I am trying to teach my camera to be a scanner: I take pictures of printed text and then convert them to bitmaps (and then to djvu and OCR'ed). I need to compute a threshold for which pixels should be white and which black, but I'm stymied by uneven illumination. For example if the pixels in the center are dark enough, I'm likely to wind up with a bunch of black pixels in the corners.
What I would like to do, under relatively simple assumptions, is compensate for uneven illumination before thresholding. More precisely:
Assume one or two light sources, maybe one with gradual change in light intensity across the surface (ambient light) and another with an inverse square (direct light).
Assume that the white parts of the paper all have the same reflectivity/albedo/whatever.
Find some algorithm to estimate degree of illumination at each pixel, and from that recover the reflectivity of each pixel.
From a pixel's reflectivity, classify it white or black
I have no idea how to write an algorithm to do this. I don't want to fall back on least-squares fitting since I'd somehow like to ignore the dark pixels when estimating illumination. I also don't know if the algorithm will work.
All helpful advice will be upvoted!
EDIT: I've definitely considered chopping the image into pieces that are large enough so they still look like "text on a white background" but small enough so that illumination of a single piece is more or less even. I think if I then interpolate the thresholds so that there's no discontinuity across sub-image boundaries, I will probably get something halfway decent. This is a good suggestion, and I will have to give it a try, but it still leaves me with the problem of where to draw the line between white and black. More thoughts?
EDIT: Here are some screen dumps from GIMP showing different histograms and the "best" threshold value (chosen by hand) for each histogram. In two of the three a single threshold for the whole image is good enough. In the third, however, the upper left corner really needs a different threshold:
I'm not sure if you still need a solution after all this time, but if you still do. A few years ago I and my team photographed about 250,000 pages with a camera and converted them to (almost black and white ) grey scale images which we then DjVued ( also make pdfs of).
(See The catalogue and complete collection of photographic facsimiles of the 1144 paper transcripts of the French Institute of Pondicherry.)
We also ran into the problem of uneven illumination. We came up with a simple unsophisticated solution which worked very well in practice. This solution should also work to create black and white images rather than grey scale (as I'll describe).
The camera and lighting setup
a) We taped an empty picture frame to the top of a table to keep our pages in the exact same position.
b) We put a camera on a tripod also on top of the table above and pointing down at the taped picture frame and on a bar about a foot wide attached to the external flash holder on top of the camera we attached two "modelling lights". These can be purchased at any good camera shop. They are designed to provide even illumination. The camera was shaded from the lights by putting small cardboard box around each modelling light. We photographed in greyscale which we then further processed. (Our pages were old browned paper with blue ink writing so your case should be simpler).
Processing of the images
We used the free software package irfanview.
This software has a batch mode which can simultaneously do color correction, change the bit depth and crop the images. We would take the photograph of a page and then in interactive mode adjust the brightness, contrast and gamma settings till it was close to black and white. (We used greyscale but by setting the bit depth to 2 you will get black and white when you batch process all the pages.)
After determining the best color correction we then interactively cropped a single image and noted the cropping settings. We then set all these settings in the batch mode window and processed the pages for one book.
Creating DjVu images.
We used the free DjVu Solo 3.1 to create the DjVu images. This has several modes to create the DjVu images. The mode which creates black and white images didn't work well for us for photographs, but the "photo" mode did.
We didn't OCR (since the images were handwritten Sanskrit) but as long as the letters are evenly illuminated I think your OCR software should ignore big black areas like between a two page spread. But you can always get rid of the black between a two page spread or at the edges by cropping the pages twices once for the left hand pages and once for the right hand pages and the irfanview software will allow you to cleverly number your pages so you can then remerge the pages in the correct order. I.e rename your pages something like page-xxxA for lefthand pages and page-xxxB for righthand pages and the pages will then sort correctly on name.
