I would like to locate a car (front center point x,y) using a high resolution single camera. The camera setup is fixed at 1-2m high, and tilted around 25 degrees. The camera can provide images in where the front side of the car is visible. The intrinsic and extrinsic parameters are known.
So far, I tried to detect the headlights and number plates. Issues... Headlights are not detected as blobs all the time. The shape of the headlights are changing depending on the distance. Also, the number plate is not visible in the dark.
Is there a robust algorithm to detect a car? or to detect headlights? or detect number plate?How could I proceed?
Thanks in advance,
Are you detecting the same car everytime? If yes, then presumably the appearance remains consistent. Rather than detect and recognise blobs and shapes, you may be better off using scale and rotation invariant features combined with a machine learning algorithm. Look into the SIFT and SURF feature descriptors. For easy experimentation, use OpenCV's implementation of feature description and matching. Take a look at this example.
This is not an easy problem because of the change in the scale and point of view. Ideally, you would need a collection of training images with the car seen from different points of view to match later some of them to your input image. Then, you need local features (SIFT, SURF) or some classifier to decide on the match.
On the other hand, if you are tracking the same car all the time, check out the MeanShift algorithm. The problem is you need an initial position to carry on with the tracking.
Related
I had asked this on photo stackexchange but thought it might be relevant here as well, since I want to implement this programatically in my implementation.
I am trying to implement a blur detection algorithm for my imaging pipeline. The blur that I want to detect is both -
1) Camera Shake: Pictures captured using hand which moves/shakes when shutter speed is less.
2) Lens focussing errors - (Depth of Field) issues, like focussing on a incorrect object causing some blur.
3) Motion blur: Fast moving objects in the scene, captured using a not high enough shutter speed. E.g. A moving car a night might show a trail of its headlight/tail light in the image as a blur.
How can one detect this blur and quantify it in some way to make some decision based on that computed 'blur metric'?
What is the theory behind blur detection?
I am looking of good reading material using which I can implement some algorithm for this in C/Matlab.
thank you.
-AD.
Motion blur and camera shake are kind of the same thing when you think about the cause: relative motion of the camera and the object. You mention slow shutter speed -- it is a culprit in both cases.
Focus misses are subjective as they depend on the intent on the photographer. Without knowing what the photographer wanted to focus on, it's impossible to achieve this. And even if you do know what you wanted to focus on, it still wouldn't be trivial.
With that dose of realism aside, let me reassure you that blur detection is actually a very active research field, and there are already a few metrics that you can try out on your images. Here are some that I've used recently:
Edge width. Basically, perform edge detection on your image (using Canny or otherwise) and then measure the width of the edges. Blurry images will have wider edges that are more spread out. Sharper images will have thinner edges. Google for "A no-reference perceptual blur metric" by Marziliano -- it's a famous paper that describes this approach well enough for a full implementation. If you're dealing with motion blur, then the edges will be blurred (wide) in the direction of the motion.
Presence of fine detail. Have a look at my answer to this question (the edited part).
Frequency domain approaches. Taking the histogram of the DCT coefficients of the image (assuming you're working with JPEG) would give you an idea of how much fine detail the image has. This is how you grab the DCT coefficients from a JPEG file directly. If the count for the non-DC terms is low, it is likely that the image is blurry. This is the simplest way -- there are more sophisticated approaches in the frequency domain.
There are more, but I feel that that should be enough to get you started. If you require further info on either of those points, fire up Google Scholar and look around. In particular, check out the references of Marziliano's paper to get an idea about what has been tried in the past.
There is a great paper called : "analysis of focus measure operators for shape-from-focus" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234073157_Analysis_of_focus_measure_operators_in_shape-from-focus) , which does a comparison about 30 different techniques.
Out of all the different techniques, the "Laplacian" based methods seem to have the best performance. Most image processing programs like : MATLAB or OPENCV have already implemented this method . Below is an example using OpenCV : http://www.pyimagesearch.com/2015/09/07/blur-detection-with-opencv/
One important point to note here is that an image can have some blurry areas and some sharp areas. For example, if an image contains portrait photography, the image in the foreground is sharp whereas the background is blurry. In sports photography, the object in focus is sharp and the background usually has motion blur. One way to detect such a spatially varying blur in an image is to run a frequency domain analysis at every location in the image. One of the papers which addresses this topic is "Spatially-Varying Blur Detection Based on Multiscale Fused and Sorted Transform Coefficients of Gradient Magnitudes" (cvpr2017).
the authors look at multi resolution DCT coefficients at every pixel. These DCT coefficients are divided into low, medium, and high frequency bands, out of which only the high frequency coefficients are selected.
