Context:
I have the RGB-D video from a Kinect, which is aimed straight down at a table. There is a library of around 12 objects I need to identify, alone or several at a time. I have been working with SURF extraction and detection from the RGB image, preprocessing by downscaling to 320x240, grayscale, stretching the contrast and balancing the histogram before applying SURF. I built a lasso tool to choose among detected keypoints in a still of the video image. Then those keypoints are used to build object descriptors which are used to identify objects in the live video feed.
Problem:
SURF examples show successful identification of objects with a decent amount of text-like feature detail eg. logos and patterns. The objects I need to identify are relatively plain but have distinctive geometry. The SURF features found in my stills are sometimes consistent but mostly unimportant surface features. For instance, say I have a wooden cube. SURF detects a few bits of grain on one face, then fails on other faces. I need to detect (something like) that there are four corners at equal distances and right angles. None of my objects has much of a pattern but all have distinctive symmetric geometry and color. Think cellphone, lollipop, knife, bowling pin. My thought was that I could build object descriptors for each significantly different-looking orientation of the object, eg. two descriptors for a bowling pin: one standing up and one laying down. For a cellphone, one laying on the front and one on the back. My recognizer needs rotational invariance and some degree of scale invariance in case objects are stacked. Ability to deal with some occlusion is preferable (SURF behaves well enough) but not the most important characteristic. Skew invariance would be preferable and SURF does well with paper printouts of my objects held by hand at a skew.
Questions:
Am I using the wrong SURF parameters to find features at the wrong scale? Is there a better algorithm for this kind of object identification? Is there something as readily usable as SURF that uses the depth data from the Kinect along with or instead of the RGB data?
I was doing something similar for a project, and ended up using a super simple method for object recognition, which was using OpenCV blob detection, and recognizing objects based on their areas. Obviously, there needs to be enough variance for this method to work.
You can see my results here: http://portfolio.jackkalish.com/Secondhand-Stories
I know there are other methods out there, one possible solution for you could be approxPolyDP, which is described here:
How to detect simple geometric shapes using OpenCV
Would love to hear about your progress on this!
Related
I am working on a hand detection project. There are many good project on web to do this, but what I need is a specific hand pose detection. It needs a totally open palm and the whole palm face to outwards, like the image below:
The first hand faces to inwards, so it will not be detected, and the right one faces to outwards, it will be detected. Now I can detect hand with OpenCV. but how to tell the hand orientation?
Problem of matching with the forehand belongs to the texture classification, it's a classic pattern recognition problem. I suggest you to try one of the following methods:
Gabor filters: it is good to detect the orientation and pixel intensities (as forehand has different features), opencv has getGaborKernel function, the very important params of this function is theta (orientation) and lambd: (frequencies). To make it simple you can apply this process on a cropped zone of palm (as you have already detected it, it would be easy to crop for example the thumb, or a rectangular zone around the gravity center..etc). Then you can convolute it with a small database of images of the same zone to get the a rate of matching, or you can use the SVM classifier, where you have to train your SVM on a set of images by constructing the training matrix needed for SVM (check this question), this paper
Local Binary Patterns (LBP): it's an important feature descriptor used for texture matching, you can apply it on whole palm image or on a cropped zone or finger of image, it's easy to use in opencv, a lot of tutorials with codes are available for this method. I recommend you to read this paper talking about Invariant Texture Classification
with Local Binary Patterns. here is a good tutorial
Haralick Texture: I've read that it works perfectly when a set of features quantifies the entire image (Global Feature Descriptors). it's not implemented in opencv but easy to be implemented, check this useful tutorial
Training Models: I've already suggested a SVM classifier, to be coupled with some descriptor, that can works perfectly.
Opencv has an interesting FaceRecognizer class for face recognition, it could be an interesting idea to use it replacing the face images by the palm ones, (do resizing and rotation to get an unique pose of palm), this class has three methods can be used, one of them is Local Binary Patterns Histograms, which is recommended for texture recognition. and why not to try the other models (Eigenfaces and Fisherfaces ) , check this tutorial
well if you go for a MacGyver way you can notice that the left hand has bones sticking out in a certain direction, while the right hand has all finger lines and a few lines in the hand palms.
These lines are always sort of the same, so you could try to detect them with opencv edge detection or hough lines. Due to the dark color of the lines, you might even be able to threshold them out of it. Then gather the information from those lines, like angles, regressions, see which features you can collect and train a simple decision tree.
That was assuming you do not have enough data, if you have then you go into deeplearning, just take a basic inceptionV3 model and retrain the last dense layer to classify between two classes with a softmax, or to predict the probablity if the hand being up/down with sigmoid. Check this link, Tensorflow got your back on the training of this one, pure already ready code to execute.
