I am currently working on a project, where I need a huge amount of trajectories as the input data to test my algorithm. I have devised a draft the algorithm and now wish to do some rough testing on it before turning the draft into the final version. For this purpose, I need a lot of trajectories.
In this trial-and-error phase, due to the time limit, spending a lot of energy and time in collecting a huge bunch of trajectories is not a wise option. Therefore, I am trying to generate some trajectories to simulate first. Using computer to generate is easy, fast and cheap.
Obviously, a series of random points is NOT acceptable. The trajectories can be random but have to be reasonable. e.g. one cannot penetrate the walls or just randomly spin around.
Let's say I wish to generate the trajectories within this indoor map.
Some basic ideas that I have are as follows:
Random choose a point as the start point and another as the end point. These two points must be chosen among the reachable ones.
Generate a trajectory that does not penetrate the wall and roughly goes along the walls. In this case all the walls are either vertical or horizontal. So here the trajectories are all more or less straight.
I feel very reluctant to just manually "digitize" the .png map into the point representation. Doing that is very time consuming. Can I use some easy image processing techniques to "digitize" the map for my trajectory generation purpose?
Can I just somewhat extract the information, like expressing all the inaccessible areas as in terms of points, from the .png file? I know Python, by the way.
Related
Can you, please, suggest me ways of determining the distance between camera and a pixel in an image (in real world units, that is cm/m/..).
The information I have is: camera horizontal (120 degrees) and vertical (90 degrees) field of view, camera angle (-5 degrees) and the height at which the camera is placed (30 cm).
I'm not sure if this is everything I need. Please tell me what information should I have about the camera and how can I calculate the distance between camera and one pixel?
May be it isn't right to tell 'distance between camera and pixel ', but I guess it is clear what I mean. Please write in the comments if something isn't clear.
Thank you in advance!
What I think you mean is, "how can I calculate the depth at every pixel with a single camera?" Without adding some special hardware this is not feasible, as Rotem mentioned in the comments. There are exceptions, and though I expect you may be limited in time or budget, I'll list a few.
If you want to find depths so that your toy car can avoid collisions, then you needn't assume that depth measurement is required. Google "optical flow collision avoidance" and see if that meets your needs.
If instead you want to measure depth as part of some Simultaneous Mapping and Localization (SLAM) scheme, then that's a different problem to solve. Though difficult to implement, and perhaps not remotely feasible for a toy car project, there are a few ways to measure distance using a single camera:
Project patterns of light, preferably with one or more laser lines or laser spots, and determine depth based on how the dots diverge or converge. The Kinect version 1 operates on this principle of "structured light," though the implementation is much too complicated to reproduce completely. For a collision warning simple you can apply the same principles, only more simply. For example, if the projected light pattern on the right side of the image changes quickly, turn left! Learning how to estimate distance using structured light is a significant project to undertake, but there are plenty of references.
Split the optical path so that one camera sensor can see two different views of the world. I'm not aware of optical splitters for tiny cameras, but they may exist. But even if you find a splitter, the difficult problem of implementing stereovision remains. Stereovision has inherent problems (see below).
Use a different sensor, such as the somewhat iffy but small Intel R200, which will generate depth data. (http://click.intel.com/intel-realsense-developer-kit-r200.html)
Use a time-of-flight camera. These are the types of sensors built into the Kinect version 2 and several gesture-recognition sensors. Several companies have produced or are actively developing tiny time-of-flight sensors. They will generate depth data AND provide full-color images.
Run the car only in controlled environments.
The environment in which your toy car operates is important. If you can limit your toy car's environment to a tightly controlled one, you can limit the need to write complicated algorithms. As is true with many imaging problems, a narrowly defined problem may be straightforward to solve, whereas the general problem may be nearly impossible to solve. If you want your car to run "anywhere" (which likely isn't true), assume the problem is NOT solvable.
Even if you have an off-the-shelf depth sensor that represents the best technology available, you would still run into limitations:
Each type of depth sensing has weaknesses. No depth sensors on the market do well with dark, shiny surfaces. (Some spot sensors do okay with dark, shiny surfaces, but area sensors don't.) Stereo sensors have problems with large, featureless regions, and also require a lot of processing power. And so on.
Once you have a depth image, you still need to run calculations, and short of having a lot of onboard processing power this will be difficult to pull off on a toy car.
If you have to make many compromises to use depth sensing, then you might consider just using a simpler ultrasound sensor to avoid collisions.
Good luck!
Basically, I was weighing up some options for a software idea I had. The web app thing is a bit of a constraint on the project, so I'm assuming I would be writing this in js.
I need to create a drawable area for the user, which is okay, allow them to draw and then compare the input to a correct example. This is just an arrow, but the arrow can be double headed (normal point arrow) or single headed (half an arrowhead), so the minute details are fairly important, as is the location.
