I have a blurry image with a sharp edge and I want to use the profile of that sharp edge to estimate the point spread function (PSF) of the imaging system (assuming that it is symmetric). The profile of the edge gives me the "edge spread function" (ESF) and the derivative of that gives me the "line spread function" (LSF). I am trying to follow these directions that I found in an old paper on how to convert from the LSF to the PSF:
"If we form the one-dimensional Fourier transform of the LSF and rotate the resulting curve about its vertical axis, the surface thus generated proves to be the two-dimensional fourier transform of the PSF. Hence it is merely necessary to take a two-dimensional inverse Fourier transform to obtain the PSF"
I can't seem to get this to work. The 2D FFT of a PSF-like function (for example a 2d gaussian) has lots of alternative positive and negative values, but if I rotate a 1D FFT, I get concentric rings of positive or negative values and the inverse transform looks nothing like a point-spread function. Am I missing a step or misunderstanding something? Any help would be appreciated! Thanks!
Edit: Here is some code showing my attempt to follow the procedure described
;generate x array
x=findgen(1000)/999*50-25
;generate gaussian test function in 1D
;P[0] = peak value
;P[1] = centroid
;P[2] = sigma
;P[3] = base level
P=[1.0,0.0,4.0,0.0]
test1d=gaussian_1d(x,P)
;Take the FFT of the test function
fft1d=fft(test1d)
;create an array with the frequency values for the FFT array, following the conventions used by IDL
;This piece of code to find freq is straight from IDL documentation: http://www.exelisvis.com/docs/FFT.html
N=n_elements(fft1d)
T=x[1]-x[0] ;T = sampling interval
fftx=(findgen((N-1)/2)+1)
is_N_even=(N MOD 2) EQ 0
if (is_N_even) then $
freq=[0.0,fftx,N/2,-N/2+fftx]/(N*T) $
else $
freq=[0.0,fftx,-(N/2+1)+fftx]/(N*T)
;Create a 1000x1000 array where each element holds the distance from the center
dim=1000
center=[(dim-1)/2.0,(dim-1)/2.0]
xarray=cmreplicate(findgen(dim),dim)
yarray=transpose(cmreplicate(findgen(dim),dim))
rarray=sqrt((xarray-center[0])^2+(yarray-center[1])^2)
rarray=rarray/max(rarray)*max(freq) ;scale rarray so max value is equal to highest freq in 1D FFT
;rotate the 1d FFT about zero to get a 2d array by interpolating the 1D function to the frequency values in the 2d array
fft2d=rarray*0.0
fft2d(findgen(n_elements(rarray)))=interpol(fft1d,freq,rarray(findgen(n_elements(rarray))))
;Take the inverse fourier transform of the 2d array
psf=fft(fft2d,/inverse)
;shift the PSF to be centered in the image
psf=shift(psf,500,500)
window,0,xsize=1000,ysize=1000
tvscl,abs(psf) ;visualize the absolute value of the result from the inverse 2d FFT
I don't know IDL, but I think your problem here is that you're taking the FFT of signals that are centered, where by default the function expects 0-frequency components at the beginning of the array.
A quick search for the proper way to do this in IDL indicates the CENTER keyword is what you're looking for.
CENTER
Set this keyword to shift the zero-frequency component to the center of the spectrum. In the forward direction, the resulting Fourier transform has the zero-frequency component shifted to the center of the array. In the reverse direction, the input is assumed to be a centered Fourier transform, and the coefficients are shifted back before performing the inverse transform.
Without letting the FFT routine know where the center of your signal is, it will seem shifted by N/2. In the converse domain this is a strong phase shift that will appear as if values are alternating positive and negative.
