTemplate from here, and they all return a large amount of false matches, except CV_TM_CCOEFF_NORMED which returns less matches (but also mostly false matches)
How can I improve the accuracy of image matching using OpenCV in iOS?
Edit:
I have googled loads, the most helpful posts are:
Pattern Matching - Find reference object in second image
Measure of accuracy in pattern recognition using SURF in OpenCV
Template Matching
Algorithm improvement for Coca-Cola can shape recognition
I can't find any suggestions on how to improve the accuracy
If the template image is not rotated (or under some projective distortion) in the image in which you are searching for - since all geometric and texture properties are preserved (assuming occlusion is not very large), the only variable left is the scale. Hence, running a template matching algorithm, at multiple scales of the original template and then taking the maximum normalized response over all scales should give a perfect match. One issue may be that for a perfect match, guessing (optimizing over) the exact scale will be computationally expensive or involve some heuristics. One heuristic can be, run template matching at 3 different scales (1, 2, 4), suppose you get the best response at a particular scale, (say 2), try between (1.5, 2.25, 3) and keep on refining. Ofcourse, this is a heuristic which may work well in practice, but is not a theoretically correct way of finding the right scale and can get stuck in local minima.
The reason why feature based methods will not work on this kind of image is because they rely on texture/sharp gradients which are not very evident in the homogeneous template image you have shown.
Related
Context: I have two cameras of very different focus and size that I want to align for image processing. One is RGB, one is near-infrared. The cameras are in a static rig, so fixed relative to each other. Because the image focus/width are so different, it's hard to even get both images to recognize the chessboard at the same time. Pretty much only works when the chessboard is centered in both images with very little skew/tilt.
I need to perform computations on the aligned images, so I need as good of a mapping between the optical frames as I can get. Right now the results I'm getting are pretty far off. I'm not sure if I'm using the method itself wrong, or if I am misusing the output. Details and image below.
Computation: I am using OpenCV stereoCalibrate to estimate the rotation and translation matrices with the following code, and throwing out bad results based on final error.
int flag = cv::CALIB_FIX_INTRINSIC;
double err = cv::stereoCalibrate(temp_points_object_vec, temp_points_alignvec, temp_points_basevec, camera_mat_align, camera_distort_align, camera_mat_base, camera_distort_base, mat_align.size(), rotate_mat, translate_mat, essential_mat, F, flag, cv::TermCriteria(cv::TermCriteria::MAX_ITER + cv::TermCriteria::EPS, 30, 1e-6));
if (last_error_ == -1.0 || (err < last_error_ + improve_threshold_)) {
// -1.0 indicate first calibration, accept points. Other cond indicates acceptable error.
points_alignvec_.push_back(addalign);
points_basevec_.push_back(addbase);
points_object_vec_.push_back(object_points);
}
The result doesn't produce an OpenCV error as is, and due to the large difference between images, more than half of the matched points are rejected. Results are much better since I added the conditional on the error, but still pretty poor. Error as computed above starts around 30, but doesn't get lower than 15-17. For comparison, I believe a "good" error would be <1. So for starters, I know the output isn't great, but on top of that, I'm not sure I'm using the output right for validating visually. I've attached images showing some of the best and worst results I see. The middle image on the right of each shows the "cross-validated" chessboard keypoints. These are computed like this (note addalign is the temporary vector containing only the chessboard keypoints from the current image in the frame to be aligned):
for (int i = 0; i < addalign.size(); i++) {
cv::Point2f validate_pt;// = rotate_mat * addalign.at(i) + translate_mat;
// Project pixel from image aligned to 3D
cv::Point3f ray3d = align_camera_model_.projectPixelTo3dRay(addalign.at(i));
// Rotate and translate
rotate_mat.convertTo(rotate_mat, CV_32F);
cv::Mat temp_result = rotate_mat * cv::Mat(ray3d, false);
cv::Point3f ray_transformed;
temp_result.copyTo(cv::Mat(ray_transformed, false));
cv::Mat tmat = cv::Mat(translate_mat, false);
ray_transformed.x += tmat.at<float>(0);
ray_transformed.y += tmat.at<float>(1);
ray_transformed.z += tmat.at<float>(2);
// Reproject to base image pixel
cv::Point2f pixel = base_camera_model_.project3dToPixel(ray_transformed);
corners_validated.push_back(pixel);
}
Here are two images showing sample outputs, including both raw images, both images with "drawChessboard," and a cross-validated image showing the base image with above-computed keypoints translated from the alignment image.
