The following is in reference to dynamic 16-bit images in ImageJ64.
I am aiming to be able to "plot" a rate of change for each pixel in the image for the whole sequence of images (60 per set) and use the different gradient values of this plot as representation of the change in that pixel over time thus displaying dynamic data as a still image. Any ideas on where to start and any tools that may be of use?
There are many possible "rates of change", everything depends on particular application. Some of possible solutions include (assuming that pix is a set of a particular pixel's values across your images):
values amplitude max(pix)-min(pix)
values variance (or standard deviation) var(pix) (or std(pix))
more complex functions can be used, if you are interested in actual "visual effect change" rather then simple pixel value by for example computing variance of directional partial derivatives etc. As stated before - everything depends on your application, what kind of change are you interested in.
Related
In the docs for Kernel Routine Rules, it says 'A kernel routine computes an output pixel by using an inverse mapping back to the corresponding pixels of the input images. Although you can express most pixel computations this way—some more naturally than others—there are some image processing operations for which this is difficult, if not impossible. For example, computing a histogram is difficult to describe as an inverse mapping to the source image.'
However, apple obviously is doing it somehow because they do have a CIAreaHistogram Core Image Filter that does just that.
I can see one theoretical way to do it with the given limitations:
Lets say you wanted a 256 element red-channel histogram...
You have a 256x1 pixel output image. The kernel function gets called for each of those 256 pixels. The kernel function would have to read EVERY PIXEL IN THE ENTIRE IMAGE each time its called, checking if that pixel's red value matches that bucket and incrementing a counter. When its processed every pixel in the entire image for that output pixel, it divides by the total number of pixels and sets that output pixel value to that calculated value. The problem is, assuming it actually works, this is horribly inefficient, since every input pixel is accessed 256 times, although every output pixel is written only once.
What would be optimal would be a way for the kernel to iterate over every INPUT pixel, and let us update any of the output pixels based on that value. Then the input pixels would each be read only once, and the output pixels would be read and written a total of (input width)x(input height) times altogether.
Does anyone know of any way to get this kind of filter working? Obviously there's a filter available from apple for doing a histogram, but I need it for doing a more limited form of histogram. (For example, a blue histogram limited to samples that have a red value in a given range.)
The issue with this is that custom kernel code in Core Image works like a function which remaps pixel by pixel. You don't actually have a ton of information to go off of except for the pixel that you are currently computing. A custom core image filter sort of goes like this
for i in 1 ... image.width
for j in 1 ... image.height
New_Image[i][j] = CustomKernel(Current_Image[i][j])
end
end
So actually, it's not really plausible to make your own histogram via custom kernels, because you literally do not have any control over the new image other than in that CustomKernel function that has been made. This is actually one of the reasons that CIImageProcessor was created for iOS10, you probably would have an easier time making a histogram via that function(and also producing other cool affects via image processing), and I suggest checking out the WWDC 2016 video on it ( Raw images and live images session).
IIRC, if you really want to make a histogram, it is still possible, but you will have to work with the UIImage version, and then convert the resulting image to an RBG image for which you can do the counting, and storing them in bins. I would recommend Simon Gladman's book on this, as he has a chapter devoted to histograms, but there is a lot more that goes into the core image default version because they have MUCH more control over the image than we do using the framework.
Im using GPUImage in my project and I need an efficient way of taking the column sums. Naive way would obviously be retrieving the raw data and adding values of every column. Can anybody suggest a faster way for that?
One way to do this would be to use the approach I take with the GPUImageAverageColor class (as described in this answer), only instead of reducing the total size of each frame at each step, only do this for one dimension of the image.
The average color filter determines the average color of the overall image by stepping down in a factor of four in both X and Y, averaging 16 pixels into one at each step. If operating in a single direction, you should be able to use hardware interpolation to get an 18X reduction in a single direction per step with good performance. Your final step might either require a quick CPU-based iteration on the much smaller image or a tweaked version of this shader that pulls the last few pixels in a column together into the final result pixel for that column.
