Suppose I have calculated gradient (of a grayscale image).
Gradient is a difference between neighboring pixels in X and Y directions.
Can I calculate image back, having this gradient information?
Can I filter gradient data somehow so that reverse operation give some reasonable results?
Gradient is the difference between the color of two neighboring pixels. To get back the image you need one piece of information: the initial color of the boundary pixels.
Like in math, a derivation can be reversed by integration as far as a constant term is involved. Or, if you have d = a - b you can get back a only if you also know b.
Without the boundary values you can still recover the image but not at the same saturation & contrast. There will be a constant term missing from the entire image.
Example
Consider an image which has only 3 pixels: 42, 142, 100. The gradient will be 0, 100, -42 (computing it as the difference between the current pixel and the previous one). To get back the initial image we assume that the first pixel had been 0 and then do addition instead of subtraction: the recovered image will be 0, 100, (100-42). As you see, adding 42 to all of them will give us back the initial image.
Integrating the gradient field is a routine operation is Shape from Shading and Photometric Stereo, where the surface normals are obtained and then integrated. To ensure you get a reasonable result you have to enforce the integrability constraint. There are several papers on this subject. You can try this one titled An Algebraic Approach to Surface Reconstruction from Gradient Fields. The author provides MATLAB code.
Yes, there is. As stated in Mihai's answer, it is basically integration.
A well-known work for this task is Poisson Image Editing by Pérez et al. You should have a look at the pixtures in the paper, maybe try to implement it (it is a classical assignment in Image Processing courses).
Related
The image below has many circles. Click and zoom in to see the circles.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ox3kiRX5hf2tHDptWfgcbMTAHKCDizSI
What I want is counting the circles using any free language, such as python.
Is there a function or idea to do it?
Edit: I came up with a better solution, partially inspired by this answer below. I thought of this method originally (as noted in the OP comments) but I decided against it. The original image was just not good enough quality for it. However I improved that method and it works brilliantly for the better quality image. The original approach is first, and then the new approach at the bottom.
First approach
So here's a general approach that seems to work well, but definitely just gives estimates. This assumes that circles are roughly the same size.
First, the image is mostly blue---so it seems reasonable to just do the analysis on the blue channel. Thresholding the blue channel, in this case, using Otsu thresholding (which determines an optimal threshold value without input) seems to work very well. This isn't too much of a surprise since the distribution of color values is pretty much binary. Check the mask that results from it!
Then, do a connected component analysis on the mask to get the area of each component (component = white blob in the mask). The statistics returned from connectedComponentsWithStats() give (among other things) the area, which is exactly what we need. Then we can simply count the circles by estimating how many circles fit in a given component based on its area. Also note that I'm taking the statistics for every label except the first one: this is the background label 0, and not any of the white blobs.
Now, how large in area is a single circle? It would be best to let the data tell us. So you could compute a histogram of all the areas, and since there are more single circles than anything else, there will be a high concentration around 250-270 pixels or so for the area. Or you could just take an average of all the areas between something like 50 and 350 which should also get you in a similar ballpark.
Really in this histogram you can see the demarcations between single circles, double circles, triple, and so on quite easily. Only the larger components will give pretty rough estimates. And in fact, the area doesn't seem to scale exactly linearly. Blobs of two circles are slightly larger than two single circles, and blobs of three are larger still than three single circles, and so on, so this makes it a little difficult to estimate nicely, but rounding should still keep us close. If you want you could include a small multiplication parameter that increases as the area increases to account for that, but that would be hard to quantify without going through the histogram analytically...so, I didn't worry about this.
A single circle area divided by the average single circle area should be close to 1. And the area of a 5-circle group divided by the average circle area should be close to 5. And this also means that small insignificant components, that are 1 or 10 or even 100 pixels in area, will not count towards the total since round(50/avg_circle_size) < 1/2, so those will round down to a count of 0. Thus I should just be able to take all the component areas, divide them by the average circle size, round, and get to a decent estimate by summing them all up.
import cv2
import numpy as np
img = cv2.imread('circles.png')
mask = cv2.threshold(img[:, :, 0], 255, 255, cv2.THRESH_BINARY_INV + cv2.THRESH_OTSU)[1]
stats = cv2.connectedComponentsWithStats(mask, 8)[2]
label_area = stats[1:, cv2.CC_STAT_AREA]
min_area, max_area = 50, 350 # min/max for a single circle
singular_mask = (min_area < label_area) & (label_area <= max_area)
circle_area = np.mean(label_area[singular_mask])
n_circles = int(np.sum(np.round(label_area / circle_area)))
print('Total circles:', n_circles)
This code is simple and effective for rough counts.
