I'm trying to create an application that will be able to track rapidly moving objects in video/camera feed, however have not found any CV/DL solution that is good enough. Can you recommend any computer vision solution for tracking fast moving objects on regular laptop computer and web cam? A demo app would be ideal.
For example see this video where the tracking is done in hardware (I'm looking for software solution) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn5YQVvW-hQ
Target tracking is a very difficult problem. In target tracking you will have two main issues: the motion uncertainty problem, and the origin uncertainty problem. The first one refers to the way you model object motion so you can predict its future state, and the second refers to the issue of data association(what measurement corresponds to what track, and the literature is filled with scientific ways in which this issue can be approached).
Before you can come up with a solution to your problem you will have to answer some questions yourself, regarding the tracking problem you want to solve. For example: what are the values that you what to track(this will define your state vector), how are those values related to one another, are you trying to perform single object tracking or multiple object tracking, how are the objects moving( do they have a relatively constant acceleration or velocity ) or not, do objects make turns, can objects also be occluded or not and so on.
The Kalman Filter is good solution to predict the next state of your system (once you have identified your process model). A deep learning alternative to the Kalman filter is the so called Deep Kalman Filter which essentially is used to do the same thing. In case your process or measurement models are not linear, you will have to linearize them before predicting the next state. Some solutions that deal with non-linear process or measurement models are the Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) or Unscented Kalman Filter (UKF).
Now related to fast moving objects, an idea you can use is to have a larger covariance matrix since the objects can move a lot more if they are fast, so the search space for the correct association has to be a bit larger. Additionally you can use multiple motion models in case your motion model cannot be satisfied with only one model.
In case of occlusions I will leave you this stack overflow thread, where I have given an answer covering more details regarding occlusion handling in case of tracking. I have added some references for you to read. You will have to provide more details in your question, if you would like to receive more information regarding a solution (for example you should define fast moving objects with respect to camera frame rate).
I personally do not think there is a silver bullet solution for the tracking problem, I prefer to tailor a solution to the problem I am trying to solve.
The tracking problem is complicated. It is also more in the realm of control systems than computer vision. It would be also helpful to know more about your situation, as the performance of the chosen method pretty much depends on your problem constraints. Are you interested in real-time tracking? Are you trying to reconstruct an existing trajectory? Are there multiple targets? Just one? Are the physical properties of the targets (i.e. velocity, direction, acceleration) constant?
One of the most basic tracking methods is implemented by a Linear Dynamic System (LDS) description, in concrete, a discrete implementation, since we’re working with discrete frames of information. This method is purely based on physics, and its prediction is very sensitive. Depending on your application, the error rate could be acceptable… or not.
A more robust solution is Kalman’s Filter, and it is pretty much the go-to answer when tracking is needed. It implements prediction based on all the measurements obtained so far during the model's lifetime. It mainly works on constant-based measurements (velocity and acceleration) although it can be extended to handle non-constant models. If you are working with targets that won't exhibit a drastic change in their velocity, this is what you (probably) should implement.
I'm sorry I can't provide you with more, but the topic is pretty extensive and, admittedly, the details are beyond my area of expertise. Hopefully, this info should give you a little bit of context for finding a solution.
The problem of tracking fast-moving objects (FMO) is a known research topic in computer vision. FMOs are defined as objects which move over a distance larger than their size in one video frame. The solutions which have been proposed use classical image processing and energy minimization to establish their trajectories and sharp appearance.
If you need a demo app, I would suggest this GitHub repository: https://github.com/rozumden/fmo-cpp-demo. The demo is written in OpenCV/C++ and runs in real-time. The authors also provide a mobile app version, which is still in testing mode. Using this demo app you can track any fast moving objects in real-time without even providing an object model. However, if you provide object size in real-world units, the app can also estimate object speed.
A more sophisticated algorithm is open-sourced here: https://github.com/rozumden/deblatting_python, written in Python and PyTorch for speed-up. The repository contains a solution to the deblatting (deblurring and matting) problem, exactly what happens when a Fast Moving Object appears in front of a camera.
