How to get an array of coordinates of a (drawn) line in image? Coordinates should be relative to image borders. Input: *.img . Output array of coordinates (with fixed step). Any 3rd party software to do this? For example there is high contrast difference - white background and color black line; or red and green etc.
Example:
Oh, you mean non-straight lines. You need to define a "line". Intuitively, you might mean a connected area of the image with a high aspect ratio between the length of its medial axis and the distance between medial axis and edges (ie relatively long and narrow, even if it winds around). Possible approach:
Threshold or select by color. Perhaps select by color based on a histogram of colors, or posterize as described here: Adobe Photoshop-style posterization and OpenCV, then call scipy.ndimage.measurements.label()
For each area above, skeletonize. Helpful tutorial: "Skeletonization using OpenCV-Python". However, you will likely need the distance to the edges as well, so use skimage.morphology.medial_axis(..., return_distance=True)
Do some kind of cleanup/filtering on the skeleton to remove short branches, etc. Thinking about your particular use, and assuming your lines don't loop around, you can just find the longest single path in the skeleton. This is where you can also decide if a shape is a "line" or not, based on how long the longest path in its skeleton is, relative to distance to the edges. Not sure how to best do that in opencv, but "Analyze Skeleton" in Fiji/ImageJ will let you filter by branch length.
What is left is the most elongated medial axis of the original "line" shape. You can resample that to some step that you prefer, or fit it with a spline, etc.
Due to the nature of what you want to do, it is hard to come up with a sample code that will work on a range of images. This is likely to require some careful tuning. I recommend using a small set of images (corpus), running any version of your algo on them and checking the results manually until it is pretty good, then trying it on a large corpus.
EDIT: Original answer, only works for straight lines:
You probably want to use the Hough transform (OpenCV tutorial).
Python sample code: Horizontal Line detection with OpenCV
EDIT: Related question with sample code to skeletonize: How can I get a full medial-axis line with its perpendicular lines crossing it?
Related
I am a relative newcomer to image processing and this is the problem I'm facing - Say I have the image of an application form, like this:
Now I would like to detect the locations of all the locations where data is to be entered. In this case, it would be the rectangles divided into a number of boxes like so(not all fields marked):
I can live with the photograph box also being detected. I've tried running the squares.cpp sample in the OpenCV sources, which does not quite get me what I want. I also tried the modified version here - the results were worse(my use case is definitely very different from the OP's in that question).
Also, Hough transforming to get the lines is not really working with/without blur-threshold as the noise in scanned image is contributing to extraneous lines, and also, thresholding is taking away parts of the combs(the small squares), and hence the line detection is not up to the mark.
Note that this form is not a scanned copy of a printed form, but the real input might very well be a noisy, scanned image of a printed form.
While I'm definitely sure that this is possible(at least with some tolerance allowed) and I'm trying to get at the solution, it would be really helpful if I get insights and ideas from other people who might have tried something like this/enjoy hacking on CV problems. Also, it would be really nice if the answers explain why a particular operation was done (e.g., dilation to try and fill up any holes left by thresholding, etc)
Are the forms consistent in any way? Are the "such boxes" the same size on all forms? If you can rely on a consistent size, like the character boxes in the form above, you could use template matching.
Otherwise, the problem seems to be: find any/all rectangles on the image (with a post processing step to filter out any that have a significant amount of markings within, or to merge neighboring rectangles).
The more you can take advantage of the consistencies between the forms, the easier the problem will be. Use any context you can get.
EDIT
Using the gradients (computed by using a Sobel kernel in both the x and the y direction) you can weed out a lot of the noise.
Using both you can find the direction of the gradients (equation can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobel_operator). Let's say we define a discriminating feature of a box to be a vertical or horizontal gradient. If the pixel's gradient has an orientation that's either straight horizontal or straight vertical, keep it, set all else to white.
To make this more robust to noise, you can use a sliding window (3x3) in which you compute the median orientation. If the median (or mean) orientation of the window is vertical or horizontal, keep the current (middle of the window) pixel, otherwise set it to white.