The DCT coefficients are then fused together and sorted to form the multiscale-fused and sorted high-frequency transform coefficients
A subset of these coefficients are selected. the number of selected coefficients is a tunable parameter which is application specific.
The selected subset of coefficients are then sent through a max pooling block to retain the highest activation within all the scales. This gives the blur map as the output, which is then sent through a post processing step to refine the map.
This blur map can be used to quantify the sharpness in various regions of the image. In order to get a single global metric to quantify the bluriness of the entire image, the mean of this blur map or the histogram of this blur map can be used
Here are some examples results on how the algorithm performs:
The sharp regions in the image have a high intensity in the blur_map, whereas blurry regions have a low intensity.
The github link to the project is: https://github.com/Utkarsh-Deshmukh/Spatially-Varying-Blur-Detection-python
The python implementation of this algorithm can be found on pypi which can easily be installed as shown below:
pip install blur_detector
A sample code snippet to generate the blur map is as follows:
import blur_detector
import cv2
if __name__ == '__main__':
img = cv2.imread('image_name', 0)
blur_map = blur_detector.detectBlur(img, downsampling_factor=4, num_scales=4, scale_start=2, num_iterations_RF_filter=3)
cv2.imshow('ori_img', img)
cv2.imshow('blur_map', blur_map)
cv2.waitKey(0)
For detecting blurry images, you can tweak the approach and add "Region of Interest estimation".
In this github link: https://github.com/Utkarsh-Deshmukh/Blurry-Image-Detector , I have used local entropy filters to estimate a region of interest. In this ROI, I then use DCT coefficients as feature extractors and train a simple multi-layer perceptron. On testing this approach on 20000 images in the "BSD-B" dataset (http://cg.postech.ac.kr/research/realblur/) I got an average accuracy of 94%
Just to add on the focussing errors, these may be detected by comparing the psf of the captured blurry images (wider) with reference ones (sharper). Deconvolution techniques may help correcting them but leaving artificial errors (shadows, rippling, ...). A light field camera can help refocusing to any depth planes since it captures the angular information besides the traditional spatial ones of the scene.
I have a photocamera mounted vertically under water in a tank, looking downwards.
There is a flat grid on the bottom of the tank (approx 2m away from the camera).
I want to be able to place markers on the bottom, and use computer vision to know their real life exact position.
So, I need to map from pixels to mm.
If I am not mistaken, cv::calibrateCamera(...) does just this, but is dependent on moving a pattern in front of the camera.
I have just static pictures of the scene, and the camera never moves in relation to the grid. Thus, I have only a "single" image to find the parameters.
How can I do this using the grid?
Thank you.
Interesting problem! The "cute" part is the effect on the intrinsic parameters of the refraction at the water-glass interface, namely to increase the focal length (or, conversely, to reduce the field of view) compared to the same lens in air. In theory, you could calibrate in air and then correct for the difference in refraction index, but calibrating directly in water is likely to give you more accurate results.
Do know your accuracy requirements? And have you verified that your lens/sensor combination is adequate to meet them (with an adequate margin)? To answer the question you need to estimate (either by calculation from the lens and sensor specifications, or experimentally using a resolution chart) whether you can resolve in an image the minimal distances required by your application.
From the wording of your question I think that you are interested only in measurements on a single plane. So you only need to (a) remove the nonlinear (barrel or pincushion) lens distortion and (b) estimate the homography between the plane of interest and the image. Once you have the latter, you can directly convert from undistorted image coordinates to world ones by matrix multiplication. Additionally if (as I imagine) the plane of interest is roughly parallel to the image plane, you should not have any problem keeping the entire field-of-view in focus.
Of course, for all of this to work as expected, you should make sure that the tank bottom is really flat, within the measurement tolerances of your application. Otherwise you are really dealing with a 3D problem, and need to modify your procedures accordingly.