If you still need a solution I hope some of the above is useful to you.
i would recommend calibrating the camera. considering that your lighting setup is fixed (that is the lights do not move between pictures), and your camera is grayscale (not color).
take a picture of a white sheet of paper which covers the whole workable area of your "scanner". store this picture, it tells what is white paper for each pixel. now, when you take take a picture of a document to scan, you can reload your "white reference picture" and even the illumination before performing a threshold.
let's call the white reference REF, the picture DOC, the even illumination picture EVEN, and the maximum value of a pixel MAX (for 8bit imaging, it is 255). for each pixel:
EVEN = DOC * (MAX/REF)
notes:
beware of the parenthesis: most image processing library uses the image pixel type for performing computation on pixel values and a simple multiplication will overload your pixel. eventually, write the loop yourself and use a 32 bit integer for intermediate computations.
the white reference image can be smoothed before being used in the process. any smoothing or blurring filter will do, and don't hesitate to apply it aggressively.
the MAX value in the formula above represents the target pixel value in the resulting image. using the maximum pixel value targets a bright white, but you can adjust this value to target a lighter gray.
Well. Usually the image processing I do is highly time sensitive, so a complex algorithm like the one you're seeking wouldn't work. But . . . have you considered chopping the image up into smaller pieces, and re-scaling each sub-image? That should make the 'dark' pixels stand out fairly well even in an image of variable lighting conditions (I am assuming here that you are talking about a standard mostly-white page with dark text.)
Its a cheat, but a lot easier than the 'right' way you're suggesting.
This might be horrendously slow, but what I'd recommend is to break the scanned surface into quarters/16ths and re-color them so that the average grayscale level is similar across the page. (Might break if you have pages with large margins though)
I assume that you are taking images of (relatively) small black letters on a white background.
One approach could be to "remove" the small black objects, while keeping the illumination variations of the background. This gives an estimate of how the image is illuminated, which can be used for normalizing the original image. It is often enough to subtract the illumination estimate from the original image and then do a threshold based segmentation.
This approach is based on gray scale morphological filters, and could be implemented in matlab like below:
img = imread('filename.png');
illumination = imclose(img, strel('disk', 10));
imgCorrected = img - illumination;
thresholdValue = graythresh(imgCorrected);
bw = imgCorrected > thresholdValue;
For an example with real images take a look at this guide from mathworks. For further reading about the use of morphological image analysis this book by Pierre Soille can be recommended.
Two algorithms come to my mind:
High-pass to alleviate the low-frequency illumination gradient
Local threshold with an appropriate radius
Adaptive thresholding is the keyword. Quote from a 2003 article by R.
Fisher, S. Perkins, A. Walker, and E. Wolfart: “This more sophisticated version
of thresholding can accommodate changing lighting conditions in the image, e.g.
those occurring as a result of a strong illumination gradient or shadows.”
ImageMagick's -lat option can do it, for example:
convert -lat 50x50-2000 input.jpg output.jpg
input.jpg
output.jpg
You could try using an edge detection filter, then a floodfill algorithm, to distinguish the background from the foreground. Interpolate the floodfilled region to determine the local illumination; you may also be able to modify the floodfill algorithm to use the local background value to jump across lines and fill boxes and so forth.
You could also try a Threshold Hysteresis with a rate of change control. Here is the link to the normal Threshold Hysteresis. Set the first threshold to a typical white value. Set the second threshold to less than the lowest white value in the corners.
The difference is that you want to check the difference between pixels for all values in between the first and second threshold. Ideally if the difference is positive, then act normally. But if it is negative, you only want to threshold if the difference is small.
This will be able to compensate for lighting variations, but will ignore the large changes between the background and the text.
Why don't you use simple opening and closing operations?
Try this, just lool at the results:
src - cource image
src - open(src)
close(src) - src
and look at the close - src result
using different window size, you will get backgound of the image.
I think this helps.
Related
I think this can be a stupid question but after read a lot and search a lot about image processing every example I see about image processing uses gray scale to work
I understood that gray scale images use just one channel of color, that normally is necessary just 8 bit to be represented, etc... but, why use gray scale when we have a color image? What are the advantages of a gray scale? I could imagine that is because we have less bits to treat but even today with faster computers this is necessary?
I am not sure if I was clear about my doubt, I hope someone can answer me
thank you very much
As explained by John Zhang:
luminance is by far more important in distinguishing visual features
John also gives an excellent suggestion to illustrate this property: take a given image and separate the luminance plane from the chrominance planes.