Ok, looks like I have solved the problem. The main issue seems to be that I needed to use the absolute value of the FFT results, rather than the complex array that is returned by default. Using the /CENTER keyword also helped make the indexing of the FFT result much simpler than IDL's default. Here is the working version of the code:
;generate x array
x=findgen(1000)/999*50-25
;generate lorentzian test function in 1D
;P[0] = peak value
;P[1] = centroid
;P[2] = fwhm
;P[3] = base level
P=[1.0,0.0,2,0.0]
test1d=lorentzian_1d(x,P)
;Take the FFT of the test function
fft1d=abs(fft(test1d,/center))
;Create an array of frequencies corresponding to the FFT result
N=n_elements(fft1d)
T=x[1]-x[0] ;T = sampling interval
freq=findgen(N)/(N*T)-N/(2*N*T)
;Create an array where each element holds the distance from the center
dim=1000
center=[(dim-1)/2.0,(dim-1)/2.0]
xarray=cmreplicate(findgen(dim),dim)
yarray=transpose(cmreplicate(findgen(dim),dim))
rarray=sqrt((xarray-center[0])^2+(yarray-center[1])^2)
rarray=rarray/max(rarray)*max(freq) ;scale rarray so max value is equal to highest freq in 1D FFT
;rotate the 1d FFT about zero to get a 2d array by interpolating the 1D function to the frequency values in the 2d array
fft2d=rarray*0.0
fft2d(findgen(n_elements(rarray)))=interpol(fft1d,freq,rarray(findgen(n_elements(rarray))))
;Take the inverse fourier transform of the 2d array
psf=abs(fft(fft2d,/inverse,/center))
;shift the PSF to be centered in the image
psf=shift(psf,dim/2.0,dim/2.0)
psf=psf/max(psf)
window,0,xsize=1000,ysize=1000
tvscl,real_part(psf) ;visualize the resulting PSF
;Test the performance by integrating the PSF in one dimension to recover the LSF
psftotal=total(psf,1)
plot,x*sqrt(2),psftotal/max(psftotal),thick=2,linestyle=2
oplot,x,test1d
Related
I have an Image I
I am trying to do Automatic Object Extraction using Quantum Mechanics
Each pixel in an image is considered as a potential field, V(x,y) and hence each wave (eigen) function represents a meaningful region.
2D Time-independent Sschrodinger's equation
Multiplying both sides by
We get,
Rewriting the Laplacian using Finite Difference approach
where Ni is the set of neighbours with index i, and |Ni| is the cardinality of, i.e. the number of elements in Ni
Combining the above two equations, we get:
where M is the number of elements in
Now,the left hand side of the equation is a measure of how similar the labels in a neighbourhood are, i.e. a measure of spatial coherence.
Now, for applying this to images, the potential V is given as the pixel intensities.
Here, V is the pixel intensities
The right hand side is a measure of how close the pixel values in a segment are to a constant value E.
Now, the wave functions can be numerically calculated by solving the eigenvectors of Hamiltonian operator in matrix form which is
for i = j
for
and elsewhere 0
Now, in this paper it is said that first we have to find the maximum and minimum eigenvalues and then calculate the eigenvectors with eigenvalues closest to a number of values regularly selected between the minimum and maximum eigenvalues. the number is 300.
I have calculated the 300 eigenvectors.
And then the absolute square of the eigenvectors are thresholded to obtain the segments.
Fine upto this part.
Now, how do I reconstruct the eigenvectors into a 2D image so as to get the potential segments in the image?
I am have been using solvepnp() for the calculation of the rotation and translation matrix. But the euler angles calculated from the obtained rotation matrix gave very erratic values. Trying to find the problem, I had a set of 2D projection points for my marker and kept the other parameters of solvepnp() constant.
Eg values:
2D points
[219.67473, 242.78395; 363.4151, 238.61298; 503.04855, 234.56117; 501.70917, 628.16742; 500.58069, 959.78564; 383.1756, 972.02679; 262.8746, 984.56982; 243.17044, 646.22925]
The euler angle theta(x) calculated from the output rotation matrix of solvepnp() was -26.4877
Next, I incremented only the x value of the first point(i.e 219.67473) by 0.1 to check the variation of the theta(x) euler angle (keeping the remaining points and the other parameters constant) and ran the solvepnp() again .For that very small change,I had values which were decreasing from -19 degree, -18 degree (for x coord = 223.074) then suddenly jump to 27 degree for a while (for x coord = 223.174 to 226.974) then come down to 1.3 degree (for x coord = 227.074).