I work at an airport where we need to determine the visibility conditions of pilots.
To do this, we have signs placed every 200 meters along the runway that allow us to determine how far the visibility is. We have multiple runways, and the visibility needs to be checked every hour.
Right now the visibility check is done manually with a human being who looks at the photos from the cameras placed at the end of each runway. So it can be tedious.
I'm a programmer who has very little experience with machine learning, but this sounds like an easy problem to automate. How should I approach this problem? Which algorithms should I study? Would OpenCV help me?
Thanks!
I think this can be automated using computer vision techniques. openCV could make the implementation easier. If all the signs are similar then ,we can train our program to recognize the sign in a specific conditions(lights). Then, we can use the trained classifier to check for the visibility of signs every hours using a simple script.
There is harr-like feature extraction already in openCV. You can use to train classifier which will output a .xml file and use that .xml file for detecting the sign regularly.
I have done a similar project RTVTR(Real Time Vehicle Tracking and Recognition) using openCV and it worked great. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJwBT76VEZ4
Answering to your questions:
How should I approach this problem?
It depends on the result you want/need to obtain. Is this an "hobby" project (even if job-related) or do you need to build a machine vision system to solve the problem and should it be compliant with some regulations or standard?
Which algorithms should I study?
I am very interested in your question but I am not an expert in the field of meteorology and so searching in the relative literature is, for me, a time consuming task... so I reserve to update this part of the answer in the future. I think there will be different algorithms involved in the solution of the problem, some are very general like for example algorithms for the image segmentation, some are very specific like for example how to measure the visibility.
Update: one of the keyword for searching in the literature is Meteorological Visibility, for example
HAUTIERE, Nicolas, et al. Automatic fog detection and estimation of visibility distance through use of an onboard camera. Machine Vision and Applications, 2006, 17.1: 8-20.
LENOR, Stephan, et al. An Improved Model for Estimating the Meteorological Visibility from a Road Surface Luminance Curve. In: Pattern Recognition. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013. p. 184-193.
Would OpenCV help me?
Yes, I think OpenCV can help giving you a starting point.
An idea for a naïve algorithm:
Segment the image in order to get the pixel regions belonging to the signs and to the background.
Compute the measure of visibility according to some procedure, the measure is computed by a function that has as input the regions of all the signs and the background region.
The segmentation can be simplified a lot if the signs are always in the same fixed and known position inside the image.
The measure of visibility is obviously the core of the algorithm and it can be performed in a lot of ways...
You can follow a simple approach where you compute the visibility with a mathematical formula based on the average gray level of the signs and background regions.
You can follow a more sophisticated and machine-learning oriented approach where you implement an algorithm that mimics your current human being based procedure. In this case your problem can be framed as a supervised learning task: you have a set of training examples, each training example is a pair composed by a) the photo of the runway (the input) and b) the visibility related to that photo and computed by human (the desired output). Then the system is trained by means of the training set and when you give a new photo as input it will give you back the visibility measure. I think you have a log for past visibility measures (METAR?) and if you saved the related images too, you will already have a relevant amount of data in order to build a training set and a test set.
Update in the age of Convolutional Neural Networks:
YOU, Yang, et al. Relative CNN-RNN: Learning Relative Atmospheric Visibility from Images. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2018.
Both Tensor and uvts_cvs 's replies are very helpful. While the opencv mainly aims to recognize the sign pattern or even segment it from the background, when you extract the core feature in your problem : visibility, you may still need to include the background signal in your training set. I assume manual check of visibility is based on image contrast, if so, the signal-to-noise ratio(SNR) or contrast-to-noise ratio(CNR) is a good feature in learning. A threshold is defined to classify 'visible-1' and 'invisible-0'. The SNR/CNR can be obtained automatically especially if your sign position and size are fixed in your camera images.
