I have images with repeated patterns in them. I would like to find similar images based on having similar patterns.
The patterns are made of crosses, triangles, squares which are combined to form more complicated structures made of those "primitive shapes". For example, imagine a cross made of triangles or hexagons etc.
These decorations are found in wallpapers, carpets, kilims, wool sweaters and even some paintings.
An example image from wikipedia is here
My typical application is to find, say, sweaters with similar patterns in them. Ignoring colour for the moment.
I have tried to extract SIFT descriptors (using C++ and OpenCV) and match these between two images. However, they match tiny areas e.g. the vertex of a hexagon and a triangle but ideally I would like to match the actual shapes of the triangle and rectangle.
It works a bit better if I scaled down the images but still I sense I need a different approach than SIFT and friends.
Can anyone suggest other methods for these kind of problems?
If you know patterns you're looking for a priori, you can do old school template matching. It may not be as trendy as deep learning techniques but for constrained problems can be effective.
Load in your N templates
Load in the image you want to test against.
Normalise the image and templates (possibly including
conversion to grayscale and some histogram and white balance
equilisation)
Create some M perturbations of each template (ie,
different scales, rotations, and perspective transforms)
Do template between between your NxM templates and your image.
You can optimise the above slightly by doing the template matching in the Fourier domain since you only need to do the 2D FFT of the image once. You can also precalculate and store the pertubations - or better yet: store their Fourier transforms.
Related
I want to locate a service robot via infrared landmarks. The idea is to detect two landmarks, get the distance to the landmarks and calculate the robots position from these informations (the position of the landmarks are known).
For this I have built an artificial 2x3 matrix of IR LEDs, which are visible in the robots infrared camera image (shown in the image below).
As the first step, I want to detect a single landmark in a picture and get it's x-y coordinates. I can use these coordinates in the future to get the distance from the depth-image provided.
My first approach was to convert the image to a black and white image. Then I tried to filter out different cluster of points (which i dilated and contoured in the first place). I couldn't succeed with this method.
Now I wonder if there are any pattern recognition/computer vision methods which can help me to quite "easily" detect the pattern.
I've added a picture of the infrared image with the landmark in it and a converted black/white image.
a) Which method can help me to solve this problem?
b) Should I use a 3x3 Matrix or any other geometric form instead of the 2x3 Matrix ?
IR-Image
Black-White Image
A direct answer:
1) find all small circles in the image; 2) look among these small circles for ones that are the same size and close together, and, say, form parallel lines.
The reason for this approach is that you have coded the robot with a specific pattern of small objects. Therefore, look for the objects and then look for the pattern. (If the orientation and size wouldn't change, then you could just look for a sub-image within the larger image, but because it can, you need to look for elements of the pattern that remain consistent with motion in the 3D space, that is, the parallel lines.)
This will work in the example images, but to know whether this will work more generally, we need to know more than you told us: It depends on whether the variation in the images of the matrix and the variations in the background will let this be enough to distinguish between them. If not, maybe you need a more clever algorithm or maybe a different pattern of lights. In the extreme case, it's obvious that if you had another 2x3 matric around, it's not enough. It all depends on the variation of the object to be identified and the variations within the background scene, and because you don't tell us either of these things, it's hard to say the best way, what's good enough, what's a better way, etc.
If you have the choice, and here it sound like you do, good data is better than clever analysis. For this problem, I'd call good data to be anything that clearly distinguishes the object from the background. You need to think of it this way, and look at what the background is, and all the different perspectives on the lights that are possible, and make sure these can never be confused.
For example, if you have a lot of control over this, and enough time, temporal variations are often the easiest. Turning the lights (or a subset of the lights) on and off, etc, and then looking for the expected temporal variation is often the surest way to distinguish signal from noise — but really, this again is just making an assumption about the background and foreground (ie, that the background won't vary with some particular time pattern).
I have created a point cloud of an irregular (non-planar) complex object using SfM. Each one of those 3D points was viewed in more than one image, so it has multiple (SIFT) features associated with it.