Questions? Ask away
Take a look at what leap frog has done with the oculus rift. I'm not sure what they're using internally to segment hand poses, but there is another paper that produces hand poses effectively. If you have a stereo camera setup, you can use this paper's methods: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.07214.pdf.
The only promising solutions I've seen for mono camera train on large datasets.
use Haar-Cascade classifier,
you can get the classifier model file then use it here.
Just search for 'Haarcascade detection of Palm in Google' or use below code.
import cv2
cam=cv2.VideoCapture(0)
ccfr2=cv2.CascadeClassifier('haar-cascade-files-master/palm.xml')
while True:
retval,image=cam.read()
grey=cv2.cvtColor(image,cv2.COLOR_BGR2GRAY)
palm=ccfr2.detectMultiScale(grey,scaleFactor=1.05,minNeighbors=3)
for x,y,w,h in palm:
image=cv2.rectangle(image,(x,y),(x+w,y+h),(256,256,256),2)
cv2.imshow("Window",image)
if cv2.waitKey(1) & 0xFF==ord('q'):
cv2.destroyAllWindows()
break
del(cam)
Best of Luck for your experience using HaarCascade.
Information:
I would like to use OpenCV's HOG detection to identify objects that can be seen in a variety of orientations. The only problem is, I can't seem to find a reasonable feature detector or classifier to detect this in a rotation and scale invaraint way (as is needed by objects such as forearms).
Prior Work:
Lets focus on forearms for this discussion. A forearm can have multiple orientations, the primary distinct features probably being its contour edges. It is possible to have images of forearms that are pointing in any direction in an image, thus the complexity. So far I have done some in depth research on using HOG descriptors to solve this problem, but I am finding that the variety of poses produced by forearms in my positives training set is producing very low detection scores in actual images. I suspect the issue is that the gradients produced by each positive image do not produce very consistent results when saved into the Histogram. I have reviewed many research papers on the topic trying to resolve or improvie this, including the original from Dalal & Triggs [Link]: http://lear.inrialpes.fr/people/triggs/pubs/Dalal-cvpr05.pdf It also seems that the assumptions made for detecting whole humans do not necessary apply to detecting individual features (particularly the assumption that all humans are standing up seems to suggest HOG is not a good route for rotation invariant detection like that of forearms).
Note:
If possible, I would like to steer clear of any non-free solutions such as those pertaining to Sift, Surf, or Haar.
Question:
What is a good solution to detecting rotation and scale invariant objects in an image? Particularly for this example, what would be a good solution to detecting all orientations of forearms in an image?
I use hog to detect human heads and shoulders. To train particular part you have to give the location of it. If you use opencv, you can clip samples containing only the training part you want, and make sure all training samples share the same size. For example, I clip images to contain only head and shoulder and resize all them to 64x64. Other opensource codes may require you to pass the location as the input parameter, essentially the same.
Are you trying the Discriminatively trained deformable part model ?http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~rbg/latent/
you may find answers there.
I am trying to do object recognition using algorithms such as SURF, FERN, FREAK in opencv 2.4.2.
I am using the programs from opencv samples without modifications - find_obj.cpp, find_obj_ferns.cpp, freak_demo.cpp
I tried changing the parameters for the algorithms which didn't help.
I have my training images, test images and the result of FREAK recognition here
As you can see the result is pretty bad.
No feature descriptors is detected for one of the training image - image here
Feature descriptors are detected outside the object boundary for the other - image here
I have a few questions:
Why does these algorithms work with grayscale images ? It is apparent that for my above training images, the object can be detected easily if RGB is included. Is there any technique that takes this into account.
Is there any other way to improve performance. I tried fiddling with feature parameters which didn't work well.
First thing i observed in your image is, object is plane and no texture differences are there...I mean all the feature detectors you used are for finding corners which are view invariant, it means those are the keypoints in an image which are having unique neighborhood and good magnitude of x and y derivatives. I have uploaded my analysis...see the figures
How to know what I am saying is correct?
Just go to the descriptor values of a keypoint you find over your object and see the values, you will see most of them are zeros...Because a descriptor is the description of variation of the edges around a corner point in a specific direction (see surf documentation for more details).
The object you are trying to detect is looking like a mobile phone, so you just reverse the object or mobile and repeat the experiment and you will surely get good results...Because on front side generally objects have more texture like switches, logos etc..
Here is a result I uploaded,
If I take a picture with a camera, so I know the distance from the camera to the object, such as a scale model of a house, I would like to turn this into a 3D model that I can maneuver around so I can comment on different parts of the house.
