I have images of mosquitos similar to these ones and I would like to automatically circle around the head of each mosquito in the images. They are obviously in different orientations and there are random number of them in different images. some error is fine. Any ideas of algorithms to do this?
This problem resembles a face detection problem, so you could try a naïve approach first and refine it if necessary.
First you would need to recreate your training set. For this you would like to extract small images with examples of what is a mosquito head or what is not.
Then you can use those images to train a classification algorithm, be careful to have a balanced training set, since if your data is skewed to one class it would hit the performance of the algorithm. Since images are 2D and algorithms usually just take 1D arrays as input, you will need to arrange your images to that format as well (for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Row-major_order).
I normally use support vector machines, but other algorithms such as logistic regression could make the trick too. If you decide to use support vector machines I strongly recommend you to check libsvm (http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvm/), since it's a very mature library with bindings to several programming languages. Also they have a very easy to follow guide targeted to beginners (http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/papers/guide/guide.pdf).
If you have enough data, you should be able to avoid tolerance to orientation. If you don't have enough data, then you could create more training rows with some samples rotated, so you would have a more representative training set.
As for the prediction what you could do is given an image, cut it using a grid where each cell has the same dimension that the ones you used on your training set. Then you pass each of this image to the classifier and mark those squares where the classifier gave you a positive output. If you really need circles then take the center of the given square and the radius would be the half of the square side size (sorry for stating the obvious).
So after you do this you might have problems with sizes (some mosquitos might appear closer to the camera than others) , since we are not trained the algorithm to be tolerant to scale. Moreover, even with all mosquitos in the same scale, we still might miss some of them just because they didn't fit in our grid perfectly. To address this, we will need to repeat this procedure (grid cut and predict) rescaling the given image to different sizes. How many sizes? well here you would have to determine that through experimentation.
This approach is sensitive to the size of the "window" that you are using, that is also something I would recommend you to experiment with.
There are some research may be useful:
A Multistep Approach for Shape Similarity Search in Image Databases
Representation and Detection of Shapes in Images
From the pictures you provided this seems to be an extremely hard image recognition problem, and I doubt you will get anywhere near acceptable recognition rates.
I would recommend a simpler approach:
First, if you have any control over the images, separate the mosquitoes before taking the picture, and use a white unmarked underground, perhaps even something illuminated from below. This will make separating the mosquitoes much easier.
Then threshold the image. For example here i did a quick try taking the red channel, then substracting the blue channel*5, then applying a threshold of 80:
Use morphological dilation and erosion to get rid of the small leg structures.
Identify blobs of the right size to be moquitoes by Connected Component Labeling. If a blob is large enough to be two mosquitoes, cut it out, and apply some more dilation/erosion to it.
Once you have a single blob like this
you can find the direction of the body using Principal Component Analysis. The head should be the part of the body where the cross-section is the thickest.
Related
I'm making a program to detect shapes from an r/c plane for a competition. I have no real images of the targets, but I do have computer generated examples of them on the rules.
My question is, can I train my program to detect real world objects based on computer generated shapes or should I find a different method to complete this task?
I would like to know before I foolishly generate 5k samples and find them useless in the end.
EDIT: I also don't know the exact color of the objects. If I feed the program samples of varying color, will it be a problem?
Thanks in advance!!
Edit2: Here's what groups from my school detected in previous years
As you can see, the detected images are not nearly as flawless as what would appear in real life. If you can suggest a better method, that would help.
If you think that the real images will have unique colors with simple geometric shapes then you could probably try to create a normalized Hue-histogram. Use it to train SVM classifier. The benefit of using Hue-histogram is that it will be rotational and scale invariant.
You can take the few precautions in mind:
Don't forget to remove the illumination affects.
Sometimes, White and black pixels create some problem in hue-histogram calculation so try to remove them from calculation by considering only those pixel which have S>0 and V>0 in S & V channels of HSV image.
I would rather suggest you to use the real world images because the performance is largely dependent upon training (my personal experience). And why don't you try to use SIFT/SURF descriptors for training to SVM (support vector machine) as SIFT/SURF are scale as well as rotational invariant.