Now, I want to solve for the pose of this object in a new, different set of images using a PnP algorithm matching the features detected in the new images with the features associated with the 3D points in the point cloud.
So my question is: which descriptor do I associate with the 3D point to get the best results?
So far I've come up with a number of possible solutions...
Average all of the descriptors associated with the 3D point (taken from the SfM pipeline) and use that "mean descriptor" to do the matching in PnP. This approach seems a bit far-fetched to me - I don't know enough about feature descriptors (specifically SIFT) to comment on the merits and downfalls of this approach.
"Pin" all of the descriptors calculated during the SfM pipeline to their associated 3D point. During PnP, you would essentially have duplicate points to match with (one duplicate for each descriptor). This is obviously intensive.
Find the "central" viewpoint that the feature appears in (from the SfM pipeline) and use the descriptor from this view for PnP matching. So if the feature appears in images taken at -30, 10, and 40 degrees ( from surface normal), use the descriptor from the 10 degree image. This, to me, seems like the most promising solution.
Is there a standard way of doing this? I haven't been able to find any research or advice online regarding this question, so I'm really just curious if there is a best solution, or if it is dependent on the object/situation.
The descriptors that are used for matching in most SLAM or SFM systems are rotation and scale invariant (and to some extent, robust to intensity changes). That is why we are able to match them from different view points in the first place. So, in general it doesn't make much sense to try to use them all, average them, or use the ones from a particular image. If the matching in your SFM was done correctly, the descriptors of the reprojection of a 3d point from your point cloud in any of its observations should be very close, so you can use any of them 1.
Also, it seems to me that you are trying to directly match the 2d points to the 3d points. From a computational point of view, I think this is not a very good idea, because by matching 2d points with 3d ones, you lose the spatial information of the images and have to search for matches in a brute force manner. This in turn can introduce noise. But, if you do your matching from image to image and then propagate the results to the 3d points, you will be able to enforce priors (if you roughly know where you are, i.e. from an IMU, or if you know that your images are close), you can determine the neighborhood where you look for matches in your images, etc. Additionally, once you have computed your pose and refined it, you will need to add more points, no? How will you do it if you haven't done any 2d/2d matching, but just 2d/3d matching?
Now, the way to implement that usually depends on your application (how much covisibility or baseline you have between the poses from you SFM, etc). As an example, let's note your candidate image I_0, and let's note the images from your SFM I_1, ..., I_n. First, match between I_0 and I_1. Now, assume q_0 is a 2d point from I_0 that has successfully been matched to q_1 from I_1, which corresponds to some 3d point Q. Now, to ensure consistency, consider the reprojection of Q in I_2, and call it q_2. Match I_0 and I_2. Does the point to which q_0 is match in I_2 fall close to q_2? If yes, keep the 2d/3d match between q_0 and Q, and so on.
I don't have enough information about your data and your application, but I think that depending on your constraints (real-time or not, etc), you could come up with some variation of the above. The key idea anyway is, as I said previously, to try to match from frame to frame and then propagate to the 3d case.
Edit: Thank you for your clarifications in the comments. Here are a few thoughts (feel free to correct me):
Let's consider a SIFT descriptor s_0 from I_0, and let's note F(s_1,...,s_n) your aggregated descriptor (that can be an average or a concatenation of the SIFT descriptors s_i in their corresponding I_i, etc). Then when matching s_0 with F, you will only want to use a subset of the s_i that belong to images that have close viewpoints to I_0 (because of the 30deg problem that you mention, although I think it should be 50deg). That means that you have to attribute a weight to each s_i that depends on the pose of your query I_0. You obviously can't do that when constructing F, so you have to do it when matching. However, you don't have a strong prior on the pose (otherwise, I assume you wouldn't be needing PnP). As a result, you can't really determine this weight. Therefore I think there are two conclusions/options here:
SIFT descriptors are not adapted to the task. You can try coming up with a perspective-invariant descriptor. There is some literature on the subject.