Better result
Worse result
In the computation of corners_validated, I'm not sure I'm using rotate_mat andtranslate_mat correctly. I'm sure there is probably an OpenCV method that does this more efficiently, but I just did it the way that made sense to me at the time.
Also relevant: This is all inside a ROS package, using ROS noetic on Ubuntu 20.04 which only permits the use of OpenCV 4.2, so I don't have access to some of the newer opencv methods.
I found on the internet that laplacian method is quite good technique to compute the sharpness of a image. I was trying to implement it in opencv 2.4.10. How can I get the sharpness measure after applying the Laplacian function? Below is the code:
Mat src_gray, dst;
int kernel_size = 3;
int scale = 1;
int delta = 0;
int ddepth = CV_16S;
GaussianBlur( src, src, Size(3,3), 0, 0, BORDER_DEFAULT );
/// Convert the image to grayscale
cvtColor( src, src_gray, CV_RGB2GRAY );
/// Apply Laplace function
Mat abs_dst;
Laplacian( src_gray, dst, ddepth, kernel_size, scale, delta, BORDER_DEFAULT );
//compute sharpness
??
Can someone please guide me on this?
Possible duplicate of: Is there a way to detect if an image is blurry?
so your focus measure is:
cv::Laplacian(src_gray, dst, CV_64F);
cv::Scalar mu, sigma;
cv::meanStdDev(dst, mu, sigma);
double focusMeasure = sigma.val[0] * sigma.val[0];
Edit #1:
Okay, so a well focused image is expected to have sharper edges, so the use of image gradients are instrumental in order to determine a reliable focus measure. Given an image gradient, the focus measure pools the data at each point as an unique value.
The use of second derivatives is one technique for passing the high spatial frequencies, which are associated with sharp edges. As a second derivative operator we use the Laplacian operator, that is approximated using the mask:
To pool the data at each point, we use two methods. The first one is the sum of all the absolute values, driving to the following focus measure:
where L(m, n) is the convolution of the input image I(m, n) with the mask L. The second method calculates the variance of the absolute values, providing a new focus measure given by:
where L overline is the mean of absolute values.
Read the article
J.L. Pech-Pacheco, G. Cristobal, J. Chamorro-Martinez, J.
Fernandez-Valdivia, "Diatom autofocusing in brightfield microscopy: a
comparative study", 15th International Conference on Pattern
Recognition, 2000. (Volume:3 )
for more information.
Not exactly the answer, but I got a formula using an intuitive approach that worked on the wild.
I'm currently working in a script to detect multiple faces in a picture with a crowd, using mtcnn , which it worked very well, however it also detected many faces so blurry that you couldn't say it was properly a face.
Example image:
Faces detected:
Matrix of detected faces:
mtcnn detected about 123 faces, however many of them had little resemblance as a face. In fact, many faces look more like a stain than anything else...
So I was looking a way of 'filtering' those blurry faces. I tried the Laplacian filter and FFT way of filtering I found on this answer , however I had inconsistent results and poor filtering results.
I turned my research in computer vision topics, and finally tried to implement an 'intuitive' way of filtering using the following principle:
When more blurry is an image, less 'edges' we have
If we compare a crisp image with a blurred version of the same image, the results tends to 'soften' any edges or adjacent contrasting regions. Based on that principle, I was finding a way of weighting edges and then a simple way of 'measuring' the results to get a confidence value.
I took advantage of Canny detection in OpenCV and then apply a mean value of the result (Python):
def getBlurValue(image):
canny = cv2.Canny(image, 50,250)
return np.mean(canny)
Canny return 2x2 array same image size . I selected threshold 50,250 but it can be changed depending of your image and scenario.
Then I got the average value of the canny result, (definitively a formula to be improved if you know what you're doing).
When an image is blurred the result will get a value tending to zero, while crisp image tend to be a positive value, higher when crisper is the image.
This value depend on the images and threshold, so it is not a universal solution for every scenario, however a best value can be achieved normalizing the result and averaging all the faces (I need more work on that subject).
In the example, the values are in the range 0-27.
I averaged all faces and I got about a 3.7 value of blur
If I filter images above 3.7:
So I kept with mosth crisp faces:
That consistently gave me better results than the other tests.