The actual procedure depends a lot on the size of the tank, which you don't indicate clearly. If it's small enough that it is practical to manufacture a chessboard-like movable calibration target, by all means go for it. You may want to take a look at this other answer for suggestions. In the following I'll discuss the more interesting case in which your tank is large, e.g. the size of a swimming pool.
I'd proceed by sticking calibration markers in a regular grid at the pool bottom. I'd probably choose checker-like markers like these, maybe printing them myself with a good laser printer on plastic with an adhesive backing (assuming you can leave them in place forever). You should plan on having quite a few of them, say, an 8x8 or 10x10 grid, covering as much as possible of the field of view of the camera in its operating position and pose. To help with lining up the grid nicely you might use a laser line projector of suitable fan angle, or a laser pointer attached to a rotating support. Note carefully that it is not necessary that they be affixed in a precise X-Y grid (which may be complicated, depending on the size of your pool), only that their positions with respect any arbitrarily chosen (but fixed) three of them be known. In other words, you can attach them to the bottom approximately in a grid, then measure the distances of three extreme corners from each other as accurately as you can, thus building a base triangle, then measure the distances of all the other corners from the vertices of the triangle, and finally reconstruct their true positions with a bit of trigonometry. It's basically a surveying problem and, depending on your accuracy requirements and budget, you may want to enroll a local friendly professional surveyor (and their tools) to get it done as precisely as necessary.
Once you have your grid, you can fill the pool, get your camera, focus and f-stop the lens as needed for the application. From now on you may not touch the focus and f-stop ever again, under penalty of miscalibrating - exposure can only be controlled by the exposure time, so make sure to have enough light. Disable any and all auto-focus and auto-iris functions, if any. If the camera has a non-rigid lens mount (e.g. a DLSR), you'll need some kind of mechanical rig to ensure that the lens-body pair stay rigid. F-stop as close as you can, given the available lighting and sensor, so to have a fair bit of depth of field available. Then take several photos (~ 10) of the grid, moving and rotating the camera, and going a bit closer and farther away than your expected operating distance from the plane. You'll want to "see" in some images some significant perspective foreshortening of the grid - this is needed to accurately calibrate the focal length. Avoid JPG and any other lossy compression format when storing the images - use lossless PNG or TIFF.
Once you have the images, you can manually mark and identify the checker markers in the images. For a once-off project like this I would not bother with automatic identification, just do it manually (e.g. in Matlab, or even in Photoshop or Gimp). To help identify the markers, you could, e.g. print a number next to them. Once you have the manual marks, you can refine them automatically to subpixel accuracy, e.g. using cv::findCornerSubpix.
You're almost done. Feed the "reference" measured position of the real corners, and the observed ones in all images, to your favorite camera calibration routine, e.g. cv::calibrateCamera. You use the nominal focal length of the camera (converted to pixels) for an initial estimate, along with null distortion. If all goes well, you will obtain the camera intrinsic parameters, which you will keep, and the camera poses at all images, which you'll throw away.
Now you can mount the camera in your final setup, as needed by your application, and take one further image of the grid. Mark and refine the corner positions as before. Undistort their image positions using the distortion parameters returned by the calibration. Finally compute the homography between the reference positions of the real markers (in meters) and their undistorted positions, and you're done.
HTH
To calibrate the camera you do need multiple images of the checkerboard (or one of the other patterns found here). What you can do, is calibrate the camera outside of the water or do a calibration sequence once.
Once you have that information (focal length, center of lens, distortion, etc). You can use the solvePNP function to estimate the orientation of a single board. This estimation provides you with a distance from the camera to the board.
A completely different alternative could be to find what kind of lens the camera uses and manually fill in the data. I've not tried this, so I'm uncertain how well this would work.
I've been working on a project for some time, to detect and track (moving) vehicles in video captured from UAV's, currently I am using an SVM trained on bag-of-feature representations of local features extracted from vehicle and background images. I am then using a sliding window detection approach to try and localise vehicles in the images, which I would then like to track. The problem is that this approach is far to slow and my detector isn't as reliable as I would like so I'm getting quite a few false positives.
So I have been considering attempting to segment the cars from the background to find the approximate position so to reduce the search space before applying my classifier, but I am not sure how to go about this, and was hoping someone could help?