Try to keep some visual information in the form of "Key-frames", as in many SLAM systems. It wouldn't make sense to keep all of your images anyway, just keep a few that are well distributed (pose-wise) in each area, and use those to propagate 2d matches to the 3d case.
If you only match between the 2d point of your query and 3d descriptors without any form of consistency check (as the one I proposed earlier), you will introduce a lot of noise...
tl;dr I would keep some images.
1 Since you say that you obtain your 3d reconstruction from an SFM pipline, some of them are probably considered inliers and some are outliers (indicated by a boolean flag). If they are outliers, just ignore them, if they are inliers, then they are the result of matching and triangulation, and their position has been refined multiple times, so you can trust any of their descriptors.
I'm using the ORB algorithm to detect and get the coordinates of the crossings of rope shown in the image, which is represented by the red dot. I want to detect the coordinates of the four points surrounding the crossing represented by the blue dots. All the four points have the same distance from the red spot.
Any idea how to get their coordinates by getting use of the red spot coordinate.
Thank you in Advance
Although you're using ORB, you're still going to need an algorithm to segment the rope from the background, or at least some technique to identify image chunks that belong to the rope and that are equidistant from the red dot. There are a number of options to explore.
It's important to consider your lighting & imaging as separate problems to be solved if this is meant to be a real-world application. This looks a bit like a problem for a class rather than for a application you'll sell and support, but you should still consider lighting:
Will your algorithm(s) still work when light level is reduced?
How will detection be affected by changes in camera pose relative to the surface where the rope will be located?
If you'll be detecting "black" rope, will the algorithm also be required to detect rope of different colors? dirty rope? rope on different backgrounds?
Since you're object of interest is rope, you have to consider a class of algorithms suitable for detection of non-rigid objects. Always consider the simplest solution first!
Connected Components
Connected components labeling is a traditional image processing algorithm and still suitable as the starting point for many applications. The last I knew, this was implemented in OpenCV as findContours(). This can also be called "blob finding" or some variant thereof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connected-component_labeling
https://docs.opencv.org/2.4/modules/imgproc/doc/structural_analysis_and_shape_descriptors.html?highlight=findcontours
Depending on lighting, you may have to take different steps to binarize the image before running connected components. As a start, convert the color image to grayscale, which will simplify the task significantly.
Try a manual threshold since you can quickly test a number of values to see the effect. Don't be too discouraged if the binarization isn't quite right--this can often be fixed with preprocessing.
If a range of manual thresholds works (e.g. 52 - 76 in an 8-bit grayscale range), then use an algorithm that will automatically calculate the threshold for you: Otsu, entropy-based methods, etc., will all offer comparable performance. Whichever technique works best, the code/algorithm can be tweaked further to optimize for your rope application.
If thresholding and binarization don't work--which for your rope application seems unlikely, at least how you've presented it--then switch to thinking in terms of gradient-based (edge-based, energy-based) techniques.
But assuming you can separate the rope from the background, you're still going to need a method to start at the red dot [within the rope] and move equal distances out to the blue points. More about that later after a discussion of other rope segmentation methods.
Note: connected components labeling can work in scenarios beyond just binarizing black & white images. If you can create a texture field or some other 2D representation of the image that makes it possible to distinguish the black rope from the relatively light background, you may be able to use a connected components algorithm. (Finding a "more complicated" or "more modern" algorithm isn't necessarily going to be the right approach.)
In a binarized image, blobs can be nested: on a white background you can have several black blobs, inside of one or more of which are white blobs, inside of which are black blobs, etc. An earlier version of OpenCV handled this reasonably well. (OpenCV is a nice starting point, and a touchpoint for many, but for a number of reasons it doesn't always compare favorably to other open source and commercial packages; popularity notwithstanding, OpenCV has some issues.)
Once you have a "blob" (a 4-connected region of pixels) in a 2D digital image, you can treat the blob as an object, at which point you have a number of options:
Edge tracing: trace around the inside and outside edges of the blob. From what I recall, OpenCV does (or at least should) have some relatively straightforward method to get the edges.