Gather whole bunch of photos and videos and propose it as a challenge on Kaggle. I am sure many people would like to try solve it, even if reward would not be very high.
You can use the template matching functionality of openCV:
http://docs.opencv.org/doc/tutorials/imgproc/histograms/template_matching/template_matching.html
Where the template is the sign. If you manage to find a correct match, then the sign is visible. I think you can also get a sense of the scale of the sign in the image from that code.
As this is a very controlled and static environment, you have perfect conditions to estimate the visibility with vision-based approaches. Nonetheless, it is not so easy to decide which approach to take. In my thesis, I am reviewing this topic in depth for the less well-controlled environment of road traffic. See: LENOR, Stephan. Model-Based Estimation of Meteorological Visibility in the Context of Automotive Camera Systems. 2016. Doktorarbeit. (https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/20855/1/20160509_lenor_thesis_final_print.pdf).
I see two major directions you could follow up:
Model-based approaches: Advantages: Not so much dependent on your very specific setup. You do not need heavy collection of data.
Data-based approaches/ML: Advantages: Can hide the whole complexity of different light and weather conditions. You seem to have a good source of data if there are people doing the job right now. Very promising without much engineering effort (just use a light-weighted CNN with few layers or so).
You could also combine both, etc. etc. If you are still interested in a solution, you can contact me again and I am happy to consult in more depth.
I would like to use computer vision to do the following:
A camera is mounted outside a building, capturing a videostream of the street below. The camera is installed approximately 5-6 meters above the street.
Whenever a person wearing a certain kind of hat(white, round) is captured by the camera, an event should be triggered.
Which algorithm should I look into to implement this kind of behavior ?
Is this best achieved through training the algorithm with sample data or is there another way to tell it to look for this type of hat ?
Also, how do I use multiple frames of video to increase the quality of detection ?
Edit: Added a picture of the hat
Before we do everything in comments I will start an answer here.
The first link you posted describes a simple color-based detection. You can try that, but it will fail if there are other pixel clusters of similar color in the image. Your idea of combining it with tracking is good: Identify clusters, build trajectories over several images, and only accept plausible trajectories as a hit. For robust tracking you may want to look into Kalman filtering. A problem you will most likely encounter is that a "white" hat will hardly be "white" in the images your camera delivers.
The second link you refer to - boosted Classifiers Based on Haar-like Features - is for detection of more complex objects. It probably won't help you find white blobs. Invest your time and energy in learning about tracking.
I'm happy to repeat myself here: "Solving a computer vision problem" is not something like "sorting an array". OpenCV is not the C++ Standard Library. You can use an std::map without knowing anything about a red-black tree. But (IMHO) you can't use Vision APIs without knowing a good deal of the math and theory. Working solutions Computer Vision are typically heavily tuned towards the specific problem scenario. Sorry if that sounds pedantic, but it explains why your question got beaten.
In brief, what are the available options for implementing the Tracking of a particular Image(A photo/graphic/logo) in webcam feed using OpenCv?In particular i am trying to collate opinion about the following:
Would HaarTraining be overkill(considering that it is not 3d objects but simply Images to be tracked) or is it the only way out?
Have tried Template Matching, Color-based detection but these don't offer reliable tracking under varying illumination/Scale/Orientation at all.
Would SIFT,SURF feature matching work as reliably in video as with static image
comparison?
Am a relative beginner to OpenCV , as is evident by my previous queries on SO (very helpful replies). Any cues or links to what could be good resources for beginning NFT implementation with OpenCV?
Can you talk a bit more about your requirements? Namely, what type of appearance variations do you expect/how much control you have over the environment. What type of constraints do you have in terms of speed/power/resource footprint?
Without those, I can only give some general assessment to the 3 paths you are talking about.
1.
Haar would work well and fast, particularly for instance recognition.
Note that Haar doesn't work all that well for 3D unless you train with a full spectrum of templates to cover various perspectives. The poster child application of Haar cascades is Viola Jones' face detection system which is largely geared towards frontal faces (can certainly be trained for many other things)
For a tutorial on doing Haar training using OpenCV, see here.