However, there are definitely some assumptions here about the groups of circles compared to a normal circle size, and there are issues where circles that are at the boundaries will not be counted correctly (these aren't well defined---a two circle blob that is half cut off will look more like one circle---no clear way to count or not count these with this method). Further I just used automatic thresholding via Otsu here; you could get (probably better) results with more careful color filtering. Additionally in the mask generated by Otsu, some circles that are masked have a few pixels removed from their center. Morphology could add these pixels back in, which would give you a (slightly larger) more accurate area for the single circle components. Either way, I just wanted to give the general idea towards how you could easily estimate this with minimal code.
New approach
Before, the goal was to count circles. This new approach instead counts the centers of the circles. The general idea is you threshold and then flood fill from a background pixel to fill in the background (flood fill works like the paint bucket tool in photo editing apps), that way you only see the centers, as shown in this answer below.
However, this relies on global thresholding, which isn't robust to local lighting changes. This means that since some centers are brighter/darker than others, you won't always get good results with a single threshold.
Here I've created an animation to show looping through different threshold values; watch as some centers appear and disappear at different times, meaning you get different counts depending on the threshold you choose (this is just a small patch of the image, it happens everywhere):
Notice that the first blob to appear in the top left actually disappears as the threshold increases. However, if we actually OR each frame together, then each detected pixel persists:
But now every single speck appears, so we should clean up the mask each frame so that we remove single pixels as they come (otherwise they may build up and be hard to remove later). Simple morphological opening with a small kernel will remove them:
Applied over the whole image, this method works incredibly well and finds almost every single cell. There are only three false positives (detected blob that's not a center) and two misses I can spot, and the code is very simple. The final thing to do after the mask has been created is simply count the components, minus one for the background. The only user input required here is a single point to flood fill from that is in the background (seed_pt in the code).
img = cv2.imread('circles.png', 0)
seed_pt = (25, 25)
fill_color = 0
mask = np.zeros_like(img)
kernel = cv2.getStructuringElement(cv2.MORPH_RECT, (3, 3))
for th in range(60, 120):
prev_mask = mask.copy()
mask = cv2.threshold(img, th, 255, cv2.THRESH_BINARY)[1]
mask = cv2.floodFill(mask, None, seed_pt, fill_color)[1]
mask = cv2.bitwise_or(mask, prev_mask)
mask = cv2.morphologyEx(mask, cv2.MORPH_OPEN, kernel)
n_centers = cv2.connectedComponents(mask)[0] - 1
print('There are %d cells in the image.'%n_centers)
There are 874 cells in the image.
One possible solution would be to read the image using OpenCV, get its grayscale, then use Canny edge detection and perform countour finding in OpenCV. This will return a list of countours. It would look something like:
import cv2
image = cv2.imread('path-to-your-image')
gray = cv2.cvtColor(image, cv2.COLOR_BGR2GRAY)
# tweak the parameters of the GaussianBlur for best performance
blurred = cv2.GaussianBlur(gray, (7, 7), 0)
# again, try different values here
edged = cv2.Canny(blurred, 20, 140)
(_, contours, _) = cv2.findContours(edged.copy(), cv2.RETR_EXTERNAL, cv2.CHAIN_APPROX_SIMPLE)
print(len(contours))
If you have all images like this - consider thresholding it, not necessarily by auto threshold-seeking algorithm like Otsu, but rather using simplest threshold by a given threshold value. Yes, before thresholding you have to convert your color input to gray-scale, or take one of color channels. Then based on few experiments with channels and threshold values - determine threshold value to have circles with holes in monochrome thresholding result. Based on your png image I found value of 81 (intensity of gray varies from 0 to 255) to be great to threshold gray-scale version of your input to have such binary image with holes in place, as described above.
Then simply count those holes.
Holes can be determined by seed-filling white area, connected to image border. As result you will have white hole connected components on black background - so simply count them.
More details you can find here http://www.leptonica.com/filling.html and use leptonica primitives to do thresholding, hole counting an so on.
I am looking for a "very" simple way to check if an image bitmap is blur. I do not need accurate and complicate algorithm which involves fft, wavelet, etc. Just a very simple idea even if it is not accurate.
I've thought to compute the average euclidian distance between pixel (x,y) and pixel (x+1,y) considering their RGB components and then using a threshold but it works very bad. Any other idea?