Ok, you got me. This is a tricky way of detecting a blurriness values inside the same image space. But I hope people can take advantage of this findings and apply what I learned in its own projects.
I am looking for a "very" simple way to check if an image bitmap is blur. I do not need accurate and complicate algorithm which involves fft, wavelet, etc. Just a very simple idea even if it is not accurate.
I've thought to compute the average euclidian distance between pixel (x,y) and pixel (x+1,y) considering their RGB components and then using a threshold but it works very bad. Any other idea?
Don't calculate the average differences between adjacent pixels.
Even when a photograph is perfectly in focus, it can still contain large areas of uniform colour, like the sky for example. These will push down the average difference and mask the details you're interested in. What you really want to find is the maximum difference value.
Also, to speed things up, I wouldn't bother checking every pixel in the image. You should get reasonable results by checking along a grid of horizontal and vertical lines spaced, say, 10 pixels apart.
Here are the results of some tests with PHP's GD graphics functions using an image from Wikimedia Commons (Bokeh_Ipomea.jpg). The Sharpness values are simply the maximum pixel difference values as a percentage of 255 (I only looked in the green channel; you should probably convert to greyscale first). The numbers underneath show how long it took to process the image.
If you want them, here are the source images I used:
original
slightly blurred
blurred
Update:
There's a problem with this algorithm in that it relies on the image having a fairly high level of contrast as well as sharp focused edges. It can be improved by finding the maximum pixel difference (maxdiff), and finding the overall range of pixel values in a small area centred on this location (range). The sharpness is then calculated as follows:
sharpness = (maxdiff / (offset + range)) * (1.0 + offset / 255) * 100%
where offset is a parameter that reduces the effects of very small edges so that background noise does not affect the results significantly. (I used a value of 15.)
This produces fairly good results. Anything with a sharpness of less than 40% is probably out of focus. Here's are some examples (the locations of the maximum pixel difference and the 9×9 local search areas are also shown for reference):
(source)
(source)
(source)
(source)
The results still aren't perfect, though. Subjects that are inherently blurry will always result in a low sharpness value:
(source)
Bokeh effects can produce sharp edges from point sources of light, even when they are completely out of focus:
(source)
You commented that you want to be able to reject user-submitted photos that are out of focus. Since this technique isn't perfect, I would suggest that you instead notify the user if an image appears blurry instead of rejecting it altogether.
I suppose that, philosophically speaking, all natural images are blurry...How blurry and to which amount, is something that depends upon your application. Broadly speaking, the blurriness or sharpness of images can be measured in various ways. As a first easy attempt I would check for the energy of the image, defined as the normalised summation of the squared pixel values:
1 2
E = --- Σ I, where I the image and N the number of pixels (defined for grayscale)
N
First you may apply a Laplacian of Gaussian (LoG) filter to detect the "energetic" areas of the image and then check the energy. The blurry image should show considerably lower energy.
See an example in MATLAB using a typical grayscale lena image:
This is the original image
This is the blurry image, blurred with gaussian noise
This is the LoG image of the original
And this is the LoG image of the blurry one
If you just compute the energy of the two LoG images you get:
E = 1265 E = 88
or bl
which is a huge amount of difference...
Then you just have to select a threshold to judge which amount of energy is good for your application...
calculate the average L1-distance of adjacent pixels:
N1=1/(2*N_pixel) * sum( abs(p(x,y)-p(x-1,y)) + abs(p(x,y)-p(x,y-1)) )
then the average L2 distance:
N2= 1/(2*N_pixel) * sum( (p(x,y)-p(x-1,y))^2 + (p(x,y)-p(x,y-1))^2 )
then the ratio N2 / (N1*N1) is a measure of blurriness. This is for grayscale images, for color you do this for each channel separately.
What is a fast and reliable way to threshold images with possible blurring and non-uniform brightness?
Example (blurring but uniform brightness):
Because the image is not guaranteed to have uniform brightness, it's not feasible to use a fixed threshold. An adaptive threshold works alright, but because of the blurriness it creates breaks and distortions in the features (here, the important features are the Sudoku digits):
I've also tried using Histogram Equalization (using OpenCV's equalizeHist function). It increases contrast without reducing differences in brightness.