To do so you can use ImageMagick separate operator that extracts the current contents of each channel as a gray-scale image:
convert myimage.gif -colorspace YCbCr -separate sep_YCbCr_%d.gif
Here's what it gives on a sample image (top-left: original color image, top-right: luminance plane, bottom row: chrominance planes):
To elaborate a bit on deltheil's answer:
Signal to noise. For many applications of image processing, color information doesn't help us identify important edges or other features. There are exceptions. If there is an edge (a step change in pixel value) in hue that is hard to detect in a grayscale image, or if we need to identify objects of known hue (orange fruit in front of green leaves), then color information could be useful. If we don't need color, then we can consider it noise. At first it's a bit counterintuitive to "think" in grayscale, but you get used to it.
Complexity of the code. If you want to find edges based on luminance AND chrominance, you've got more work ahead of you. That additional work (and additional debugging, additional pain in supporting the software, etc.) is hard to justify if the additional color information isn't helpful for applications of interest.
For learning image processing, it's better to understand grayscale processing first and understand how it applies to multichannel processing rather than starting with full color imaging and missing all the important insights that can (and should) be learned from single channel processing.
Difficulty of visualization. In grayscale images, the watershed algorithm is fairly easy to conceptualize because we can think of the two spatial dimensions and one brightness dimension as a 3D image with hills, valleys, catchment basins, ridges, etc. "Peak brightness" is just a mountain peak in our 3D visualization of the grayscale image. There are a number of algorithms for which an intuitive "physical" interpretation helps us think through a problem. In RGB, HSI, Lab, and other color spaces this sort of visualization is much harder since there are additional dimensions that the standard human brain can't visualize easily. Sure, we can think of "peak redness," but what does that mountain peak look like in an (x,y,h,s,i) space? Ouch. One workaround is to think of each color variable as an intensity image, but that leads us right back to grayscale image processing.
Color is complex. Humans perceive color and identify color with deceptive ease. If you get into the business of attempting to distinguish colors from one another, then you'll either want to (a) follow tradition and control the lighting, camera color calibration, and other factors to ensure the best results, or (b) settle down for a career-long journey into a topic that gets deeper the more you look at it, or (c) wish you could be back working with grayscale because at least then the problems seem solvable.
Speed. With modern computers, and with parallel programming, it's possible to perform simple pixel-by-pixel processing of a megapixel image in milliseconds. Facial recognition, OCR, content-aware resizing, mean shift segmentation, and other tasks can take much longer than that. Whatever processing time is required to manipulate the image or squeeze some useful data from it, most customers/users want it to go faster. If we make the hand-wavy assumption that processing a three-channel color image takes three times as long as processing a grayscale image--or maybe four times as long, since we may create a separate luminance channel--then that's not a big deal if we're processing video images on the fly and each frame can be processed in less than 1/30th or 1/25th of a second. But if we're analyzing thousands of images from a database, it's great if we can save ourselves processing time by resizing images, analyzing only portions of images, and/or eliminating color channels we don't need. Cutting processing time by a factor of three to four can mean the difference between running an 8-hour overnight test that ends before you get back to work, and having your computer's processors pegged for 24 hours straight.
Of all these, I'll emphasize the first two: make the image simpler, and reduce the amount of code you have to write.
I disagree with the implication that gray scale images are always better than color images; it depends on the technique and the overall goal of the processing. For example, if you wanted to count the bananas in an image of a fruit bowl image, then it's much easier to segment when you have a colored image!
Many images have to be in grayscale because of the measuring device used to obtain them. Think of an electron microscope. It's measuring the strength of an electron beam at various space points. An AFM is measuring the amount of resonance vibrations at various points topologically on a sample. In both cases, these tools are returning a singular value- an intensity, so they implicitly are creating a gray-scale image.
For image processing techniques based on brightness, they often can be applied sufficiently to the overall brightness (grayscale); however, there are many many instances where having a colored image is an advantage.
Binary might be too simple and it could not represent the picture character.
Color might be too much and affect the processing speed.
Thus, grayscale is chosen, which is in the mid of the two ends.