If I sit down and think about taking more than one picture, labeling direction, and distance, I should be able to figure out how to do this, but, I thought I would ask if someone has some paper that may help explain more.
What language you explain in doesn't matter, as I am looking for the best approach.
Right now I am considering showing the house, then the user can put in some assistance for height, such as distance from the camera to the top of that part of the model, and given enough of this it would be possible to start calculating heights for the rest, especially if there is a top-down image, then pictures from angles on the four sides, to calculate relative heights.
Then I expect that parts will also need to differ in color to help separate out the various parts of the model.
As mentioned, the problem is very hard and is often also referred to as multi-view object reconstruction. It is usually approached by solving the stereo-view reconstruction problem for each pair of consecutive images.
Performing stereo reconstruction requires that pairs of images are taken that have a good amount of visible overlap of physical points. You need to find corresponding points such that you can then use triangulation to find the 3D co-ordinates of the points.
Epipolar geometry
Stereo reconstruction is usually done by first calibrating your camera setup so you can rectify your images using the theory of epipolar geometry. This simplifies finding corresponding points as well as the final triangulation calculations.
If you have:
the intrinsic camera parameters (requiring camera calibration),
the camera's position and rotation (it's extrinsic parameters), and
8 or more physical points with matching known positions in two photos (when using the eight-point algorithm)
you can calculate the fundamental and essential matrices using only matrix theory and use these to rectify your images. This requires some theory about co-ordinate projections with homogeneous co-ordinates and also knowledge of the pinhole camera model and camera matrix.
If you want a method that doesn't need the camera parameters and works for unknown camera set-ups you should probably look into methods for uncalibrated stereo reconstruction.
Correspondence problem
Finding corresponding points is the tricky part that requires you to look for points of the same brightness or colour, or to use texture patterns or some other features to identify the same points in pairs of images. Techniques for this either work locally by looking for a best match in a small region around each point, or globally by considering the image as a whole.
If you already have the fundamental matrix, it will allow you to rectify the images such that corresponding points in two images will be constrained to a line (in theory). This helps you to use faster local techniques.
There is currently still no ideal technique to solve the correspondence problem, but possible approaches could fall in these categories:
Manual selection: have a person hand-select matching points.
Custom markers: place markers or use specific patterns/colours that you can easily identify.
Sum of squared differences: take a region around a point and find the closest whole matching region in the other image.
Graph cuts: a global optimisation technique based on optimisation using graph theory.
For specific implementations you can use Google Scholar to search through the current literature. Here is one highly cited paper comparing various techniques:
A Taxonomy and Evaluation of Dense Two-Frame Stereo Correspondence Algorithms.
Multi-view reconstruction
Once you have the corresponding points, you can then use epipolar geometry theory for the triangulation calculations to find the 3D co-ordinates of the points.
This whole stereo reconstruction would then be repeated for each pair of consecutive images (implying that you need an order to the images or at least knowledge of which images have many overlapping points). For each pair you would calculate a different fundamental matrix.
Of course, due to noise or inaccuracies at each of these steps you might want to consider how to solve the problem in a more global manner. For instance, if you have a series of images that are taken around an object and form a loop, this provides extra constraints that can be used to improve the accuracy of earlier steps using something like bundle adjustment.
As you can see, both stereo and multi-view reconstruction are far from solved problems and are still actively researched. The less you want to do in an automated manner the more well-defined the problem becomes, but even in these cases quite a bit of theory is required to get started.
Alternatives
If it's within the constraints of what you want to do, I would recommend considering dedicated hardware sensors (such as the XBox's Kinect) instead of only using normal cameras. These sensors use structured light, time-of-flight or some other range imaging technique to generate a depth image which they can also combine with colour data from their own cameras. They practically solve the single-view reconstruction problem for you and often include libraries and tools for stitching/combining multiple views.
Epipolar geometry references
My knowledge is actually quite thin on most of the theory, so the best I can do is to further provide you with some references that are hopefully useful (in order of relevance):
I found a PDF chapter on Multiple View Geometry that contains most of the critical theory. In fact the textbook Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision should also be quite useful (sample chapters available here).
Here's a page describing a project on uncalibrated stereo reconstruction that seems to include some source code that could be useful. They find matching points in an automated manner using one of many feature detection techniques. If you want this part of the process to be automated as well, then SIFT feature detection is commonly considered to be an excellent non-real-time technique (since it's quite slow).
A paper about Scene Reconstruction from Multiple Uncalibrated Views.
A slideshow on Methods for 3D Reconstruction from Multiple Images (it has some more references below it's slides towards the end).
A paper comparing different multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms can be found here. It limits itself to algorithms that "reconstruct dense object models from calibrated views".