You can use OpenCV for the gradient computation, and possibly the orientation/phase calculation, but you'll probably need to write the code it do the actual sliding window code. I'm not intimately familiar with OpenCV
I have a bunch of "simple" images and I want to compare if they are similar together. I compare them to each other using template matching (cv::matchTemplate) and results are quite good.
Now I want to fine tune my program and I face a problem. For example I have two images which look very much alike. Only differences they have is that another one has thicker line and the digit front of item is different. When both images are small, one pixell difference in line thickness makes big result differences when doing template matching. When line thicknesses are same and only difference is the front digit, I get template matching result something like 0.98 with CV_TM_CCORR_NORMED when match successful. When line thickness is different matching result is something like 0.95.
I cannot decrease my threshold value below 0.98 because some other similar images have same line thickness.
Here are example images:
So what options do I have?
I have tried:
dilate the original and template
erode also both
morphologyEx both
calculating keypoints and comparing them
finding corners
But no big success yet. Are those images too simple that detecting "good features" is hard?
Any help is very wellcome.
Thank you!
EDIT:
Here are some other example images. What my program consider as similar are put in same zip-folder.
ZIP
A possible way might be thinning the two images, so that every line is of one pixel width, since the differing thickness is causing you the main problem with similarity.
The procedure would be to first binarize/threshold the images, then apply a thinning operation on both images, so both are now having the same thickness of 1 px. Then use the usual template matching that you used before with good results.
In case you'd like more details on the thinning/skeletonization of binary images here are a few OpenCV implementations posted on various discussion forums and OpenCV groups:
OpenCV code for thinning (Guo and Hall algo, works with CvMat inputs)
The JR Parker implementation using OpenCV
Possibly more efficient code here (uses OpenCV optimized access methods a lot, however most of the page is in Japanese!)
And lastly a brief overview of thinning in case you're interested.
You need something more elementary here, there isn't much reason to go for fancy methods. Your figures are already binary ones, and their shapes are very similar overall.
One initial idea: consider the upper points and bottom points in a certain image and form a upper hull and a bottom hull (simply a hull, not a convex hull or anything else). A point is said to be an upper point (respec. bottom point) if, given a column i, it is the first point starting at the top (bottom) of the image that is not a background point in i. Also, your image is mostly one single connected component (in some cases there are vertical bars separated, but that is fine), so you can discard small components easily. This step is important for your situation because I saw there are some figures with some form of noise that is irrelevant to the rest of the image. Considering that a connected component with less than 100 points is small, these are the hulls you get for the respective images included in the question:
The blue line is indicating the upper hull, the green line the bottom hull. If it is not apparent, when we consider the regional maxima and regional minima of these hulls we obtain the same amount in both of them. Furthermore, they are all very close except for some displacement in the y axis. If we consider the mean x position of the extrema and plot the lines of both images together we get the following figure. In this case, the lines in blue and green are for the second image, and the lines in red and cyan for the first. Red dots are in the mean x coordinate of some regional minima, and blue dots the same but for regional maxima (these are our points of interest). (The following image has been resized for better visualization)
As you can see, you get many nearly overlapping points without doing anything. If we do even less, i.e. not even care about this overlapping, and proceed to classify your images in the trivial way: if an image a and another image b have the same amount of regional maxima in the upper hull, the same amount of regional minima in the upper hull, the same amount of regional maxima in the bottom hull, and the same amount of regional minima in the bottom hull, then a and b belong to the same class. Doing this for all your images, all images are correctly grouped except for the following situation:
In this case we have only 3 maxima and 3 minima for the upper hull in the first image, while there are 4 maxima and 4 minima for the second. Following you see the plots for the hulls and points of interest obtained:
As you can notice, in the second upper hull there are two extrema very close. Smoothing this curve eliminates both extrema, making the images match by the trivial method. Also, note that if you draw a rectangle around your images, then this method will tell they are all equal. In that case you will want to compare multiple hulls, discarding the points in the current hull and constructing other ones. Nevertheless, this method is able to group all your images correctly given they are all very simple and mostly noisy-free.