The best solution I've found is to divide the image by its morphological closing (credit to this post) to make the brightness uniform, then renormalize, then use a fixed threshold (using Otsu's algorithm to pick the optimal threshold level):
Here is code for this in OpenCV for Android:
Mat kernel = Imgproc.getStructuringElement(Imgproc.MORPH_ELLIPSE, new Size(19,19));
Mat closed = new Mat(); // closed will have type CV_32F
Imgproc.morphologyEx(image, closed, Imgproc.MORPH_CLOSE, kernel);
Core.divide(image, closed, closed, 1, CvType.CV_32F);
Core.normalize(closed, image, 0, 255, Core.NORM_MINMAX, CvType.CV_8U);
Imgproc.threshold(image, image, -1, 255, Imgproc.THRESH_BINARY_INV
+Imgproc.THRESH_OTSU);
This works great but the closing operation is very slow. Reducing the size of the structuring element increases speed but reduces accuracy.
Edit: based on DCS's suggestion I tried using a high-pass filter. I chose the Laplacian filter, but I would expect similar results with Sobel and Scharr filters. The filter picks up high-frequency noise in the areas which do not contain features, and suffers from similar distortion to the adaptive threshold due to blurring. it also takes about as long as the closing operation. Here is an example with a 15x15 filter:
Edit 2: Based on AruniRC's answer, I used Canny edge detection on the image with the suggested parameters:
double mean = Core.mean(image).val[0];
Imgproc.Canny(image, image, 0.66*mean, 1.33*mean);
I'm not sure how to reliably automatically fine-tune the parameters to get connected digits.
Using Vaughn Cato and Theraot's suggestions, I scaled down the image before closing it, then scaled the closed image up to regular size. I also reduced the kernel size proportionately.
Mat kernel = Imgproc.getStructuringElement(Imgproc.MORPH_ELLIPSE, new Size(5,5));
Mat temp = new Mat();
Imgproc.resize(image, temp, new Size(image.cols()/4, image.rows()/4));
Imgproc.morphologyEx(temp, temp, Imgproc.MORPH_CLOSE, kernel);
Imgproc.resize(temp, temp, new Size(image.cols(), image.rows()));
Core.divide(image, temp, temp, 1, CvType.CV_32F); // temp will now have type CV_32F
Core.normalize(temp, image, 0, 255, Core.NORM_MINMAX, CvType.CV_8U);
Imgproc.threshold(image, image, -1, 255,
Imgproc.THRESH_BINARY_INV+Imgproc.THRESH_OTSU);
The image below shows the results side-by-side for 3 different methods:
Left - regular size closing (432 pixels), size 19 kernel
Middle - half-size closing (216 pixels), size 9 kernel
Right - quarter-size closing (108 pixels), size 5 kernel
The image quality deteriorates as the size of the image used for closing gets smaller, but the deterioration isn't significant enough to affect feature recognition algorithms. The speed increases slightly more than 16-fold for the quarter-size closing, even with the resizing, which suggests that closing time is roughly proportional to the number of pixels in the image.
Any suggestions on how to further improve upon this idea (either by further reducing the speed, or reducing the deterioration in image quality) are very welcome.
Alternative approach:
Assuming your intention is to have the numerals to be clearly binarized ... shift your focus to components instead of the whole image.
Here's a pretty easy approach:
Do a Canny edgemap on the image. First try it with parameters to Canny function in the range of the low threshold to 0.66*[mean value] and the high threshold to 1.33*[mean value]. (meaning the mean of the greylevel values).
You would need to fiddle with the parameters a bit to get an image where the major components/numerals are visible clearly as separate components. Near perfect would be good enough at this stage.
Considering each Canny edge as a connected component (i.e. use the cvFindContours() or its C++ counterpart, whichever) one can estimate the foreground and background greylevels and reach a threshold.
For the last bit, do take a look at sections 2. and 3. of this paper. Skipping most of the non-essential theoretical parts it shouldn't be too difficult to have it implemented in OpenCV.
Hope this helped!
Edit 1:
Based on the Canny edge thresholds here's a very rough idea just sufficient to fine-tune the values. The high_threshold controls how strong an edge must be before it is detected. Basically, an edge must have gradient magnitude greater than high_threshold to be detected in the first place. So this does the initial detection of edges.
Now, the low_threshold deals with connecting nearby edges. It controls how much nearby disconnected edges will get combined together into a single edge. For a better idea, read "Step 6" of this webpage. Try setting a very small low_threshold and see how things come about. You could discard that 0.66*[mean value] thing if it doesn't work on these images - its just a rule of thumb anyway.