2.
Try NCC or better yet, Lucas Kanade tracking (cvCalcOpticalFlowPyrLK which is a pyramidal as in coarse-to-fine LK - a 4 level pyramid usually works well) for a template. Usually good upto 10% scale or 10 degrees rotation without template changes. Beyond that, you can have automatically evolving templates which can drift over time.
For a quick Optical Flow/tracking tutorial, see this.
3.
SIFT/SURF would indeed work very well. I'd suggest some additional geometric verification step to remove spurious matches.
I'd be a bit concerned about the amount of computational time involved. If there isn't significant illumination/scale/in-plane rotation, then SIFT is probably overkill. If you truly need it, check out Changchang Wu's excellent SIFTGPU implmentation. Note: 3rd party, not OpenCV.
It seems that none of the methods when applied alone could bring reliable results unless it is a hobby project. Probably some adaptive algorithm would be more or less acceptable. For example see a famous opensource project where they use machine learning.
A developer I am working with is developing a program that analyzes images of pavement to find cracks in the pavement. For every crack his program finds, it produces an entry in a file that tells me which pixels make up that particular crack. There are two problems with his software though:
1) It produces several false positives
2) If he finds a crack, he only finds small sections of it and denotes those sections as being separate cracks.
My job is to write software that will read this data, analyze it, and tell the difference between false-positives and actual cracks. I also need to determine how to group together all the small sections of a crack as one.
I have tried various ways of filtering the data to eliminate false-positives, and have been using neural networks to a limited degree of success to group cracks together. I understand there will be error, but as of now, there is just too much error. Does anyone have any insight for a non-AI expert as to the best way to accomplish my task or learn more about it? What kinds of books should I read, or what kind of classes should I take?
EDIT My question is more about how to notice patterns in my coworker's data and identify those patterns as actual cracks. It's the higher-level logic that I'm concerned with, not so much the low-level logic.
EDIT In all actuality, it would take AT LEAST 20 sample images to give an accurate representation of the data I'm working with. It varies a lot. But I do have a sample here, here, and here. These images have already been processed by my coworker's process. The red, blue, and green data is what I have to classify (red stands for dark crack, blue stands for light crack, and green stands for a wide/sealed crack).
In addition to the useful comments about image processing, it also sounds like you're dealing with a clustering problem.
Clustering algorithms come from the machine learning literature, specifically unsupervised learning. As the name implies, the basic idea is to try to identify natural clusters of data points within some large set of data.
For example, the picture below shows how a clustering algorithm might group a bunch of points into 7 clusters (indicated by circles and color):
(source: natekohl.net)
In your case, a clustering algorithm would attempt to repeatedly merge small cracks to form larger cracks, until some stopping criteria is met. The end result would be a smaller set of joined cracks. Of course, cracks are a little different than two-dimensional points -- part of the trick in getting a clustering algorithm to work here will be defining a useful distance metric between two cracks.
Popular clustering algorithms include k-means clustering (demo) and hierarchical clustering. That second link also has a nice step-by-step explanation of how k-means works.
EDIT: This paper by some engineers at Phillips looks relevant to what you're trying to do:
Chenn-Jung Huang, Chua-Chin Wang, Chi-Feng Wu, "Image Processing Techniques for Wafer Defect Cluster Identification," IEEE Design and Test of Computers, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 44-48, March/April, 2002.
They're doing a visual inspection for defects on silicon wafers, and use a median filter to remove noise before using a nearest-neighbor clustering algorithm to detect the defects.
Here are some related papers/books that they cite that might be useful:
M. Taubenlatt and J. Batchelder, “Patterned Wafer Inspection Using Spatial Filtering for Cluster Environment,” Applied Optics, vol. 31, no. 17, June 1992, pp. 3354-3362.