You notice that I've been talking about averaging here, because the output values for any OpenGL ES operation will need to be in terms of colors, which only have a 0-255 range per channel. A sum will easily overflow this, but you could use an average as an approximation of your sum, with a more limited dynamic range.
If you only care about one color channel, you could possibly encode a larger value into the RGBA channels and maintain a 32-bit sum that way.
Beyond what I describe above, you could look at performing this sum with the help of the Accelerate framework. While probably not quite as fast as doing a shader-based reduction, it might be good enough for your needs.
I'm using the EMGU OpenCV wrapper for c#. I've got a disparity map being created nicely. However for my specific application I only need the disparity values of very few pixels, and I need them in real time. The calculation is taking about 100 ms now, I imagine that by getting disparity for hundreds of pixel values rather than thousands things would speed up considerably. I don't know much about what's going on "under the hood" of the stereo solver code, is there a way to speed things up by only calculating the disparity for the pixels that I need?
First of all, you fail to mention what you are really trying to accomplish, and moreover, what algorithm you are using. E.g. StereoGC is a really slow (i.e. not real-time), but usually far more accurate) compared to both StereoSGBM and StereoBM. Those last two can be used real-time, providing a few conditions are met:
The size of the input images is reasonably small;
You are not using an extravagant set of parameters (for instance, a larger value for numberOfDisparities will increase computation time).
Don't expect miracles when it comes to accuracy though.
Apart from that, there is the issue of "just a few pixels". As far as I understand, the algorithms implemented in OpenCV usually rely on information from more than 1 pixel to determine the disparity value. E.g. it needs a neighborhood to detect which pixel from image A map to which pixel in image B. As a result, in general it is not possible to just discard every other pixel of the image (by the way, if you already know the locations in both images, you would not need the stereo methods at all). So unless you can discard a large border of your input images for which you know that you'll never find your pixels of interest there, I'd say the answer to this part of your question would be "no".
If you happen to know that your pixels of interest will always be within a certain rectangle of the input images, you can specify the input image ROIs (regions of interest) to this rectangle. Assuming OpenCV does not contain a bug here this should speedup the computation a little.
With a bit of googling you can to find real-time examples of finding stereo correspondences using EmguCV (or plain OpenCV) using the GPU on Youtube. Maybe this could help you.
Disclaimer: this may have been a more complete answer if your question contained more detail.
What are the ways in which to quantify the texture of a portion of an image? I'm trying to detect areas that are similar in texture in an image, sort of a measure of "how closely similar are they?"
So the question is what information about the image (edge, pixel value, gradient etc.) can be taken as containing its texture information.
Please note that this is not based on template matching.
Wikipedia didn't give much details on actually implementing any of the texture analyses.
Do you want to find two distinct areas in the image that looks the same (same texture) or match a texture in one image to another?
The second is harder due to different radiometry.
Here is a basic scheme of how to measure similarity of areas.
You write a function which as input gets an area in the image and calculates scalar value. Like average brightness. This scalar is called a feature
You write more such functions to obtain about 8 - 30 features. which form together a vector which encodes information about the area in the image
Calculate such vector to both areas that you want to compare
Define similarity function which takes two vectors and output how much they are alike.
You need to focus on steps 2 and 4.
Step 2.: Use the following features: std() of brightness, some kind of corner detector, entropy filter, histogram of edges orientation, histogram of FFT frequencies (x and y directions). Use color information if available.
Step 4. You can use cosine simmilarity, min-max or weighted cosine.
After you implement about 4-6 such features and a similarity function start to run tests. Look at the results and try to understand why or where it doesnt work. Then add a specific feature to cover that topic.
For example if you see that texture with big blobs is regarded as simmilar to texture with tiny blobs then add morphological filter calculated densitiy of objects with size > 20sq pixels.