Additionally, I have been reading about motion segmentation with layers, using optical flow to segment the frame by flow model, does anyone have any experience with this method, if so could you offer some input to as whether you think this method would be applicable for my problem.
Below is two frames from a sample video
frame 0:
frame 5:
Assumimg your cars are moving, you could try to estimate the ground plane (road).
You may get a descent ground plane estimate by extracting features (SURF rather than SIFT, for speed), matching them over frame pairs, and solving for a homography using RANSAC, since plane in 3d moves according to a homography between two camera frames.
Once you have your ground plane you can identify the cars by looking at clusters of pixels that don't move according to the estimated homography.
A more sophisticated approach would be to do Structure from Motion on the terrain. This only presupposes that it is rigid, and not that it it planar.
Update
I was wondering if you could expand on how you would go about looking for clusters of pixels that don't move according to the estimated homography?
Sure. Say I and K are two video frames and H is the homography mapping features in I to features in K. First you warp I onto K according to H, i.e. you compute the warped image Iw as Iw( [x y]' )=I( inv(H)[x y]' ) (roughly Matlab notation). Then you look at the squared or absolute difference image Diff=(Iw-K)*(Iw-K). Image content that moves according to the homography H should give small differences (assuming constant illumination and exposure between the images). Image content that violates H such as moving cars should stand out.
For clustering high-error pixel groups in Diff I would start with simple thresholding ("every pixel difference in Diff larger than X is relevant", maybe using an adaptive threshold). The thresholded image can be cleaned up with morphological operations (dilation, erosion) and clustered with connected components. This may be too simplistic, but its easy to implement for a first try, and it should be fast. For something more fancy look at Clustering in Wikipedia. A 2D Gaussian Mixture Model may be interesting; when you initialize it with the detection result from the previous frame it should be pretty fast.
I did a little experiment with the two frames you provided, and I have to say I am somewhat surprised myself how well it works. :-) Left image: Difference (color coded) between the two frames you posted. Right image: Difference between the frames after matching them with a homography. The remaining differences clearly are the moving cars, and they are sufficiently strong for simple thresholding.
Thinking of the approach you currently use, it may be intersting combining it with my proposal:
You could try to learn and classify the cars in the difference image D instead of the original image. This would amount to learning what a car motion pattern looks like rather than what a car looks like, which could be more reliable.
You could get rid of the expensive window search and run the classifier only on regions of D with sufficiently high value.
Some additional remarks:
In theory, the cars should even stand out if they are not moving since they are not flat, but given your distance to the scene and camera resolution this effect may be too subtle.
You can replace the feature extraction / matching part of my proposal with Optical Flow, if you like. This amounts to identifying flow vectors that "stick out" from a consistent frame-to-frame motion of the ground. It may be prone to outliers in the optical flow, however. You can also try to get the homography from the flow vectors.
This is important: Regardless of which method you use, once you have found cars in one frame you should use this information to robustify your search of these cars in consecutive frame, giving a higher likelyhood to detections close to the old ones (Kalman filter, etc). That's what tracking is all about!
If the number of cars in your field of view always remain the same but move around then you can use optical flow...it will give you good results against a still background...if the number of cars are changing then you need to call goodFeaturestoTrack function in OpenCV after certain number of frames and again track the cars using optical flow.
You can use background modelling to model the background and hence the cars are always your foreground.The simplest example is frame differentiation...subtract the previous frame current frame. diff(x,y,k) = I(x,y,k) - I(x,y,k-1) .As your cars are moving in each frame you will get their position..
Both the process will work fine since you have a still background I presume..check this link to find what Optical flow can do.
I had asked this on photo stackexchange but thought it might be relevant here as well, since I want to implement this programatically in my implementation.
I am trying to implement a blur detection algorithm for my imaging pipeline. The blur that I want to detect is both -
1) Camera Shake: Pictures captured using hand which moves/shakes when shutter speed is less.
2) Lens focussing errors - (Depth of Field) issues, like focussing on a incorrect object causing some blur.
3) Motion blur: Fast moving objects in the scene, captured using a not high enough shutter speed. E.g. A moving car a night might show a trail of its headlight/tail light in the image as a blur.
How can one detect this blur and quantify it in some way to make some decision based on that computed 'blur metric'?