I cannot understand this behaviour at all.Could somebody please explain?
My euler angle calculation from the rotation matrix uses this procedure.
Try Rodrigues() for conversion between rotation matrix and rotation vector to make sure everything is clean and right. Non RANSAC version can be very sensitive to outliers that create a huge error in the parameters and thus bias a solution. Using RANSAC version of solvePnP may make it more stable to outliers. For example, adding too much to one of the points coordinates will eventually make it an outlier and it won’t influence a solution after that.
If everything fails, write a series unit tests: create an artificial set of points in 3D (possibly non planar), apply a simple translation first, in second variant apply rotation only, and in a third test apply both. Project using your camera matrix and then plug in your 2D, 3D points and projection matrix into your code to find the pose. If the result deviates from the inverse of the translations and rotations your applied to the points look for the bug in feeding parameters to PnP.
It seems the coordinate systems are different.OpenCV uses right-hand coordinate-system Y-pointing downwards. At nghiaho.com it says the calculations are based on this and if you look at the axis they don't seem to match. I guess you are using Rodrigues for matrix computation? Try comparing rotation vectors as well.
In the Computer Vision System Toolbox for Matlab there are three types of interpolation methods used for Correct lens distortion.
Interpolation method for the function to use on the input image. The interp input interpolation method can be the string, 'nearest', 'linear', or 'cubic'.
My question is: what is the difference between 'nearest', 'linear', or 'cubic' ? and which one implemented in "Zhang" and "Heikkila, J, and O. Silven" methods.
I can't access the paged at the link you wrote in your question (it asks for a username and password) and so I assume your linked page has the same contents of the page http://www.mathworks.it/it/help/vision/ref/undistortimage.html which I quote here:
J = undistortImage(I,cameraParameters,interp) removes lens distortion from the input image, I and specifies the
interpolation method for the function to use on the input image.
Input Arguments
I — Input image
cameraParameters — Object for storing camera parameters
interp — Interpolation method
'linear' (default) | 'nearest' | 'cubic'
Interpolation method for the function to use on
the input image. The interp input interpolation method can be the
string, 'nearest', 'linear', or 'cubic'.
Furthermore, I assume you are referring to these papers:
ZHANG, Zhengyou. A flexible new technique for camera calibration. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 2000, 22.11: 1330-1334.
HEIKKILA, Janne; SILVEN, Olli. A four-step camera calibration procedure with implicit image correction. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1997. Proceedings., 1997 IEEE Computer Society Conference on. IEEE, 1997. p. 1106-1112.
I have searched for the word "interpolation" in the two pdf documents Zhang and Heikkila and Silven and I did not find any direct statement about the interpolation method they have used.
To my knowledge, in general, a camera calibration method is concerned on how to estimate the intrinsic, extrinsic and lens distortion parameters (all these parameters are inside the input argument cameraParameters of Matlab's undistortImage function); the interpolation method is part of a different problem, i.e. the problem of "Geometric Image Transformations".
I quote from the OpenCV's page Geometric Image Transformation (I have slightly modified the original omitting some details and adding some definitions, I assume you are working with grey level image):
The functions in this section perform various geometrical
transformations of 2D images. They do not change the image content but
deform the pixel grid and map this deformed grid to the destination
image. In fact, to avoid sampling artifacts, the mapping is done in
the reverse order, from destination to the source. That is, for each
pixel (x, y) of the destination image, the functions compute
coordinates of the corresponding “donor” pixel in the source image and
copy the pixel value:
dst(x,y) = src(f_x(x,y), f_y(x,y))
where
dst(x,y) is the grey value of the pixel located at row x and column y in the destination image
src(x,y) is the grey value of the pixel located at row x and column y in the source image
f_x is a function that maps the row x and the column y to a new row, it just uses coordinates and not the grey level.
f_y is a function that maps the row x and the column y to a new column, it just uses coordinates and not the grey level.