Don't calculate the average differences between adjacent pixels.
Even when a photograph is perfectly in focus, it can still contain large areas of uniform colour, like the sky for example. These will push down the average difference and mask the details you're interested in. What you really want to find is the maximum difference value.
Also, to speed things up, I wouldn't bother checking every pixel in the image. You should get reasonable results by checking along a grid of horizontal and vertical lines spaced, say, 10 pixels apart.
Here are the results of some tests with PHP's GD graphics functions using an image from Wikimedia Commons (Bokeh_Ipomea.jpg). The Sharpness values are simply the maximum pixel difference values as a percentage of 255 (I only looked in the green channel; you should probably convert to greyscale first). The numbers underneath show how long it took to process the image.
If you want them, here are the source images I used:
original
slightly blurred
blurred
Update:
There's a problem with this algorithm in that it relies on the image having a fairly high level of contrast as well as sharp focused edges. It can be improved by finding the maximum pixel difference (maxdiff), and finding the overall range of pixel values in a small area centred on this location (range). The sharpness is then calculated as follows:
sharpness = (maxdiff / (offset + range)) * (1.0 + offset / 255) * 100%
where offset is a parameter that reduces the effects of very small edges so that background noise does not affect the results significantly. (I used a value of 15.)
This produces fairly good results. Anything with a sharpness of less than 40% is probably out of focus. Here's are some examples (the locations of the maximum pixel difference and the 9×9 local search areas are also shown for reference):
(source)
(source)
(source)
(source)
The results still aren't perfect, though. Subjects that are inherently blurry will always result in a low sharpness value:
(source)
Bokeh effects can produce sharp edges from point sources of light, even when they are completely out of focus:
(source)
You commented that you want to be able to reject user-submitted photos that are out of focus. Since this technique isn't perfect, I would suggest that you instead notify the user if an image appears blurry instead of rejecting it altogether.
I suppose that, philosophically speaking, all natural images are blurry...How blurry and to which amount, is something that depends upon your application. Broadly speaking, the blurriness or sharpness of images can be measured in various ways. As a first easy attempt I would check for the energy of the image, defined as the normalised summation of the squared pixel values:
1 2
E = --- Σ I, where I the image and N the number of pixels (defined for grayscale)
N
First you may apply a Laplacian of Gaussian (LoG) filter to detect the "energetic" areas of the image and then check the energy. The blurry image should show considerably lower energy.
See an example in MATLAB using a typical grayscale lena image:
This is the original image
This is the blurry image, blurred with gaussian noise
This is the LoG image of the original
And this is the LoG image of the blurry one
If you just compute the energy of the two LoG images you get:
E = 1265 E = 88
or bl
which is a huge amount of difference...
Then you just have to select a threshold to judge which amount of energy is good for your application...
calculate the average L1-distance of adjacent pixels:
N1=1/(2*N_pixel) * sum( abs(p(x,y)-p(x-1,y)) + abs(p(x,y)-p(x,y-1)) )
then the average L2 distance:
N2= 1/(2*N_pixel) * sum( (p(x,y)-p(x-1,y))^2 + (p(x,y)-p(x,y-1))^2 )
then the ratio N2 / (N1*N1) is a measure of blurriness. This is for grayscale images, for color you do this for each channel separately.
Assuming that I have a grayscale (8-bit) image and assume that I have an integral image created from that same image.
Image resolution is 720x576. According to SURF algorithm, each octave is composed of 4 box filters, which are defined by the number of pixels on their side. The
first octave uses filters with 9x9, 15x15, 21x21 and 27x27 pixels. The
second octave uses filters with 15x15, 27x27, 39x39 and 51x51 pixels.The third octave uses filters with 27x27, 51x51, 75x75 and 99x99 pixels. If the image is sufficiently large and I guess 720x576 is big enough (right??!!), a fourth octave is added, 51x51, 99x99, 147x147 and 195x195. These
octaves partially overlap one another to improve the quality of the interpolated results.
// so, we have:
//
// 9x9 15x15 21x21 27x27
// 15x15 27x27 39x39 51x51
// 27x27 51x51 75x75 99x99
// 51x51 99x99 147x147 195x195
The questions are:What are the values in each of these filters? Should I hardcode these values, or should I calculate them? How exactly (numerically) to apply filters to the integral image?