Here's a paper that goes into lots of detail for the case that you have stereo cameras that take multiple images: Towards robust metric reconstruction
via a dynamic uncalibrated stereo head. They then find methods to self-calibrate the cameras.
I'm not sure how helpful all of this is, but hopefully it includes enough useful terminology and references to find further resources.
Research has made significant progress and these days it is possible to obtain pretty good-looking 3D shapes from 2D images. For instance, in our recent research work titled "Synthesizing 3D Shapes via Modeling Multi-View Depth Maps and Silhouettes With Deep Generative Networks" took a big step in solving the problem of obtaining 3D shapes from 2D images. In our work, we show that you can not only go from 2D to 3D directly and get a good, approximate 3D reconstruction but you can also learn a distribution of 3D shapes in an efficient manner and generate/synthesize 3D shapes. Below is an image of our work showing that we are able to do 3D reconstruction even from a single silhouette or depth map (on the left). The ground-truth 3D shapes are shown on the right.
The approach we took has some contributions related to cognitive science or the way the brain works: the model we built shares parameters for all shape categories instead of being specific to only one category. Also, it obtains consistent representations and takes the uncertainty of the input view into account when producing a 3D shape as output. Therefore, it is able to naturally give meaningful results even for very ambiguous inputs. If you look at the citation to our paper you can see even more progress just in terms of going from 2D images to 3D shapes.
This problem is known as Photogrammetry.
Google will supply you with endless references, just be aware that if you want to roll your own, it's a very hard problem.
Check out The Deadalus Project, althought that website does not contain a gallery with illustrative information about the solution, it post several papers and info about the working method.
I watched a lecture from one of the main researchers of the project (Roger Hubbold), and the image results are quite amazing! Althought is a complex and long problem. It has a lot of tricky details to take into account to get an approximation of the 3d data, take for example the 3d information from wall surfaces, for which the heuristic to work is as follows: Take a photo with normal illumination of the scene, and then retake the picture in same position with full flash active, then substract both images and divide the result by a pre-taken flash calibration image, apply a box filter to this new result and then post-process to estimate depth values, the whole process is explained in detail in this paper (which is also posted/referenced in the project website)
Google Sketchup (free) has a photo matching tool that allows you to take a photograph and match its perspective for easy modeling.
EDIT: It appears that you're interested in developing your own solution. I thought you were trying to obtain a 3D model of an image in a single instance. If this answer isn't helpful, I apologize.
Hope this helps if you are trying to construct 3d volume from 2d stack of images !! You can use open source tool such as ImageJ Fiji which comes with 3d viewer plugin..
https://quppler.com/creating-a-classifier-using-image-j-fiji-for-3d-volume-data-preparation-from-stack-of-images/
what approach would you recommend for finding obstacles in a 2D image?
Here are some key points I came up with till now:
I doubt I can use object recognition based on "database of obstacles" search, since I don't know what might the obstruction look like.
I assume color recognition might be problematic if the path does not differ a lot from the object itself.
Possibly, adding one more camera and computing a 3D image (like a Kinect does) would work, but that would not run as smooth as I require.
To illustrate the problem; robot can ride either left or right side of the pavement. In the following picture, left side is the correct choice:
If you know what the path looks like, this is largely a classification problem. Acquire a bunch of images of path at different distances, illumination, etc. and manually label the ground in each image. Use this labeled data to train a classifier that classifies each pixel as either "road" or "not road." Depending upon the texture of the road, this could be as simple as classifying each pixels' RGB (or HSV) values or using OpenCv's built-in histogram back-projection (i.e. cv::CalcBackProjectPatch()).
I suggest beginning with manual thresholds, moving to histogram-based matching, and only using a full-fledged machine learning classifier (such as a Naive Bayes Classifier or a SVM) if the simpler techniques fail. Once the entire image is classified, all pixels that are identified as "not road" are obstacles. By classifying the road instead of the obstacles, we completely avoided building a "database of objects".
Somewhat out of the scope of the question, the easiest solution is to add additional sensors ("throw more hardware at the problem!") and directly measure the three-dimensional position of obstacles. In order of preference:
Microsoft Kinect: Cheap, easy, and effective. Due to ambient IR light, it only works indoors.
Scanning Laser Rangefinder: Extremely accurate, easy to setup, and works outside. Also very expensive (~$1200-10,000 depending upon maximum range and sample rate).
Stereo Camera: Not as good as a Kinect, but it works outside. If you cannot afford a pre-made stereo camera (~$1800), you can make a decent custom stereo camera using USB webcams.
Note that professional stereo vision cameras can be very fast by using custom hardware (Stereo On-Chip, STOC). Software-based stereo is also reasonably fast (10-20 Hz) on a modern computer.