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.
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.
I asked this question previously "How to extract numbers from an image" LINK and finally i made this step but there is some test cases that leads to awful outputs when i try to recognize digits .. Consider this image as an example
This image is low contrast (from my POV) i tried to adjust its contrast and the results still unacceptable .I tried also to sharp it then i applied gamma correction but the results still not fair ,so the extracted numbers doesn't recognized well by the classifier
this is the image after (sharpening + gamma)
Number 4 after separation :
Could anybody tell me what is the best ideas to solve such a problem ?
Sharpening is not always the best tool to approach a problem like this. Contrary to what the name implies, sharpening does not "recover" information to add detail and edges back into an image. Instead, sharpening is a class of operations that increase local contrast along edges.
Because your original image is highly degraded, this sharpening operation looks to be adding a lot of noise in, and generally not making anything better.
There is another class of algorithms called "deblurring" algorithms that attempt to actually reconstruct image detail through (much more complex) mathematical models. Some versions of this are blind deconvolution, regularized deconvolution, and Wiener deconvolution.
However, it is important to note that all of these methods are approximations - once image content is lost through an operation such as blurring , it can (almost) never be fully recovered. Also, these methods are generally much more complex.
The best way to handle these situations is make sure that they never happen. Ensure good focus during image capture, use a system with a resolution well suited to your task, control the lighting environment. However, when these methods do not or cannot work, image reconstruction techniques are needed.
Your image is blurred, and I suggest you try wiener deconvolution. You can assume the point spread function a Gaussian function and observe what's going on with the deconvolution process. Since you do not know the blur kernel in advance, blind deconvolution is an alternative.
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.
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.
I'm thinking of starting a project for school where I'll use genetic algorithms to optimize digital sharpening of images. I've been playing around with unsharp masking (USM) techniques in Photoshop. Basically, I want to create a software that optimizes the parameters (i.e. blur radius, types of blur, blending the image) to create the "best-fit" set of filters.
I'm sort of quickly planning this project before starting it, and I can't think of a good fitness function for the 'selection' part. How would I determine the 'quality' of the filter sets, or measure how sharp the image is?
Also, I will be programming using python (with the Python Imaging Library) since it's the only language I'm proficient with. Should I learn a low-level language instead?
Any advice/tips on anything is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
tl;dr How do I measure how 'sharp' an image is?
if its for tuning parameters you could take a known image and apply a known blurring/low pass filter. Then sharpen this with your GA+USM algorithm. Calculate your fitness function making use of the original image, e.g maybe something as simple as the mean absolute error. May need to create different datasets, e.g. landscape images (mostly sharp, in focus with large depth of field), portrait images (could be large areas deliberately out of focus and "soft"), along with low noise and noisy images. Sharpening noisy images is actually quite a challenge.
It would definitely be worth taking a look at Bruce Frasier' work on sharpening techniques for Photoshop etc.
Also it might worth checking out Imatest (www.imatest.com) to see if there is anything regarding sharpness/resolution. And finally you might also consider resolution charts.
And finally I seroiusly doubt one set of ideal parameters exists for USM, the optimum parameters will be image dependant and indeed be a personal perference (thatwhy I suggest starting for a known sharp image and blurring it). Understanding the type of image is probably as important and in itself and very interesting and challenging problem. Although perhaps basic hueristics like image varinance and edge histogram would reveal suitable clues.
Anyway just a thought, hopefully some of the above is useful