I am trying to find contour of a image, before that I am applying Canny's edge detector.
It's giving different result for different images.For one image it's giving perfect contours at threshold value - min-40 max-240 and for other image its 30-120.
I want to make it generic.
In laymen terms, edge detection needs a threshold to tell what difference/change should be counted as edge. For details read here.
So, the edges depend on the the content of image ie the level of brightness/darkness/contrast.
I suggest you to simply find the mean of whole gray image and take threshold as follows:
min_threshold = 0.66 * mean
max_threshold = 1.33 * mean
I have tested it and it gives impressive result. You can use median instead of mean, with almost same result. Another alternative is to first equalize the image and then try threshold of your choice/experimental.
But again again strongly recommend to try mean method. In case of any query, write here.
Happy Coding :)
Related
How to use free scaling parameter (alpha) when dealing with getOptimalNewCameraMatrix and stereoRectify : should one use the same value ?
As far as I understand it, I guess a few things that led me to this question are worth to be listed:
In getOptimalNewCameraMatrix, OpenCV doc says "alpha Free scaling parameter between 0 (when all the pixels in the undistorted image are valid) and 1 (when all the source image pixels are retained in the undistorted image)" [sounds to me like 1 = retain source pixels = minimize loss]
In stereoRectify, OpenCV doc says "alpha Free scaling parameter.... alpha=0 means that ... (no black areas after rectification). alpha=1 means that ... (no source image pixels are lost)
So in the end alpha, seems to be a parameter that may "act" the same way ? (1 = no source pixel lost - sounds like, not sure here)
As far as I understand it, after calibrateCamera, one may want to call getOptimalNewCameraMatrix (computing new matrices as outputs) and then stereoRectify (using new computed matrices as inputs) : do one want to use the same alpha?
Are these 2 alphas the same? Or does one want to use 2 different alphas?
The alphas are the same.
The choice of value depends entirely on the application. Ask yourself:
Does the application need to see all the input pixels to do its job (because, for example, it must use all the "extra" FOV near the image edges, or because you know that the scene's subject that's of interest to the application may be near the edges and you can't lose even a pixel of it)?
Yes: choose alpha=1
No: choose a value of alpha that keeps the "interesting" portion of
the image predictably inside the undistorted image.
In the latter case (again, depending on the application) you may need to compute the boundary of the undistorted image within the input one. This is just a poly-curve, that can be be approximated by a polygon to any level of accuracy you need, down to the pixel. Or you can use a mask.
I'm trying to extract the geometries of the papers in the image below, but I'm having some trouble with grabbing the contours. I don't know which threshold algorithm to use (here I used static threshold = 10, which is probably not ideal.
And as you can see, I can get the correct number of images, but I can't get the proper bounds using this method.
Simply applying Otsu just doesn't work, it doesn't capture the geometries.
I assume I need to apply some edge detection, but I'm not sure what to do once I apply Canny or some other.
I also tried sobel in both directions (+ve and -ve in x and y), but unsure how to extract these contours from there.
How do I grab these contours?
Below is some previews of the images in the process of the final convex hull results.
**Original Image** **Sharpened**
**Dilate,Sharpen,Erode,Sharpen** **Convex Of Approximated Polygons Hulls (which doesn't fully capture desired regions)**
Sorry in advance about the horrible formatting, I have no idea how to make images smaller or title them nicely in SOF
Given an image (Like the one given below) I need to convert it into a binary image (black and white pixels only). This sounds easy enough, and I have tried with two thresholding functions. The problem is I cant get the perfect edges using either of these functions. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
The filters I have tried are, the Euclidean distance in the RGB and HSV spaces.
Sample image:
Here it is after running an RGB threshold filter. (40% it more artefects after this)
Here it is after running an HSV threshold filter. (at 30% the paths become barely visible but clearly unusable because of the noise)
The code I am using is pretty straightforward. Change the input image to appropriate color spaces and check the Euclidean distance with the the black color.
sqrt(R*R + G*G + B*B)
since I am comparing with black (0, 0, 0)
Your problem appears to be the variation in lighting over the scanned image which suggests that a locally adaptive thresholding method would give you better results.
The Sauvola method calculates the value of a binarized pixel based on the mean and standard deviation of pixels in a window of the original image. This means that if an area of the image is generally darker (or lighter) the threshold will be adjusted for that area and (likely) give you fewer dark splotches or washed-out lines in the binarized image.
http://www.mediateam.oulu.fi/publications/pdf/24.p
I also found a method by Shafait et al. that implements the Sauvola method with greater time efficiency. The drawback is that you have to compute two integral images of the original, one at 8 bits per pixel and the other potentially at 64 bits per pixel, which might present a problem with memory constraints.
http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~shafait/papers/Shafait-efficient-binarization-SPIE08.pdf
I haven't tried either of these methods, but they do look promising. I found Java implementations of both with a cursory Google search.
Running an adaptive threshold over the V channel in the HSV color space should produce brilliant results. Best results would come with higher than 11x11 size window, don't forget to choose a negative value for the threshold.
Adaptive thresholding basically is:
if (Pixel value + constant > Average pixel value in the window around the pixel )
Pixel_Binary = 1;
else
Pixel_Binary = 0;
Due to the noise and the illumination variation you may need an adaptive local thresholding, thanks to Beaker for his answer too.
Therefore, I tried the following steps:
Convert it to grayscale.
Do the mean or the median local thresholding, I used 10 for the window size and 10 for the intercept constant and got this image (smaller values might also work):
Please refer to : http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/adpthrsh.htm if you need more
information on this techniques.
To make sure the thresholding was working fine, I skeletonized it to see if there is a line break. This skeleton may be the one needed for further processing.
To get ride of the remaining noise you can just find the longest connected component in the skeletonized image.
Thank you.
You probably want to do this as a three-step operation.
use leveling, not just thresholding: Take the input and scale the intensities (gamma correct) with parameters that simply dull the mid tones, without removing the darks or the lights (your rgb threshold is too strong, for instance. you lost some of your lines).
edge-detect the resulting image using a small kernel convolution (5x5 for binary images should be more than enough). Use a simple [1 2 3 2 1 ; 2 3 4 3 2 ; 3 4 5 4 3 ; 2 3 4 3 2 ; 1 2 3 2 1] kernel (normalised)
threshold the resulting image. You should now have a much better binary image.
You could try a black top-hat transform. This involves substracting the Image from the closing of the Image. I used a structural element window size of 11 and a constant threshold of 0.1 (25.5 on for a 255 scale)
You should get something like:
Which you can then easily threshold:
Best of luck.
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.