Now, I've read around for a few hours or so, and it seems to be that a good approach is to downsample the input so I am just comparing a couple of pixels. I am wondering though if there is a simpler way to achieve what I want here, and if there are good resources for learning what I feel is a very basic implementation of image recognition. Also having never implemented something like this, I'm a little worried about the little details of something like this, like speed; obviously feedback has to be fairly quick.
Thanks.
Use openCV. It already has the kind of use cases you want (location, style etc. of the image). There are many other open source libraries but not many as robust as this.
After that you have to decide all the possible images you want to make as the standard image, then get training examples for each of these standard images (each of these std images would be your one single class).
Now use the pixels as the features (openCV will do it for you with minimum help) and do your classification training. Not you have to provide these training images and have at least a good amount of training images for each class. Then use this trained classifier to classify the images that are drawn by your users. You can put GUI on top of it to adapt to your needs that you posted above.
I've been thinking of making a top-down 2D game with a pseudo-infinite runtime procedural generated world. I've read several articles about procedural generation and, maybe I've misread or misunderstood them, but I have yet to come across one explaining how to divide the world into chunks (like Minecraft apparently does).
Obviously, I need to generate only the part of the world that the player can currently see. If my game is tile-based, for example, I could divide the world into n*n chunks. If the player were at the border of such a chunk, I would also generate the adjacent chunk(s).
What I can't figure out is how exactly do I take a procedural world generation algorithm and only use it on one chunk at a time. For example, if I have an algorithm that generates a big structure (e.g. castle, forest, river) that would spread across many chunks, how can I adjust it to generate only one chunk, and afterwards the adjacent chunks?
I apologize if I completely missed something obvious. Thank you in advance!
Study the Midpoint displacement algorithm. Note that the points all along one side are based on the starting values of the corners. You can calculate them without knowing the rest of the grid.
I used this approach to generate terrain. I needed the edges of each 'chunk' of terrain to line up with the adjacent chunks. Using a variation of the Midpoint displacement algorithm I made it so that the height of each point along the edge of a chunk was calculated based only on values at the two corners. If I needed to add randomness, I seeded a random number generator with data from the two corners. This way, any two adjacent chunks could be generated independently and the edges were sure to match.
You can use approaches for height-maps for other things. Instead of height, the data could determine vegetation type, population density, etc. Instead of a chunks of height map where the hills and valleys match up you can have a vegetation map where the forests match up.
It certainly takes some creative programming for any kind of complex world.
I have a simple photograph that may or may not include a logo image. I'm trying to identify whether a picture includes the logo shape or not. The logo (rectangular shape with a few extra features) could be of various sizes and could have multiple occurrences. I'd like to use Computer Vision techniques to identify the location of these logo occurrences. Can someone point me in the right direction (algorithm, technique?) that can be used to achieve this goal?
I'm quite a novice to Computer Vision so any direction would be very appreciative.
Thanks!
Practical issues
Since you need a scale-invariant method (that's the proper jargon for "could be of various sizes") SIFT (as mentioned in Logo recognition in images, thanks overrider!) is a good first choice, it's very popular these days and is worth a try. You can find here some code to download. If you cannot use Matlab, you should probably go with OpenCV. Even if you end up discarding SIFT for some reason, trying to make it work will teach you a few important things about object recognition.
General description and lingo
This section is mostly here to introduce you to a few important buzzwords, by describing a broad class of object detection methods, so that you can go and look these things up. Important: there are many other methods that do not fall in this class. We'll call this class "feature-based detection".
So first you go and find features in your image. These are characteristic points of the image (corners and line crossings are good examples) that have a lot of invariances: whatever reasonable processing you do to to your image (scaling, rotation, brightness change, adding a bit of noise, etc) it will not change the fact that there is a corner in a certain point. "Pixel value" or "vertical lines" are bad features. Sometimes a feature will include some numbers (e.g. the prominence of a corner) in addition to a position.
Then you do some clean-up, like remove features that are not strong enough.
Then you go to your database. That's something you've built in advance, usually by taking several nice and clean images of whatever you are trying to find, running you feature detection on them, cleaning things up, and arrange them in some data structure for your next stage —
Look-up. You have to take a bunch of features form your image and try to match them against your database: do they correspond to an object you are looking for? This is pretty non-trivial, since on the face of it you have to consider all subsets of the bunch of features you've found, which is exponential. So there are all kinds of smart hashing techniques to do it, like Hough transform and Geometric hashing.
Now you should do some verification. You have found some places in the image which are suspect: it's probable that they contain your object. Usually, you know what is the presumed size, orientation, and position of your object, and you can use something simple (like a convolution) to check if it's really there.