Split the blob into component blobs, each of which can be treated separately
Convert the blob to a polygon
...
A connected components algorithm should be high on the list of techniques to try if you have a non-rigid object.
Boolean Operations
Once you have the rope as a connected component (and possibly even without this), you can use boolean image operations to find the spots at the blue dots in your image:
Create a circular region in data, or even in the image
Find the intersection of the circle (an annulus) and the black region representing the rope. Using your original image, you should have four regions.
Find the center point of the intersection regions.
You could even try this without using connected components at all, but using connected components as part of the solution could make it more robust.
Polygon Simplification
If you have a blob, which in your application would be a connected set of black pixels representing the rope on the floor, then you can consider converting this blob to one or more polygons for further processing. There are advantages to working with polygons.
If you consider only the outside boundary of the rope, then you can see that the set of pixels defining the boundary represents a polygon. It's a polygon with a lot of points, and not a convex polygon, but a polygon nonetheless.
To simplify the polygon, you can use an algorithm such as Ramer-Douglas-Puecker:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramer%E2%80%93Douglas%E2%80%93Peucker_algorithm
Once you have a simplified polygon, you can try a few techniques to render useful data from the polygon
Angle Bisector Network
Triangulation (e.g. using ear clipping)
Triangulation is typically dependent on initial conditions, so the resulting triangulation for slighting different polygons (that is, rope -> blob -> polygon -> simplified polygon). So in your application it might be useful to triangulate the dark rope region, and then to connect the center of one triangle to the center of the next nearest triangle. You'll also have to deal with crossings, such as the rope overlap. Ultimately this can yield a "skeletonization" of the rope. Speaking of which...
Skeletonization
If the rope problem was posed to you as a class exercise, then it may have been a prompt to try skeletonization. You can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_skeleton
Skeletonization and thinning have their own problems to solve, but you should dig into them a bit and see those problems themselves.
The Medial Axis Transform (MAT) is a related concept. Long story there.
Edge-based techniques
There are a number of techniques to generate "edge images" based on edge strength, energy, entropy, etc. Making them robust takes a little effort. If you've had academic training in image processing you've likely heard of Harris, Sobel, Canny, and similar processing methods--none are magic bullets, but they're simple and dependable and will yield data you need.
An "edge image" consists of pixels representing the image gradient strength [and sometimes the gradient direction]. People may call this edge image something else, but it's the concept that matters.
What you then do with the edge data is another subject altogether. But one reason to think of edge images (or at least object borders) is that it reduces the amount of information your algorithm(s) will need to process.
Mean Shift (and related)
To get back to segmentation mentioned in the section on connected components, there are other methods for segmenting figures from a background: K-means, mean shift, and so on. You probably won't need any of those, but they're neat and worth studying.
Stroke Width Transform
This is an intriguing technique used to extract text from noisy backgrounds. Although it's intended for OCR, it could work for rope since the rope width is relatively constant, the rope shape varies, there are crossings, etc.
In short, and simplifying quite a bit, you can think of SWT as a means to find "strokes" (thick lines) by finding gradients antiparallel to each other. On either side of a stroke (or line), the edge gradient points normal to the object edge. The normal on one side of the stroke points opposite the direction of the normal on the other side of the stroke. By filtering for pixel-gradient pairs within a certain distance of each other, you can isolate certain strokes--even automatically. For your example the collection of points representing edge pairs for the rope would be much more common than other point pairs.
Non-Rigid Matching
There are techniques for matching non-rigid shapes, but they would not be worth exploring. If any of the techniques I mentioned above is unfamiliar to you, explore some of those first before you try any fancier algorithms.
CNNs, machine learning, etc.
Just don't even think of these methods as a starting point.
Other Considerations
If this were an application for industry, security, or whatnot, you'd have to determine how well your image processing worked under all environmental considerations. That's not an easy task, and can make all the difference between a setup that "works" in the lab and a setup that actually works in practice.
I hope that's of some help. Feel free to post a reply if I've confused more than helped, or if you want to explore some idea in more detail. Though I tried to touch on some common(ish) techniques, I didn't mention all the different ways of addressing this problem.