The situation is kind of unique from anything I have been able to find asked already, and is as follows: If I took a photo of two similar images, I'd like to be able to highlight the differing features in the two images. For example the following two halves of a children's spot the difference game:
The differences in the images will be bits missing/added and/or colour change, and the type of differences which would be easily detectable from the original image files by doing nothing cleverer than a pixel-by-pixel comparison. However the fact that they're subject to the fluctuations of light and imprecision of photography, I'll need a far more lenient/clever algorithm.
As you can see, the images won't necessarily line up perfectly if overlaid.
This question is tagged language-agnostic as I expect answers that point me towards relevant algorithms, however I'd also be interested in current implementations if they exist, particularly in Java, Ruby, or C.
The following approach should work. All of these functionalities are available in OpenCV. Take a look at this example for computing homographies.
Detect keypoints in the two images using a corner detector.
Extract descriptors (SIFT/SURF) for the keypoints.
Match the keypoints and compute a homography using RANSAC, that aligns the second image to the first.
Apply the homography to the second image, so that it is aligned with the first.
Now simply compute the pixel-wise difference between the two images, and the difference image will highlight everything that has changed from the first to the second.
My general approach would be to use an optical flow to align both images and perform a pixel by pixel comparison once they are aligned.
However, for the specifics, standard optical flows (OpenCV etc.) are likely to fail if the two images differ significantly like in your case. If that indeed fails, there are recent optical flow techniques that are supposed to work even if the images are drastically different. For instance, you might want to look at the paper about SIFT flows by Ce Liu et al that addresses this problem with sparse correspondences.
I'v got a binary classification problem. I'm trying to train a neural network to recognize objects from images. Currently I've about 1500 50x50 images.
The question is whether extending my current training set by the same images flipped horizontally is a good idea or not? (images are not symetric)
Thanks
I think you can do this to a much larger extent, not just flipping the images horizontally, but changing the angle of the image by 1 degree. This will result in 360 samples for every instance that you have in your training set. Depending on how fast your algorithm is, this may be a pretty good way to ensure that the algorithm isn't only trained to recognize images and their mirrors.
It's possible that it's a good idea, but then again, I don't know what's the goal or the domain of the image recognition. Let's say the images contain characters and you're asking the image recognition software to determine if an image contains a forward slash / or a back slash \ then flipping the image will make your training data useless. If your domain doesn't suffer from such issues, then I'd think it's a good idea to flip them and even rotate with varying degrees.
I have used flipped images in AdaBoost with great success in the course: http://www.csc.kth.se/utbildning/kth/kurser/DD2427/bik12/Schedule.php
from the zip "TrainingImages.tar.gz".
I know there are some information on pros/cons with using flipped images somewhere in the slides (at the homepage) but I can't find it. Also a great resource is http://www.csc.kth.se/utbildning/kth/kurser/DD2427/bik12/DownloadMaterial/FaceLab/Manual.pdf (together with the slides) going thru things like finding things in different scales and orientation.
If the images patches are not symmetric I don't think its a good idea to flip. Better idea is to do some similarity transforms to the training set with some limits. Another way to increase the dataset is to add gaussian smoothed templates to it. Make sure that the number of positive and negative samples are proportional. Too many positive and too less negative might skew the classifier and give bad performance on testing set.
It depends on what your NN is based on. If you are extracting rotation invariant features or features that do not depend on the spatial position within the the image (like histograms or whatever) and train your NN with these features, then rotating will not be a good idea.
If you are training directly on pixel values, then it might be a good idea.
Some more details might be useful.
We as human, could recognize these two images as same image :
In computer, it will be easy to recognize these two image if they are in the same size, so we have to make Preprocessing stage or step before recognize it, like scaling, but if we look deeply to scaling process, we will know that it's not an efficient way.
Now, could you help me to find some way to convert images into objects that doesn't deal with size or pixel location, to be input for recognition method ?
Thanks advance.
I have several ideas:
Let the image have several color thresholds. This way you get large
areas of the same color. The shapes of those areas can be traced with
curves which are math. If you do this for the larger and the smaller
one and see if the curves match.