You end up with a bunch of probabilities, basically: for a few locations, how probable it is that your object is there. Here you do some outlier detection. If you expect only 1-2 occurrences of your object, you'll look for the largest probabilities that stand out, and take only these points. If you expect many occurrences (like face detection on a photo of a bunch of people), you'll look for very low probabilities and discard them.
That's it, you are done!
Algorithm for a drawing and painting robot -
Hello
I want to write a piece of software which analyses an image, and then produces an image which captures what a human eye perceives in the original image, using a minimum of bezier path objects of varying of colour and opacity.
Unlike the recent twitter super compression contest (see: stackoverflow.com/questions/891643/twitter-image-encoding-challenge), my goal is not to create a replica which is faithful to the image, but instead to replicate the human experience of looking at the image.
As an example, if the original image shows a red balloon in the top left corner, and the reproduction has something that looks like a red balloon in the top left corner then I will have achieved my goal, even if the balloon in the reproduction is not quite in the same position and not quite the same size or colour.
When I say "as perceived by a human", I mean this in a very limited sense. i am not attempting to analyse the meaning of an image, I don't need to know what an image is of, i am only interested in the key visual features a human eye would notice, to the extent that this can be automated by an algorithm which has no capacity to conceptualise what it is actually observing.
Why this unusual criteria of human perception over photographic accuracy?
This software would be used to drive a drawing and painting robot, which will be collaborating with a human artist (see: video.google.com/videosearch?q=mr%20squiggle).
Rather than treating marks made by the human which are not photographically perfect as necessarily being mistakes, The algorithm should seek to incorporate what is already on the canvas into the final image.
So relative brightness, hue, saturation, size and position are much more important than being photographically identical to the original. The maintaining the topology of the features, block of colour, gradients, convex and concave curve will be more important the exact size shape and colour of those features
Still with me?
My problem is that I suffering a little from the "when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail" syndrome. To me it seems the way to do this is using a genetic algorithm with something like the comparison of wavelet transforms (see: grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/query/) used by retrievr (see: labs.systemone.at/retrievr/) to select fit solutions.
But the main reason I see this as the answer, is that these are these are the techniques I know, there are probably much more elegant solutions using techniques I don't now anything about.
It would be especially interesting to take into account the ways the human vision system analyses an image, so perhaps special attention needs to be paid to straight lines, and angles, high contrast borders and large blocks of similar colours.
Do you have any suggestions for things I should read on vision, image algorithms, genetic algorithms or similar projects?
Thank you
Mat
PS. Some of the spelling above may appear wrong to you and your spellcheck. It's just international spelling variations which may differ from the standard in your country: e.g. Australian standard: colour vs American standard: color
There is an model that can implemented as an algorithm to calculate a saliency map for an image, determining which parts of the image would get the most attention from a human.
The model is called itti koch model
You can find a startin paper here
And more resources and c++ sourcecode here
I cannot answer your question directly, but you should really take a look at artist/programmer (Lisp) Harold Cohen's painting machine Aaron.
That's quite a big task. You might be interested in image vectorizing (don't know what it's called officially), which is used to take in rasterized images (such as pictures you take with a camera) and outputs a set of bezier lines (i think) that approximate the image you put in. Since good algorithms often output very high quality (read: complex) line sets you'd also be interested in simplification algorithms which can help enormously.
Unfortunately I am not next to my library, or I could reccomend a number of books on perceptual psychology.
The first thing you must consider is the physiology of the human eye is such that when we examine an image or scene, we are only capturing very small bits at a time, as our eyes dart around rapidly. Our mind peices the different parts together to try and form a whole.
You might start by finding an algorithm for the path of an eyeball as it darts around. Perhaps it is attracted to contrast?
Next is that our eyes adjust the "exposure" depending on the context. It's like those high dynamic range images, if they were peiced together not by multiple exposures of a whole scene, but by many small images, each balanced on its own, but blended into its surroundings to form a high dynamic range.
Now there was a finding in a monkey brain that there is a single neuron that lights up if there's a diagonal line in the upper left of its field of vision. Similar neurons can be found for vertical lines, and horizontal lines in various areas of that monkey's field of vision. The "diagonalness" determines the frequency with which that neuron fires.
one might speculated that other neurons might be found and mapped to other qualities such as redness, or texturedness, and other things.
There's something humans can do that I've not seen a computer program ever able to do. it's something called "closure", where a human is able to fill in information about something that they are seeing, that doesn't actually exist in the image. an example:
*
* *
is that a triangle? If you knew that it was in advance, then you could probably make a program to connect the dots. But what if it's just dots? How can you know? I wouldn't attempt this one unless I had some really clever way of dealing with that one.
There are many other facts about human perception you might be able to use. Good luck, you've not picked a straightforward task.
i think a thing that could help you in this enormous task is human involvement. i mean data. like you could have many people sitting staring at random dots (like from the previous post) and connect them as they see right. you could harness that data.