F.-L. Chen and S.-F. Liu, “A Neural-Network Approach to Recognize Defect Spatial Pattern in Semiconductor Fabrication.” IEEE Trans. Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 13, no. 3, Aug. 2000, pp. 366-373.
G. Earl, R. Johnsonbaugh, and S. Jost, Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 1996.
Your problem falls in the very broad field of image classification. These types of problems can be notoriously difficult, and at the end of the day, solving them is an art. You must exploit every piece of knowledge you have about the problem domain to make it tractable.
One fundamental issue is normalization. You want to have similarly classified objects to be as similar as possible in their data representation. For example, if you have an image of the cracks, do all images have the same orientation? If not, then rotating the image may help in your classification. Similarly, scaling and translation (refer to this)
You also want to remove as much irrelevant data as possible from your training sets. Rather than directly working on the image, perhaps you could use edge extraction (for example Canny edge detection). This will remove all the 'noise' from the image, leaving only the edges. The exercise is then reduced to identifying which edges are the cracks and which are the natural pavement.
If you want to fast track to a solution then I suggest you first try the your luck with a Convolutional Neural Net, which can perform pretty good image classification with a minimum of preprocessing and noramlization. Its pretty well known in handwriting recognition, and might be just right for what you're doing.
I'm a bit confused by the way you've chosen to break down the problem. If your coworker isn't identifying complete cracks, and that's the spec, then that makes it your problem. But if you manage to stitch all the cracks together, and avoid his false positives, then haven't you just done his job?
That aside, I think this is an edge detection problem rather than a classification problem. If the edge detector is good, then your issues go away.
If you are still set on classification, then you are going to need a training set with known answers, since you need a way to quantify what differentiates a false positive from a real crack. However I still think it is unlikely that your classifier will be able to connect the cracks, since these are specific to each individual paving slab.
I have to agree with ire_and_curses, once you dive into the realm of edge detection to patch your co-developers crack detection, and remove his false positives, it seems as if you would be doing his job. If you can patch what his software did not detect, and remove his false positives around what he has given you. It seems like you would be able to do this for the full image.
If the spec is for him to detect the cracks, and you classify them, then it's his job to do the edge detection and remove false positives. And your job to take what he has given you and classify what type of crack it is. If you have to do edge detection to do that, then it sounds like you are not far from putting your co-developer out of work.
There are some very good answers here. But if you are unable to solve the problem, you may consider Mechanical Turk. In some cases it can be very cost-effective for stubborn problems. I know people who use it for all kinds of things like this (verification that a human can do easily but proves hard to code).
https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome
I am no expert by any means, but try looking at Haar Cascades. You may also wish to experiment with the OpenCV toolkit. These two things together do face detection and other object-detection tasks.
You may have to do "training" to develop a Haar Cascade for cracks in pavement.
What’s the best approach to recognize patterns in data, and what’s the best way to learn more on the topic?
The best approach is to study pattern recognition and machine learning. I would start with Duda's Pattern Classification and use Bishop's Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning as reference. It would take a good while for the material to sink in, but getting basic sense of pattern recognition and major approaches of classification problem should give you the direction. I can sit here and make some assumptions about your data, but honestly you probably have the best idea about the data set since you've been dealing with it more than anyone. Some of the useful technique for instance could be support vector machine and boosting.
Edit: An interesting application of boosting is real-time face detection. See Viola/Jones's Rapid Object Detection using a Boosted Cascade of Simple
Features (pdf). Also, looking at the sample images, I'd say you should try improving the edge detection a bit. Maybe smoothing the image with Gaussian and running more aggressive edge detection can increase detection of smaller cracks.
I suggest you pick up any image processing textbook and read on the subject.
Particularly, you might be interested in Morphological Operations like Dilation and Erosion, which complements the job of an edge detector. Plenty of materials on the net...
This is an image processing problem. There are lots of books written on the subject, and much of the material in these books will go beyond a line-detection problem like this. Here is the outline of one technique that would work for the problem.