The actual implementations of the geometrical transformations, from
the most generic remap() and to the simplest and the fastest resize()
, need to solve two main problems with the above formula:
• Extrapolation of non-existing pixels. Similarly to the filtering
functions described in the previous section, for some (x,y) , either
one of f_x(x,y) , or f_y(x,y) , or both of them may fall outside of
the image. In this case, an extrapolation method needs to be used.
OpenCV provides the same selection of extrapolation methods as in the
filtering functions. In addition, it provides the method
BORDER_TRANSPARENT . This means that the corresponding pixels in the
destination image will not be modified at all.
• Interpolation of pixel
values. Usually f_x(x,y) and f_y(x,y) are floating-point numbers. This
means that <f_x, f_y> can be either an affine or
perspective transformation, or radial lens distortion correction, and
so on. So, a pixel value at fractional coordinates needs to be
retrieved. In the simplest case, the coordinates can be just rounded
to the nearest integer coordinates and the corresponding pixel can be
used. This is called a nearest-neighbor interpolation. However, a
better result can be achieved by using more sophisticated
interpolation methods, where a polynomial function is fit into some
neighborhood of the computed pixel (f_x(x,y), f_y(x,y)), and then the
value of the polynomial at (f_x(x,y), f_y(x,y)) is taken as the
interpolated pixel value. In OpenCV, you can choose between several
interpolation methods. See resize() for details.
For a "soft" introduction see also for example Cambridge in colour - DIGITAL IMAGE INTERPOLATION.
So let's say you need the grey level of pixel at x=20.2 y=14.7, since x and y are number with a fractional part different from zero you will need to "invent" (compute) the grey level in some way. In the simplest case ('nearest' interpolation) you just say that the grey level at (20.2,14.7) is the grey level you retrieve at (20,15), it is called "nearest" because 20 is the nearest integer value to 20.2 and 15 is the nearest integer value to 14.7.
In the (bi)'linear' interpolation you will compute the value at (20.2,14.7) with a combination of the grey levels of the four pixels at (20,14), (20,15), (21,14), (21,15); for the details on how to compute the combination see the Wikipedia page which has a numeric example.
The (bi)'cubic' interpolation considers the combination of sixteen pixels in order to compute the value at (20.2,14.7), see the Wikipedia page.
I suggest you to try all the three methods, with the same input image, and see the differences in the output image.
Interpolation method is actually independent of the camera calibration. Any time you apply a geometric transformation to an image, such as rotation, re-sizing, or distortion compensation, the pixels in the new image will correspond to points between the pixels of the old image. So you have to interpolate their values somehow.
'nearest' means you simply use the value of the nearest pixel.
'linear' means you use bi-linear interpolation. The new pixel's value is a weighted sum of the values of the neighboring pixels in the input image, where the weights are proportional to distances.
'cubic' means you use a bi-cubic interpolation, which is more complicated than bi-linear, but may give you a smoother image.
A good description of these interpolation methods is given in the documentation for the interp2 function.
And finally, just to clarify, the undistortImage function is in the Computer Vision System Toolbox.
I am developing an application where I am using SIFT + RANSAC and Homography to find an object (OpenCV C++,Java). The problem I am facing is that where there are many outliers RANSAC performs poorly.
For this reasons I would like to try what the author of SIFT said to be pretty good: voting.
I have read that we should vote in a 4 dimension feature space, where the 4 dimensions are:
Location [x, y] (someone says Traslation)
Scale
Orientation
While with opencv is easy to get the match scale and orientation with:
cv::Keypoints.octave
cv::Keypoints.angle
I am having hard time to understand how I can calculate the location.