From as much as I can get, the difficulty is when the shape is the same, just size is different. A simple hack approach could be:
- subtract the images, then erode. If the shapes were the same but one slightly bigger, subtracting will leave only the edges, which will be thin an vanish with erosion as noise.
Somewhat more formal, would be to take the contours and then the approximate polygons and do a invariants comparison (Hu Moments etc.)
So, my problem is that I have to find common points between two images of a microchip. Here's an example of two images:
Between these two images, we can clearly see some common pattern like the wires on the bottom right of the first images that can be found in relatively the same place in the second image. Also, the sort of white Z shape in the first image can be seen in the second images, a bit harder, but it's there.
I tried to match them with SURF (OpenCV), found no common point at all. Tried to apply some filter on both images, like edge detection, thresholding, and other filter that I could found in GIMP, but whatever I tried, no common point were ever found.
I'd like to know if you have any idea to solve this problem ? My suggestion right now would be to manually match key features in both images with line segments, but preferably, it should be automated.
A solution that uses OpenCV would be preferable, but I'm looking for any suggestion possible. In OpenCV, all pattern matching situation that I saw were problems way more obvious that this one. No difference in color and so on.
Unless realtime is required, do a simple approach to test if rotation can be automated:
Circuit boards like the ones in the images, are often based on perpendicular straight line segments. Hence you can "despeckle" and remove stuff like coffee stains, by finding linesegments.
Think about creating a kernel, that have a line with dark pixels on one side, and bright pixels on the other. Fold it on the image (or cross-correlate it) to identify all pixels that have a sequence of bright/dark pixels which are nearly vertical or horizontal.
you may interlace to speed things up.
edges of stains and speckles may survive this, if you want angles close to 45* representatations!
The resulting image can be interpreted as a sparse pointcloud.
You can now use RANSAC or other similar approaches to describe many of the remaining correlations, as line segments.
* use a 2 point line segment as input model for RANSAC, Degrade if small.
* Determine infinite lines that have many inliers
* use growth or binninng approaches to segmentate lines.
benefits:
high likelyhood of line segment representations that are actually present as circuitry in image. 2 point description of segments, possible transforms are easy.
easy interpretation of data, as it can be overlayed in openCV
Rotation should be easily found as the rotation that matches most found lines to horizontal and/or vertical axis'es.
apply rotation.
repeat for both images.
now you can determine best translation between the images, by simple x,y cross correlation.
If the top image is always of that quality (quasi bilevel patterns, easy edge detection), I would try a good geometric matching algorithm (such as Cognex or Halcon), training with the top image and searching the bottom one.
Maybe it is worth to first compensate rotation (I hope there is no scaling). You would do that by determining the dominant edge direction, possibly using a Hough transform. Or, much better, by careful mechanical alignment of the sensors.
Anyway, chances of success are low, this is a difficult problem.
I am currently facing a, in my opinion, rather common problem which should be quite easy to solve but so far all my approached have failed so I am turning to you for help.
I think the problem is explained best with some illustrations. I have some Patterns like these two:
I also have an Image like (probably better, because the photo this one originated from was quite poorly lit) this:
(Note how the Template was scaled to kinda fit the size of the image)
The ultimate goal is a tool which determines whether the user shows a thumb up/thumbs down gesture and also some angles in between. So I want to match the patterns against the image and see which one resembles the picture the most (or to be more precise, the angle the hand is showing). I know the direction in which the thumb is showing in the pattern, so if i find the pattern which looks identical I also have the angle.
I am working with OpenCV (with Python Bindings) and already tried cvMatchTemplate and MatchShapes but so far its not really working reliably.
I can only guess why MatchTemplate failed but I think that a smaller pattern with a smaller white are fits fully into the white area of a picture thus creating the best matching factor although its obvious that they dont really look the same.
Are there some Methods hidden in OpenCV I havent found yet or is there a known algorithm for those kinds of problem I should reimplement?
Happy New Year.
A few simple techniques could work:
After binarization and segmentation, find Feret's diameter of the blob (a.k.a. the farthest distance between points, or the major axis).