Iterate the process of identifying problem-design specific feature about 5 times and you will start to get very good results.
I'd suggest to use wavelet analysis. Wavelets are localized in both time and frequency and give a better signal representation using multiresolution analysis than FT does.
Thre is a paper explaining a wavelete approach for texture description. There is also a comparison method.
You might need to slightly modify an algorithm to process images of arbitrary shape.
An interesting approach for this, is to use the Local Binary Patterns.
Here is an basic example and some explanations : http://hanzratech.in/2015/05/30/local-binary-patterns.html
See that method as one of the many different ways to get features from your pictures. It corresponds to the 2nd step of DanielHsH's method.
What is the efficient way to compare two images in visual c..?
Also in which format images has to be stored.(bmp, gif , jpeg.....)?
Please provide some suggestions
If the images you are trying to compare have distinctive characteristics that you are trying to differentiate then PCA is an excellent way to go. The question of what format of the file you need is irrelevant really; you need to load it into the program as an array of numbers and do analysis.
Your question opens a can of worms in terms of complexity.
If you want to compare two images to check if they are the same, then you need to perform an md5 on the file (removing possible metainfos which could distort your result).
If you want to compare if they look the same, then it's a completely different story altogether. "Look the same" is intended in a very loose meaning (e.g. they are exactly the same image but stored with two different file formats). For this, you need advanced algorithms, which will give you a probability for two images to be the same. Not being an expert in the field, I would perform the following "invented out of my head" algorithm:
take an arbitrary set of pixel points from the image.
for each pixel "grow" a polygon out of the surrounding pixels which are near in color (according to HSV colorspace)
do the same for the other image
for each polygon of one image, check the geometrical similitude with all the other polygons in the other image, and pick the highest value. Divide this value by the area of the polygon (to normalize).
create a vector out of the highest values obtained
the higher is the norm of this vector, the higher is the chance that the two images are the same.
This algorithm should be insensitive to color drift and image rotation. Maybe also scaling (you normalize against the area). But I restate: not an expert, there's probably much better, and it could make kittens cry.
I did something similar to detect movement from a MJPEG stream and record images only when movement occurs.
For each decoded image, I compared to the previous using the following method.
Resize the image to effectively thumbnail size (I resized fairly hi-res images down by a factor of ten
Compare the brightness of each pixel to the previous image and flag if it is much lighter or darker (threshold value 1)
Once you've done that for each pixel, you can use the count of different pixels to determine whether the image is the same or different (threshold value 2)
Then it was just a matter of tuning the two threshold values.
I did the comparisons using System.Drawing.Bitmap, but as my source images were jpg, there were some artifacting.
It's a nice simple way to compare images for differences if you're going to roll it yourself.
If you want to determine if 2 images are the same perceptually, I believe the best way to do it is using an Image Hashing algorithm. You'd compute the hash of both images and you'd be able to use the hashes to get a confidence rating of how much they match.
One that I've had some success with is pHash, though I don't know how easy it would be to use with Visual C. Searching for "Geometric Hashing" or "Image Hashing" might be helpful.
Testing for strict identity is simple: Just compare every pixel in source image A to the corresponding pixel value in image B. If all pixels are identical, the images are identical.
But I guess don't want this kind of strict identity. You probably want images to be "identical" even if certain transformations have been applied to image B. Examples for these transformations might be:
changing image brightness globally (for every pixel)
changing image brightness locally (for every pixel in a certain area)
changing image saturation golbally or locally
gamma correction
applying some kind of filter to the image (e.g. blurring, sharpening)
changing the size of the image
rotation
e.g. printing an image and scanning it again would probably include all of the above.
In a nutshell, you have to decide which transformations you want to treat as "identical" and then find image measures that are invariant to those transformations. (Alternatively, you could try to revert the translations, but that's not possible if the transformation removes information from the image, like e.g. blurring or clipping the image)