When you find a crack, you find some pixels that make up the crack. Edge detection filters or other edge detection methods can be used for this.
Start with one (any) pixel in a crack, then "follow" it to make a multipoint line out of the crack -- save the points that make up the line. You can remove some intermediate points if they lie close to a straight line. Do this with all the crack pixels. If you have a star-shaped crack, don't worry about it. Just follow the pixels in one (or two) directions to make up a line, then remove these pixels from the set of crack pixels. The other legs of the star will recognized as separate lines (for now).
You might perform some thinning on the crack pixels before step 1. In other words, check the neighbors of the pixels, and if there are too many then ignore that pixel. (This is a simplification -- you can find several algorithms for this.) Another preprocessing step might be to remove all the lines that are too thin or two faint. This might help with the false positives.
Now you have a lot of short, multipoint lines. For the endpoints of each line, find the nearest line. If the lines are within a tolerance, then "connect" the lines -- link them or add them to the same structure or array. This way, you can connect the close cracks, which would likely be the same crack in the concrete.
It seems like no matter the algorithm, some parameter adjustment will be necessary for good performance. Write it so it's easy to make minor changes in things like intensity thresholds, minimum and maximum thickness, etc.
Depending on the usage environment, you might want to allow user judgement do determine the questionable cases, and/or allow a user to review the all the cracks and click to combine, split or remove detected cracks.
You got some very good answer, esp. #Nate's, and all the links and books suggested are worthwhile. However, I'm surprised nobody suggested the one book that would have been my top pick -- O'Reilly's Programming Collective Intelligence. The title may not seem germane to your question, but, believe me, the contents are: one of the most practical, programmer-oriented coverage of data mining and "machine learning" I've ever seen. Give it a spin!-)
It sounds a little like a problem there is in Rock Mechanics, where there are joints in a rock mass and these joints have to be grouped into 'sets' by orientation, length and other properties. In this instance one method that works well is clustering, although classical K-means does seem to have a few problems which I have addressed in the past using a genetic algorithm to run the interative solution.
In this instance I suspect it might not work quite the same way. In this case I suspect that you need to create your groups to start with i.e. longitudinal, transverse etc. and define exactly what the behviour of each group is i.e. can a single longitudinal crack branch part way along it's length, and if it does what does that do to it's classification.
Once you have that then for each crack, I would generate a random crack or pattern of cracks based on the classification you have created. You can then use something like a least squares approach to see how closely the crack you are checking fits against the random crack / cracks you have generated. You can repeat this analysis many times in the manner of a Monte-Carlo analysis to identify which of the randomly generated crack / cracks best fits the one you are checking.
To then deal with the false positives you will need to create a pattern for each of the different types of false positives i.e. the edge of a kerb is a straight line. You will then be able to run the analysis picking out which is the most likely group for each crack you analyse.
Finally, you will need to 'tweak' the definition of different crack types to try and get a better result. I guess this could either use an automated approach or a manual approach depending on how you define your different crack types.
One other modification that sometimes helps when I'm doing problems like this is to have a random group. By tweaking the sensitivity of a random group i.e. how more or less likely a crack is to be included in the random group, you can sometimes adjust the sensitivty of the model to complex patterns that don't really fit anywhere.
Good luck, looks to me like you have a real challenge.
You should read about data mining, specially pattern mining.
Data mining is the process of extracting patterns from data. As more data are gathered, with the amount of data doubling every three years, data mining is becoming an increasingly important tool to transform these data into information. It is commonly used in a wide range of profiling practices, such as marketing, surveillance, fraud detection and scientific discovery.
A good book on the subject is Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques
(source: waikato.ac.nz) ](http://www.amazon.com/Data-Mining-Ian-H-Witten/dp/3446215336 "ISBN 0-12-088407-0")
Basically what you have to do is apply statistical tools and methodologies to your datasets. The most used comparison methodologies are Student's t-test and the Chi squared test, to see if two unrelated variables are related with some confidence.