Find the convex hull of the point set, flood fill it, and treat it as a connected region. Subtract the original image with the thumb. The difference will be the area between the thumb and fist, and the position of that area relative to the center of mass should give you an indication of rotation.
Use a watershed algorithm on the distances of each point to the blob edge. This can help identify the connected thin region (the thumb).
Fit the largest circle (or largest inscribed polygon) within the blob. Dilate this circle or polygon until some fraction of its edge overlaps the background. Subtract this dilated figure from the original image; only the thumb will remain.
If the size of the hand is consistent (or relatively consistent), then you could also perform N morphological erode operations until the thumb disappears, then N dilate operations to grow the fist back to its original approximate size. Subtract this fist-only blob from the original blob to get the thumb blob. Then uses the thumb blob direction (Feret's diameter) and/or center of mass relative to the fist blob center of mass to determine direction.
Techniques to find critical points (regions of strong direction change) are trickier. At the simplest, you might also use corner detectors and then check the distance from one corner to another to identify the place when the inner edge of the thumb meets the fist.
For more complex methods, look into papers about shape decomposition by authors such as Kimia, Siddiqi, and Xiaofing Mi.
MatchTemplate seems like a good fit for the problem you describe. In what way is it failing for you? If you are actually masking the thumbs-up/thumbs-down/thumbs-in-between signs as nicely as you show in your sample image then you have already done the most difficult part.
MatchTemplate does not include rotation and scaling in the search space, so you should generate more templates from your reference image at all rotations you'd like to detect, and you should scale your templates to match the general size of the found thumbs up/thumbs down signs.
[edit]
The result array for MatchTemplate contains an integer value that specifies how well the fit of template in image is at that location. If you use CV_TM_SQDIFF then the lowest value in the result array is the location of best fit, if you use CV_TM_CCORR or CV_TM_CCOEFF then it is the highest value. If your scaled and rotated template images all have the same number of white pixels then you can compare the value of best fit you find for all different template images, and the template image that has the best fit overall is the one you want to select.
There are tons of rotation/scaling independent detection functions that could conceivably help you, but normalizing your problem to work with MatchTemplate is by far the easiest.
For the more advanced stuff, check out SIFT, Haar feature based classifiers, or one of the others available in OpenCV
I think you can get excellent results if you just compute the two points that have the furthest shortest path going through white. The direction in which the thumb is pointing is just the direction of the line that joins the two points.
You can do this easily by sampling points on the white area and using Floyd-Warshall.
I have 55 000 image files (in both JPG and TIFF format) which are pictures from a book.
The structure of each page is this:
some text
--- (horizontal line) ---
a number
some text
--- (horizontal line) ---
another number
some text
There can be from zero to 4 horizontal lines on any given page.
I need to find what the number is, just below the horizontal line.
BUT, numbers strictly follow each other, starting at one on page one, so in order to find the number, I don't need to read it: I could just detect the presence of horizontal lines, which should be both easier and safer than trying to OCR the page to detect the numbers.
The algorithm would be, basically:
for each image
count horizontal lines
print image name, number of horizontal lines
next image
The question is: what would be the best image library/language to do the "count horizontal lines" part?
Probably the easiest way to detect your lines is using the Hough transform in OpenCV (which has wrappers for many languages).
The OpenCV Hough tranform will detect all lines in the image and return their angles and start/stop coordinates. You should only keep the ones whose angles are close to horizontal and of adequate length.
O'Reilly's Learning OpenCV explains in detail the function's input and output (p.156).
If you have good contrast, try running connected components and analyze the result. It can be an alternative to finding lines through Hough and cover the case when your structured elements are a bit curved or a line algorithm picks up the lines you don’t want it to pick up.
Connected components is a super fast, two raster scan algorithm and will give you a mask with all you connected elements in it marked with different labels and accounted for. You can discard anything short ( in terms of aspect ratio). Overall, this can be more general, faster but probably a bit more involved than running Hough transform. The Hough transform on the other hand will be more tolerable for contrast artifacts and even accidental gaps in lines.
OpenCV has the function findContours() that find components for you.
you might want to try John' Resig's OCR and Neural Nets in Javascript