What is the theory behind blur detection?
I am looking of good reading material using which I can implement some algorithm for this in C/Matlab.
thank you.
-AD.
Motion blur and camera shake are kind of the same thing when you think about the cause: relative motion of the camera and the object. You mention slow shutter speed -- it is a culprit in both cases.
Focus misses are subjective as they depend on the intent on the photographer. Without knowing what the photographer wanted to focus on, it's impossible to achieve this. And even if you do know what you wanted to focus on, it still wouldn't be trivial.
With that dose of realism aside, let me reassure you that blur detection is actually a very active research field, and there are already a few metrics that you can try out on your images. Here are some that I've used recently:
Edge width. Basically, perform edge detection on your image (using Canny or otherwise) and then measure the width of the edges. Blurry images will have wider edges that are more spread out. Sharper images will have thinner edges. Google for "A no-reference perceptual blur metric" by Marziliano -- it's a famous paper that describes this approach well enough for a full implementation. If you're dealing with motion blur, then the edges will be blurred (wide) in the direction of the motion.
Presence of fine detail. Have a look at my answer to this question (the edited part).
Frequency domain approaches. Taking the histogram of the DCT coefficients of the image (assuming you're working with JPEG) would give you an idea of how much fine detail the image has. This is how you grab the DCT coefficients from a JPEG file directly. If the count for the non-DC terms is low, it is likely that the image is blurry. This is the simplest way -- there are more sophisticated approaches in the frequency domain.
There are more, but I feel that that should be enough to get you started. If you require further info on either of those points, fire up Google Scholar and look around. In particular, check out the references of Marziliano's paper to get an idea about what has been tried in the past.
There is a great paper called : "analysis of focus measure operators for shape-from-focus" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234073157_Analysis_of_focus_measure_operators_in_shape-from-focus) , which does a comparison about 30 different techniques.
Out of all the different techniques, the "Laplacian" based methods seem to have the best performance. Most image processing programs like : MATLAB or OPENCV have already implemented this method . Below is an example using OpenCV : http://www.pyimagesearch.com/2015/09/07/blur-detection-with-opencv/
One important point to note here is that an image can have some blurry areas and some sharp areas. For example, if an image contains portrait photography, the image in the foreground is sharp whereas the background is blurry. In sports photography, the object in focus is sharp and the background usually has motion blur. One way to detect such a spatially varying blur in an image is to run a frequency domain analysis at every location in the image. One of the papers which addresses this topic is "Spatially-Varying Blur Detection Based on Multiscale Fused and Sorted Transform Coefficients of Gradient Magnitudes" (cvpr2017).
the authors look at multi resolution DCT coefficients at every pixel. These DCT coefficients are divided into low, medium, and high frequency bands, out of which only the high frequency coefficients are selected.
The DCT coefficients are then fused together and sorted to form the multiscale-fused and sorted high-frequency transform coefficients
A subset of these coefficients are selected. the number of selected coefficients is a tunable parameter which is application specific.
The selected subset of coefficients are then sent through a max pooling block to retain the highest activation within all the scales. This gives the blur map as the output, which is then sent through a post processing step to refine the map.
This blur map can be used to quantify the sharpness in various regions of the image. In order to get a single global metric to quantify the bluriness of the entire image, the mean of this blur map or the histogram of this blur map can be used
Here are some examples results on how the algorithm performs:
The sharp regions in the image have a high intensity in the blur_map, whereas blurry regions have a low intensity.
The github link to the project is: https://github.com/Utkarsh-Deshmukh/Spatially-Varying-Blur-Detection-python
The python implementation of this algorithm can be found on pypi which can easily be installed as shown below:
pip install blur_detector
A sample code snippet to generate the blur map is as follows:
import blur_detector
import cv2
if __name__ == '__main__':
img = cv2.imread('image_name', 0)
blur_map = blur_detector.detectBlur(img, downsampling_factor=4, num_scales=4, scale_start=2, num_iterations_RF_filter=3)
cv2.imshow('ori_img', img)
cv2.imshow('blur_map', blur_map)
cv2.waitKey(0)
For detecting blurry images, you can tweak the approach and add "Region of Interest estimation".
