I have an app that needs to take two photos of a room and detect if one of the objects in the first photos is missing in the second photo. How can it do it using OpenCV or any other tool?
If your object of interest has well known structure - i.e. it's an augmented reality marker, then this task is well described and almost trivial to implement. If you don't have a priori knowledge about the missing object, the only thing you can do is to compare 2 photos i.e. like in panorama stitching which can be done with SIFT or SURF (please read further about these). If the object is more complicated and if both the images were taken with similar field of view and the model of the missing object is known a priori (i.e. you have a picture of the object of interest and ONLY it), you can use SIFT or SURF to detect features both in the a priori model image and in the input image (the one where you want to find the missing object), perform feature matching and look for the densest cluster of matching features (i.e. use particle swarm optimization algorithm). You need to be aware that this won't work in every case and might give you quite a lot of false-positives. Disturbances such as the object looking different from every side, differences in lighting, partial occlusions etc will easily break this model. This approach does not require dewarping of the image etc. since SIFT is scale, translation and rotation invariant.
There are plenty of more robust methods for this, including deep learning (look for scientific papers on object detection), but the one with feature matching seems to be the easiest thing to try first.
This question is for those who have tried feature detection/matching methods on brain images - it is a broad one, and perhaps a bad one:
How could you tell if the method you used was "good enough?"
What does a successful matching/detection test look like for your data?
EDIT:
As of now, I am not trying to detect any distinct features in particular.
I'm using OpenCV's ORB, SIFT, SURF, etc detection methods, and seeing what they identify for features.
Sometimes, however, the orientation of the brain changes entirely from a
few set of images to the next set, so if I compare two images from these sets,the detection methods won't yield any effective
results (i.e. the matching will be distinctly, completely off). But if I compare images that look similar, but not identical,
the detection seems to work alright. Point is, it seems like detection works for frames that were taken around the same
time, but not over a long interval. I wonder if others have come across this and if they have found that detection methods
are still useful despite the fact.
First of all, you should specify what kind of features or for which purpose, the experiment is going to be performed.
Feature extraction is highly subjective in nature, it all depends on what type of problem you are trying to handle. There is no generic feature extraction scheme which works in all cases.
For example if the features are pointing out to some tumor classification or lesion, then of course there are different softwares you can use to extract and define your features.
There are different methods to detect the relevant features regarding to the application:
SURF algorithm (Speeded Up Robust Features)
PLOFS: It is a fast wrapper approach with a subset evaluation.
ICA or 'PCA
This paper is a very great review about brain MRI data feature extraction for tissue classification:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fabf/a96897dcb59ad9f04b5ff92bd15e1bd159ef.pdf
I found this paper very good o understand the difference between feature extraction techniques.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050918301297
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.
I am working on a computer vision application and I am stuck at a conceptual roadblock. I need to recognize a set of logos in a video, and so far I have been using feature matching methods like SIFT (and ASIFT by Yu and Morel), SURF, FERNS -- basically everything in the "Common Interfaces of Generic Descriptor Matchers" section of the OpenCV documentation. But recently I have been researching methods used in OCR/Random Trees classifier (I was playing with this dataaset: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Letter+Recognition) and thinking that this might be a better way to go about finding the logos. The problem is that I can't find a reliable way to automatically segment an arbitrary image.
My questions:
Should I bother looking into methods other than descriptor/keypoint, or is this the
best way to recognize a typical logo (stylized, few colors, sharp edges)?
How can I segment an arbitary image (or a video frame, in my case) so that I can properly
match against a sample database?
It would seem that HaarCascades work in a similar way (databases of samples), but I
can't figure out how the processes are related. Is there segmentation going on there?
Sorry of these questions are too broad. I'm trying to wrap my head around this stuff with little help. Thanks!
It seems like segmentation is not what you want. I think it has to do more with object detection and recognition. You want to detect the presence of a certain set of logos, in a certain set of images. This doesn't seem related to segmentation which is about labeling surfaces or areas of a common color, texture, shape, etc., although examining segmentation based methods may be useful.
I would definitely encourage you to look at problem and examine all possible methods that can be applied, not only the fashionable ones (such as SIFT, GLOH, SURF, etc). I would recommend you look at older, simpler methods like simple template matching, chamfering, etc.
Haar cascades became popular after a 2000 paper by Viola and Jones used for face detection (similar to what you see in modern point and click cameras). It does sound a bit similar to the problem you are interested in. You should perhaps also examine this part of the problem, but try not to focus too much on the learning part.
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.