I have found an interesting slide where with only one match we are able to draw a bounding box:
But I don't get how I could draw that bounding box with just one match. Any help?
You are looking for the largest set of matched features that fit a geometric transformation from image 1 to image 2. In this case, it is the similarity transformation, which has 4 parameters: translation (dx, dy), scale change ds, and rotation d_theta.
Let's say you have matched to features: f1 from image 1 and f2 from image 2. Let (x1,y1) be the location of f1 in image 1, let s1 be its scale, and let theta1 be it's orientation. Similarly you have (x2,y2), s2, and theta2 for f2.
The translation between two features is (dx,dy) = (x2-x1, y2-y1).
The scale change between two features is ds = s2 / s1.
The rotation between two features is d_theta = theta2 - theta1.
So, dx, dy, ds, and d_theta are the dimensions of your Hough space. Each bin corresponds to a similarity transformation.
Once you have performed Hough voting, and found the maximum bin, that bin gives you a transformation from image 1 to image 2. One thing you can do is take the bounding box of image 1 and transform it using that transformation: apply the corresponding translation, rotation and scaling to the corners of the image. Typically, you pack the parameters into a transformation matrix, and use homogeneous coordinates. This will give you the bounding box in image 2 corresponding to the object you've detected.
When using the Hough transform, you create a signature storing the displacement vectors of every feature from the template centroid (either (w/2,h/2) or with the help of central moments).
E.g. for 10 SIFT features found on the template, their relative positions according to template's centroid is a vector<{a,b}>. Now, let's search for this object in a query image: every SIFT feature found in the query image, matched with one of template's 10, casts a vote to its corresponding centroid.
votemap(feature.x - a*, feature.y - b*)+=1 where a,b corresponds to this particular feature vector.
If some of those features cast successfully at the same point (clustering is essential), you have found an object instance.
Signature and voting are reverse procedures. Let's assume V=(-20,-10). So during searching in the novel image, when the two matches are found, we detect their orientation and size and cast a respective vote. E.g. for the right box centroid will be V'=(+20*0.5*cos(-10),+10*0.5*sin(-10)) away from the SIFT feature because it is in half size and rotated by -10 degrees.
To complete Dima's , one needs to add that the 4D Hough space is quantized into a (possibly small) number of 4D boxes, where each box corresponds to the simiéarity given by its center.
Then, for each possible similarity obtained via a tentative matching of features, add 1 into the corresponding box (or cell) in the 4D space. The output similarity is given by the cell with the more votes.
In order to computethe transform from 1 match, just use Dima's formulas in his answer. For several pairs of matches, you may need to use some least squares fit.
Finally, the transform can be applied with the function cv::warpPerspective(), where the third line of the perspective matrix is set to [0,0,1].
I'm validating an image segmentation algorithm applied to 2D images. The algorithm generates a contour segment, i.e. a set of connected pixels that form a freecurve in 2D space. The idea is to compare this set of pixels with a ground-truth, in my case another contour segment manually traced by an expert. An image showing what would be a segmentation result and the corresponding manual (ground-truth) segmentation is shown below:
I'm trying to think of an adequate comparison metric to validate the segmentation results. Ideally the best metric would be the point-to-point euclidean distance between corresponding pairs of pixels on each segment, however (as seen in previous figure) the segments don't have the same length (i.e. differ by the total number of pixels) so pixel-to-pixel comparisons have to be discarded.
Can you suggest me an adequate metric for validating my algorithm? Thanks for any suggestion!
For each pixel in the ground truth, take the distance to the nearest pixel in the segmentation result. Then take the sum of that for all ground truth pixels as the total error.
That's basically recall weighted by distance. If you start with the pixels in the result, it would resemble precision instead.
If the curves are closed, you can compute the area between the curves. If you can tell which pixels belong to a segment, that is as easy as computing XOR set of the 2 pixel sets.
Here is an example using that I've created using Matlab:
You could divide each line into n segments of equal length, then compute the euclidean distance between each segment and its pair on the other line.