Also, for calculating the Hessian determinant I found two approximations:
det(HessianApprox) = DxxDyy − (0.9Dxy)^2 anddet(HessianApprox) = DxxDyy − (0.81Dxy)^2Which one is correct?
(Dxx, Dyy, and Dxy are Gaussian second order derivatives).
I had to go back to the original paper to find the precise answers to your questions.
Some background first
SURF leverages a common Image Analysis approach for regions-of-interest detection that is called blob detection.
The typical approach for blob detection is a difference of Gaussians.
There are several reasons for this, the first one being to mimic what happens in the visual cortex of the human brains.
The drawback to difference of Gaussians (DoG) is the computation time that is too expensive to be applied to large image areas.
In order to bypass this issue, SURF takes a simple approach. A DoG is simply the computation of two Gaussian averages (or equivalently, apply a Gaussian blur) followed by taking their difference.
A quick-and-dirty approximation (not so dirty for small regions) is to approximate the Gaussian blur by a box blur.
A box blur is the average value of all the images values in a given rectangle. It can be computed efficiently via integral images.
Using integral images
Inside an integral image, each pixel value is the sum of all the pixels that were above it and on its left in the original image.
The top-left pixel value in the integral image is thus 0, and the bottom-rightmost pixel of the integral image has thus the sum of all the original pixels for value.
Then, you just need to remark that the box blur is equal to the sum of all the pixels inside a given rectangle (not originating in the top-lefmost pixel of the image) and apply the following simple geometric reasoning.
If you have a rectangle with corners ABCD (top left, top right, bottom left, bottom right), then the value of the box filter is given by:
boxFilter(ABCD) = A + D - B - C,
where A, B, C, D is a shortcut for IntegralImagePixelAt(A) (B, C, D respectively).
Integral images in SURF
SURF is not using box blurs of sizes 9x9, etc. directly.
What it uses instead is several orders of Gaussian derivatives, or Haar-like features.
Let's take an example. Suppose you are to compute the 9x9 filters output. This corresponds to a given sigma, hence a fixed scale/octave.
The sigma being fixed, you center your 9x9 window on the pixel of interest. Then, you compute the output of the 2nd order Gaussian derivative in each direction (horizontal, vertical, diagonal). The Fig. 1 in the paper gives you an illustration of the vertical and diagonal filters.
The Hessian determinant
There is a factor to take into account the scale differences. Let's believe the paper that the determinant is equal to:
Det = DxxDyy - (0.9 * Dxy)^2.
Finally, the determinant is given by: Det = DxxDyy - 0.81*Dxy^2.
Look at page 17 of this document
http://www.sci.utah.edu/~fletcher/CS7960/slides/Scott.pdf
If you made a code for normal Gaussian 2D convolution, just use the box filter as a Gaussian kernel and the input image will be the same original image not integral image. The results from this method will be same with the one you asked.
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.
I read on Wikipedia and see that if we need to perform spatial filtering on an image, we have to have a filter, for example 3x3, what I don't understand here is how can we choose the value for the filter? Let say that the original image is grey scale so its intensity goes from 0 to 255 (8 bits).
Another question is that if the image is 9x9, how can we apply the filter to boundary pixels of that image? If we choose to pad the image so the filter can work with all boundary pixels, what would be the value for new padded pixels?
Thank you very much
The value of the filter depends on what you want to achieve by filtering. There are a lot of filter design to perform a specific task. For example the simplest filter f=[-1 1 -1] kind of perform image derivation by performing first degree differencing on each pixel in horizontal direction (x-derivative) while f' perform the same thing in the vertical (y-derivative). The values -1,1,-1 are choose for such purpose. The same goes for 3*3 filters. In general the choose of the values come from a 2D(bi directional) designing of finite impulse response (FIR) and infinite impulse response (IIR) filters.
You should keep in mind that the value of filter operation on the boarders are not that much accurate. Filtering operation for boarder pixel are done interpolating out-of range pixel by a process called boarder interpolation.In OpenCV and similar image processing/computer vision libraries there are ways to do it. For example as the following in opencv
Various border types, image boundaries are denoted with '|'
BORDER_REPLICATE: aaaaaa|abcdefgh|hhhhhhh
BORDER_REFLECT: fedcba|abcdefgh|hgfedcb
BORDER_REFLECT_101: gfedcb|abcdefgh|gfedcba
BORDER_WRAP: cdefgh|abcdefgh|abcdefg
BORDER_CONSTANT: iiiiii|abcdefgh|iiiiiii with some specified 'i'
Thus according to you choose you pad the boarder pixels.