First of starting image processing whether on gray scale or color images, it is better to focus on the applications which we are applying. Unless and otherwise, if we choose one of them randomly, it will create accuracy problem in our result. For example, if I want to process image of waste bin, I prefer to choose gray scale rather than color. Because in the bin image I want only to detect the shape of bin image using optimized edge detection. I could not bother about the color of image but I want to see rectangular shape of the bin image correctly.
The objective is to display the person on a different background (aka background removal).
I'm using the Kinect with Microsoft's Beta Kinect SDK to do so. With help of the depth, the background is filtered and we get only the image of the person.
This is pretty simple to do, and we can find the code that does that everywhere on the Internet. However, the depth signal is noisy, and we get pixels which do not belong to the person that are displayed.
I applied an edge detector to see if it was useful, and I currently get this:
Here's another without edge detection:
My question is: Which way can I get rid of these noisy white pixels around the person?
I tried morphological operations, but some parts of the body are erased and still leave white pixels behind.
The algorithm doesn't need to be real-time, I can just apply it when I press a 'Save image' button.
Edit 1:
I just tried to do background substraction with the closest frames on the shape border. The single pixels you see are flickering, which means it is noise and I can get easily get rid of them.
Edit 2:
The project is now over, and here's what we did: manual calibration of the Kinect by using the OpenNI driver, which provides directly the infrared image. The result is really good, but each calibration is specific to each Kinect.
Then, we applied a little transparency on the borders, and the result looks really nice! I can't provide pictures, however.
Your problem isn't just the noisy white pixels. You're missing significant parts of the person as well, e.g. part of his right hand. I'd recommend being more conservative with your thresholding of the depth data (allow more false positives). This would give you more noisy pixels, but at least you'd have the person in their entirety.
To get rid of the noisy pixels, I can think of a couple of things:
Feather the outer pixels (reduce them in intensity/increase their transparency if you're using an alpha channel)
Smooth the image, perform the edge detection on the smoothed image, then use these edges with your original sharp image.
Do some skin region detection to mark parts that definitely belong to a person. See skin detection in the YUV color space? and Skin Color Detection
For clothes, work with the hue and saturation image. If you know the color of the t-shirt (or that at least that it's not a neutral color), then this will stand out easily. If you don't know this information, then it may be worth building up a model of the person using the other frames (if there's a big gray blob that's moving around in your video, chances are that your subject is wearing a gray shirt)
The approaches aren't mutually exclusive so it may be worth trying to do them in combination. If I think of anything else, I'll post back here.
If there is no other way of resolving the jitter on the edges you could always try anti-alias as post-process.
I uploaded an example image for better understanding: http://www.imagebanana.com/view/kaja46ko/test.jpg
In the image you can see some scanlines and a marker (the white retangle with the circle in it). I want OpenCV to go along a specified area (in the example outlined trough the scanlines) that should be around 5x5. If that area contains a gradient from black to white, I want OpenCV to save the position of that area, so that I can work with it later.
The final result would be to differentiate between the marker and the other retangles separated trough black and white lines.
Is something like that possible? I googled a lot but I only found edge detectors but that's not what I want, I really need the detection of the black to white gradient only.
Thanks in advance.
it would be a good idea to filter out some of the areas by calculating their histogram.
You can use cvCalcHist for the task, then you can establish some threshold to determine if the black-white pixels percentage corresponds to that of a gradient. This will not solve the task but it will help you in reducing complexity.
Then, you can erode the image to merge all the white areas. After applying threshold, it would be possible to find connected components (using cvFindContours) that will separate images in black zones or white zones. You can then detect gradients by finding 5x5 areas that contain both a piece of a white zone and black zone simultaneously.
hope it helps.
Thanks for your answerer dnul, but it didn't really help me work this out. I though about a histogram to approach the problem but it's not quite what I want.
I solved this problem by creating a 40x40 matrix which holds 5x5 matrix's containing the raw pixel data in all 3 channels. I iterated trough each 40px-area and inside iterated trough each border of 5px-area. I checked each pixel and saved the ones which are darker then a certain threshold a storage.
After the iteration I had a rough idea of how many black pixels their are, so I checked each one of them for neighbors with white-pixels in all 3 channels. I then marked each of those pixels and saved them to another storage.
I then used the ransac algorithm to construct lines out of these points. It constructs about 5-20 lines per marker edge. I then looked at the lines which meet each other and saved the position of those that meet in a square angle.