We use Bradleys algorithm for very similar problem (to segment letters from background, with uneven light and uneven background color), described here: http://people.scs.carleton.ca:8008/~roth/iit-publications-iti/docs/gerh-50002.pdf, C# code here: http://code.google.com/p/aforge/source/browse/trunk/Sources/Imaging/Filters/Adaptive+Binarization/BradleyLocalThresholding.cs?r=1360. It works on integral image, which can be calculated using integral function of OpenCV. It is very reliable and fast, but itself is not implemented in OpenCV, but is easy to port.
Another option is adaptiveThreshold method in openCV, but we did not give it a try: http://docs.opencv.org/modules/imgproc/doc/miscellaneous_transformations.html#adaptivethreshold. The MEAN version is the same as bradleys, except that it uses a constant to modify the mean value instead of a percentage, which I think is better.
Also, good article is here: https://dsp.stackexchange.com/a/2504
You could try working on a per-tile basis if you know you have a good crop of the grid. Working on 9 subimages rather than the whole pic will most likely lead to more uniform brightness on each subimage. If your cropping is perfect you could even try going for each digit cell individually; but it all depends on how reliable is your crop.
Ellipse shape is complex to calculate if compared to a flat shape.
Try to change:
Mat kernel = Imgproc.getStructuringElement(Imgproc.MORPH_ELLIPSE, new Size(19,19));
to:
Mat kernel = Imgproc.getStructuringElement(Imgproc.MORPH_RECT, new Size(19,19));
can speed up your enough solution with low impact to accuracy.
I'd like to know what would be the best strategy to compare a group of contours, in fact are edges resulting of a canny edges detection, from two pictures, in order to know which pair is more alike.
I have this image:
http://i55.tinypic.com/10fe1y8.jpg
And I would like to know how can I calculate which one of these fits best to it:
http://i56.tinypic.com/zmxd13.jpg
(it should be the one on the right)
Is there anyway to compare the contours as a whole?
I can easily rotate the images but I don't know what functions to use in order to calculate that the reference image on the right is the best fit.
Here it is what I've already tried using opencv:
matchShapes function - I tried this function using 2 gray scales images and I always get the same result in every comparison image and the value seems wrong as it is 0,0002.
So what I realized about matchShapes, but I'm not sure it's the correct assumption, is that the function works with pairs of contours and not full images. Now this is a problem because although I have the contours of the images I want to compare, they are hundreds and I don't know which ones should be "paired up".
So I also tried to compare all the contours of the first image against the other two with a for iteration but I might be comparing,for example, the contour of the 5 against the circle contour of the two reference images and not the 2 contour.
Also tried simple cv::compare function and matchTemplate, none with success.
Well, for this you have a couple of options depending on how robust you need your approach to be.
Simple Solutions (with assumptions):
For these methods, I'm assuming your the images you supplied are what you are working with (i.e., the objects are already segmented and approximately the same scale. Also, you will need to correct the rotation (at least in a coarse manner). You might do something like iteratively rotate the comparison image every 10, 30, 60, or 90 degrees, or whatever coarseness you feel you can get away with.
For example,
for(degrees = 10; degrees < 360; degrees += 10)
coinRot = rotate(compareCoin, degrees)
// you could also try Cosine Similarity, or even matchedTemplate here.
metric = SAD(coinRot, targetCoin)
if(metric > bestMetric)
bestMetric = metric
coinRotation = degrees
Sum of Absolute Differences (SAD): This will allow you to quickly compare the images once you have determined an approximate rotation angle.
Cosine Similarity: This operates a bit differently by treating the image as a 1D vector, and then computes the the high-dimensional angle between the two vectors. The better the match the smaller the angle will be.
Complex Solutions (possibly more robust):
These solutions will be more complex to implement, but will probably yield more robust classifications.
Haussdorf Distance: This answer will give you an introduction on using this method. This solution will probably also need the rotation correction to work properly.
Fourier-Mellin Transform: This method is an extension of Phase Correlation, which can extract the rotation, scale, and translation (RST) transform between two images.
Feature Detection and Extraction: This method involves detecting "robust" (i.e., scale and/or rotation invariant) features in the image and comparing them against a set of target features with RANSAC, LMedS, or simple least squares. OpenCV has a couple of samples using this technique in matcher_simple.cpp and matching_to_many_images.cpp. NOTE: With this method you will probably not want to binarize the image, so there are more detectable features available.