Try to define key spots in the area. I don't know for sure how
this works but you can look up face detection algoritms. In such
an algoritm there is a math equation for how a face should look.
If you define enough object in such algorithms you can define
multiple objects in the images to see if the object match on the
same spots.
And you could see if the predator algorithm can accept images
of multiple size. If so your problem is solved.
It looks like you assume that human's brain recognize image in computationally effective way, which is rather not true. this algorithm is so complicated that we did not find it. It also takes a large part of your brain to deal with visual data.
When it comes to software there are some scale(or affine) invariant algorithms. One of such algorithms is LeNet 5 neural network.
I want to develop an application in which user input an image (of a person), a system should be able to identify face from an image of a person. System also works if there are more than one persons in an image.
I need a logic, I dont have any idea how can work on image pixel data in such a manner that it identifies person faces.
Eigenface might be a good algorithm to start with if you're looking to build a system for educational purposes, since it's relatively simple and serves as the starting point for a lot of other algorithms in the field. Basically what you do is take a bunch of face images (training data), switch them to grayscale if they're RGB, resize them so that every image has the same dimensions, make the images into vectors by stacking the columns of the images (which are now 2D matrices) on top of each other, compute the mean of every pixel value in all the images, and subtract that value from every entry in the matrix so that the component vectors won't be affine. Once that's done, you compute the covariance matrix of the result, solve for its eigenvalues and eigenvectors, and find the principal components. These components will serve as the basis for a vector space, and together describe the most significant ways in which face images differ from one another.
Once you've done that, you can compute a similarity score for a new face image by converting it into a face vector, projecting into the new vector space, and computing the linear distance between it and other projected face vectors.
If you decide to go this route, be careful to choose face images that were taken under an appropriate range of lighting conditions and pose angles. Those two factors play a huge role in how well your system will perform when presented with new faces. If the training gallery doesn't account for the properties of a probe image, you're going to get nonsense results. (I once trained an eigenface system on random pictures pulled down from the internet, and it gave me Bill Clinton as the strongest match for a picture of Elizabeth II, even though there was another picture of the Queen in the gallery. They both had white hair, were facing in the same direction, and were photographed under similar lighting conditions, and that was good enough for the computer.)
If you want to pull faces from multiple people in the same image, you're going to need a full system to detect faces, pull them into separate files, and preprocess them so that they're comparable with other faces drawn from other pictures. Those are all huge subjects in their own right. I've seen some good work done by people using skin color and texture-based methods to cut out image components that aren't faces, but these are also highly subject to variations in training data. Color casting is particularly hard to control, which is why grayscale conversion and/or wavelet representations of images are popular.
Machine learning is the keystone of many important processes in an FR system, so I can't stress the importance of good training data enough. There are a bunch of learning algorithms out there, but the most important one in my view is the naive Bayes classifier; the other methods converge on Bayes as the size of the training dataset increases, so you only need to get fancy if you plan to work with smaller datasets. Just remember that the quality of your training data will make or break the system as a whole, and as long as it's solid, you can pick whatever trees you like from the forest of algorithms that have been written to support the enterprise.
EDIT: A good sanity check for your training data is to compute average faces for your probe and gallery images. (This is exactly what it sounds like; after controlling for image size, take the sum of the RGB channels for every image and divide each pixel by the number of images.) The better your preprocessing, the more human the average faces will look. If the two average faces look like different people -- different gender, ethnicity, hair color, whatever -- that's a warning sign that your training data may not be appropriate for what you have in mind.
Have a look at the Face Recognition Hompage - there are algorithms, papers, and even some source code.
There are many many different alghorithms out there. Basically what you are looking for is "computer vision". We had made a project in university based around facial recognition and detection. What you need to do is google extensively and try to understand all this stuff. There is a bit of mathematics involved so be prepared. First go to wikipedia. Then you will want to search for pdf publications of specific algorithms.
You can go a hard way - write an implementaion of all alghorithms by yourself. Or easy way - use some computer vision library like OpenCV or OpenVIDIA.
And actually it is not that hard to make something that will work. So be brave. A lot harder is to make a software that will work under different and constantly varying conditions. And that is where google won't help you. But I suppose you don't want to go that deep.