The 4 points I get from that are the edges of the marker.
If you want to reproduce this you would have to filter the image in beforehand and apply a threshold to make it easier to distinguish between black and white pixels.
A sample picture, save after finding the points and before constructing the lines:
http://www.imagebanana.com/view/i6gfe6qi/9.jpg
What you are describing is edge detection. This is exactly how, say, the Canny edge detector works. It looks for dark pixels near light pixels, and based on a threshold that you pass in (There is also the adaptive canny, which figures out the threshold for you), and sets them to all black or all white (aka 'marks' them).
See here:
http://docs.opencv.org/doc/tutorials/imgproc/imgtrans/canny_detector/canny_detector.html
How to get rid of uneven illumination from images, that contain text data, usually printed but may be handwritten? It can have some spots of lights because the light reflected while making picture.
I've seen the Halcon program's segment_characters function that is doing this work perfectly,
but it is not open source.
I wish to convert an image to the image that has a constant illumination at background and more dark colored regions of text. So that binarization will be easy and without noise.
The text is assumed to be dark colored than it's background.
Any ideas?
Strictly speaking, assuming you have access to the image's pixels (you can search online for how to accomplish this in your programming language as the topic is abundantly available), the exercise involves going over the pixels once to determine a "darkness threshold". In order to do this you convert each pixel from RGB to HSL in order to get the lightness level component for each pixel. During this process you calculate an average lightness for the whole image which you can use as your "darkness threshold"
Once you have the image average lightness level, you can go over the image pixels once more and if a pixel is less than the darkness threshold, set it's color to full white RGB(255,255,255), otherwise, set it's color to full black RGB (0,0,0). This will give you a binary image with in which the text should be black - the rest should be white.
Of course, the key is in finding the appropriate darkness threshold - so if the average method doesn't give you good results you may have to come up with a different method to augment that step. Such a method could involve separating the image in the primary channels Red, Green, Blue and computing the darkness threshold for each channel separately and then using the aggressive threshold of the three..
And lastly, a better approach may be to compute the light levels distribution - as opposed to simply the average - and then from that, the range around the maximum is what you want to keep. Again, go over each pixel and if it's lightness fits the band make it black, otherwise, make it white.
EDIT
For further reading about HSL I recommend starting with the Wiky entry on HSL and HSV Color spaces.
Have you tried using morphological techniques? Closure-by-reconstruction (as presented in Gonzalez, Woods and Eddins) can be used to create a grayscale representation of background illumination levels. You can more-or-less standardize the effective illumination by:
1) Calculating the mean intensity of all the pixels in the image
2) Using closure-by-reconstruction to estimate background illumination levels
3) Subtract the output of (2) from the original image
4) Adding the mean intensity from (1) to every pixel in the output of (3).
Basically what closure-by-reconstruction does is remove all image features that are smaller than a certain size, erasing the "foreground" (the text you want to capture) and leaving only the "background" (illumination levels) behind. Subtracting the result from the original image leaves behind only small-scale deviations (the text). Adding the original average intensity to those deviations is simply to make the text readable, so that the resulting picture looks like a light-normalized version of the original image.
Use Local-Thresholding instead of the global thresholding algorithm.
Divide your image(grayscale) in to a grid of smaller images (say 50x50 px) and apply the thresholding algorithm on each individual image.
If the background features are generally larger than the letters, you can try to estimate and subsequently remove the background.
There are many ways to do that, a very simple one would be to run a median filter on your image. You want the filter window to be large enough that text inside the window rarely makes up more than a third of the pixels, but small enough that there are several windows that fit into the bright spots. This filter should result in an image without text, but with background only. Subtract that from the original, and you should have an image that can be segmented with a global threshold.
Note that if the bright spots are much smaller than the text, you do the inverse: choose the filter window such that it removes the light only.
The first thing you need to try and do it change the lighting, use a dome light or some other light that will give you a more diffuse and even light.
If that's not possible, you can try some of the ideas in this question or this one. You want to implement some type of "adaptive threshold", this will apply a local threshold to individual parts of the image so that the change in contrast won't be as noticable.