In this github link: https://github.com/Utkarsh-Deshmukh/Blurry-Image-Detector , I have used local entropy filters to estimate a region of interest. In this ROI, I then use DCT coefficients as feature extractors and train a simple multi-layer perceptron. On testing this approach on 20000 images in the "BSD-B" dataset (http://cg.postech.ac.kr/research/realblur/) I got an average accuracy of 94%
Just to add on the focussing errors, these may be detected by comparing the psf of the captured blurry images (wider) with reference ones (sharper). Deconvolution techniques may help correcting them but leaving artificial errors (shadows, rippling, ...). A light field camera can help refocusing to any depth planes since it captures the angular information besides the traditional spatial ones of the scene.
I am currently helping a friend working on a geo-physical project, I'm not by any means a image processing pro, but its fun to play
around with these kinds of problems. =)
The aim is to estimate the height of small rocks sticking out of water, from surface to top.
The experimental equipment will be a ~10MP camera mounted on a distance meter with a built in laser pointer.
The "operator" will point this at a rock, press a trigger which will register a distance along of a photo of the rock, which
will be in the center of the image.
The eqipment can be assumed to always be held at a fixed distance above the water.
As I see it there are a number of problems to overcome:
Lighting conditions
Depending on the time of day etc., the rock might be brighter then the water or opposite.
Sometimes the rock will have a color very close to the water.
The position of the shade will move throughout the day.
Depending on how rough the water is, there might sometimes be a reflection of the rock in the water.
Diversity
The rock is not evenly shaped.
Depending on the rock type, growth of lichen etc., changes the look of the rock.
Fortunateness, there is no shortage of test data. Pictures of rocks in water is easy to come by. Here are some sample images:
I've run a edge detector on the images, and esp. in the fourth picture the poor contrast makes it hard to see the edges:
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!
I don't think that edge detection is best approach to detect the rocks. Other objects, like the mountains or even the reflections in the water will result in edges.
I suggest that you try a pixel classification approach to segment the rocks from the background of the image:
For each pixel in the image, extract a set of image descriptors from a NxN neighborhood centered at that pixel.
Select a set of images and manually label the pixels as rock or background.
Use the labeled pixels and the respective image descriptors to train a classifier (eg. a Naive Bayes classifier)
Since the rocks tends to have similar texture, I would use texture image descriptors to train the classifier. You could try, for example, to extract a few statistical measures from each color chanel (R,G,B) like the mean and standard deviation of the intensity values.
Pixel classification might work here, but will never yield a 100% accuracy. The variance in the data is really big, rocks have different colours (which are also "corrupted" with lighting) and different texture. So, one must account for global information as well.
The problem you deal with is foreground extraction. There are two approaches I am aware of.
Energy minimization via graph cuts, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GrabCut (there are links to the paper and OpenCV implementation). Some initialization ("seeds") should be done (either by a user or by some prior knowledge like the rock is in the center while water is on the periphery). Another variant of input is an approximate bounding rectangle. It is implemented in MS Office 2010 foreground extraction tool.
The energy function of possible foreground/background labellings enforces foreground to be similar to the foreground seeds, and a smooth boundary. So, the minimum of the energy corresponds to the good foreground mask. Note that with pixel classification approach one should pre-label a lot of images to learn from, then segmentation is done automatically, while with this approach one should select seeds on each query image (or they are chosen implicitly).
Active contours a.k.a. snakes also requre some user interaction. They are more like Photoshop Magic Wand tool. They also try to find a smooth boundary, but do not consider the inner area.
Both methods might have problems with the reflections (pixel classification will definitely have). If it is the case, you may try to find an approximate vertical symmetry, and delete the lower part, if any. You can also ask a user to mark the reflaction as a background while collecting stats for graph cuts.
Color segmentation to find the rock, together with edge detection to find the top.
To find the water level I would try and find all the water-rock boundaries, and the horizon (if possible) then fit a plane to the surface of the water.
That way you don't need to worry about reflections of the rock.
Easier if you know the pitch angle between the camera and the water and if the camera is is leveled horizontally (roll).
ps. This is a lot harder than I thought - you don't know the distance to all the rocks so fitting a plane is difficult.
It occurs that the reflection is actually the ideal way of finding the level, look for symetric path edges in the rock edge detection and pick the vertex?