There is also a simple but effective method explained here. The simple outline of the alrithm is the following:
Split the image up into NxN regions or neighbourhoods
Calculate the mean or median pixel value for the neighbourhood
Threshold the region based on the value calculated in 2) or the value from 2) minus C (where C is a chosen constant)
It seems like what you're trying to do is improve local contrast while attenuating larger scale lighting variations. I'll agree with other posters that optimizing the image through better lighting should always be the first move.
After that, here are two tricks.
1) Use smooth_image() operator to convolve a gaussian on your original image. Use a relaitively large kernel, like 20-50px. Then subtract this blurred image from your original image. Apply scale and offset within sub_image() operator, or use equ_histo() to equalize histogram.
This basically subtracts the low spatial frequency information from the original, leaving the higher frequency information intact.
2) You could try highpass_image() operator, or one of the laplacian operators to extract a gradiant image.
I implemented some adaptive binarization methods, they use a small window and at each pixel the threshold value is calculated. There are problems with these methods:
If we select the window size too small we will get this effect (I think the reason is because of window size is small)
(source: piccy.info)
At the left upper corner there is an original image, right upper corner - global threshold result. Bottom left - example of dividing image to some parts (but I am talking about analyzing image's pixel small surrounding, for example window of size 10X10).
So you can see the result of such algorithms at the bottom right picture, we got a black area, but it must be white.
Does anybody know how to improve an algorithm to solve this problem?
There shpuld be quite a lot of research going on in this area, but unfortunately I have no good links to give.
An idea, which might work but I have not tested, is to try to estimate the lighting variations and then remove that before thresholding (which is a better term than "binarization").
The problem is then moved from adaptive thresholding to finding a good lighting model.
If you know anything about the light sources then you could of course build a model from that.
Otherwise a quick hack that might work is to apply a really heavy low pass filter to your image (blur it) and then use that as your lighting model. Then create a difference image between the original and the blurred version, and threshold that.
EDIT: After quick testing, it appears that my "quick hack" is not really going to work at all. After thinking about it I am not very surprised either :)
I = someImage
Ib = blur(I, 'a lot!')
Idiff = I - Idiff
It = threshold(Idiff, 'some global threshold')
EDIT 2
Got one other idea which could work depending on how your images are generated.
Try estimating the lighting model from the first few rows in the image:
Take the first N rows in the image
Create a mean row from the N collected rows. You know have one row as your background model.
For each row in the image subtract the background model row (the mean row).
Threshold the resulting image.
Unfortunately I am at home without any good tools to test this.
It looks like you're doing adaptive thresholding wrong. Your images look as if you divided your image into small blocks, calculated a threshold for each block and applied that threshold to the whole block. That would explain the "box" artifacts. Usually, adaptive thresholding means finding a threshold for each pixel separately, with a separate window centered around the pixel.
Another suggestion would be to build a global model for your lighting: In your sample image, I'm pretty sure you could fit a plane (in X/Y/Brightness space) to the image using least-squares, then separate the pixels into pixels brighter (foreground) and darker than that plane (background). You can then fit separate planes to the background and foreground pixels, threshold using the mean between these planes again and improve the segmentation iteratively. How well that would work in practice depends on how well your lightning can be modeled with a linear model.
If the actual objects you try to segment are "thinner" (you said something about barcodes in a comment), you could try a simple opening/closing operation the get a lighting model. (i.e. close the image to remove the foreground pixels, then use [closed image+X] as threshold).
Or, you could try mean-shift filtering to get the foreground and background pixels to the same brightness. (Personally, I'd try that one first)
You have very non-uniform illumination and fairly large object (thus, no universal easy way to extract the background and correct the non-uniformity). This basically means you can not use global thresholding at all, you need adaptive thresholding.
You want to try Niblack binarization. Matlab code is available here
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF3300/h06/undervisningsmateriale/week-36-2006-solution.pdf (page 4).
There are two parameters you'll have to tune by hand: window size (N in the above code) and weight.
Try to apply a local adaptive threshold using this procedure:
convolve the image with a mean or median filter
subtract the original image from the convolved one
threshold the difference image
The local adaptive threshold method selects an individual threshold for each pixel.
I'm using this approach extensively and it's working fine with images having non uniform background.