And briefly: once you have a skeleton, point network, or whatever representing a reduced data set for the rope and the red dot (the identified feature), a few techniques to find the items at the blue dots:
For a skeleton, trace along each "branch" of the rope outward from the know until the geodesic distance or straight-line 2D distance is the distance D that you want.
To use geometry, create a circle of width 1 - 2 pixels. Find the intersection of that circle and the rope. Find the center point of the intersections of circle and rope. (Also described above.)
Good luck!
I have a set of simple rigid 3D objects that I wish to detect and recognize from an image (let's say 5 to 10 classes). The objects are simple in sense that they are cylinders in one color or rectangles with simple patterns (stripes for example) or some similarly simple shape. The objects are significantly different from one another (there aren't for example two classes where one is a large cylinder and another one is the same but smaller cylinder).
Because the textures are pretty simple (solids and/or simple patterns), bag-of-words approach fails (they do not contain significant number of unique edges).
While one possible approach is coding manually each classifier (manual feature extraction etc), is there a simple data driven approach (Haar/LBP classifier for example) that would work? If Haar or LBP are good for solving this problem, how would one solve the problem of unknown relative viewpoint (and by such perspective distortion, rotation, etc)? Would just providing positive images from all possible viewpoints for an object converge or is there something else that's usually done? The detection and recognition should run in real-time.
Based on your description of your problem, I see several drawbacks of a Haar or LBP-based detector. First, these features do not use color, which seems to be important here. Second, a classifier using Haar or LBP features is sensitive to in-plane and out-of-plane rotation. If your objects can be in any 3D orientation, you would need to discretize the range of 3D rotations and train a separate detector for each one. For example, for face detection you typically use two detectors: one for frontal faces, and one for profile faces. Finally, if there is not enough texture for bag-of-words, there also may not be enough texture for Haar or LBP.
Since your objects are simple 3D shapes, I would start by trying to detect straight lines and circles using the Hough transform, and trying to group them to form the object's outlines.
Finding Circle Edges :
Here are the two sample images that i have posted.
Need to find the edges of the circle:
Does it possible to develop one generic circle algorithm,that could find all possible circles in all scenarios ?? Like below
1. Circle may in different color ( White , Black , Gray , Red)
2. Background color may be different
3. Different in its size
http://postimage.org/image/tddhvs8c5/
http://postimage.org/image/8kdxqiiyb/
Please suggest some idea to write a algorithm that should work out on above circle
Sounds like a job for the Hough circle transform:
I have not used it myself so far, but it is included in OpenCV. Among other parameters, you can give it a minimum and maximum radius.
Here are links to documentation and a tutorial.
I'd imagine your second example picture will be very hard to detect though
You could apply an edge detection transformation to both images.
Here is what I did in Paint.NET using the outline effect:
You could test edge detect too but that requires more contrast in the images.
Another thing to take into consideration is what it exactly is that you want to detect; in the first image, do you want to detect the white ring or the disc inside. In the second image; do you want to detect the all the circles (there are many tiny ones) or just the big one(s). These requirement will influence what transformation to use and how to initialize these.
After transforming the images into versions that 'highlight' the circles you'll need an algorithm to find them.
Again, there are more options than just one. Here is a paper describing an algoritm
Searching the web for image processing circle recognition gives lots of results.
I think you will have to use a couple of different feature calculations that can be used for segmentation. I the first picture the circle is recognizeable by intensity alone so that one is easy. In the second picture it is mostly the texture that differentiates the circle edge, in that case a feature image based based on some kind of texture filter will be needed, calculating the local variance for instance will result in a scalar image that can segment out the circle. If there are other features that defines the circle in other scenarios (different colors for background foreground etc) you might need other explicit filters that give a scalar difference for those cases.
When you have scalar images where the circles stand out you can use the circular Hough transform to find the circle. Either run it for different circle sizes or modify it to detect a range of sizes.
If you know that there will be only one circle and you know the kind of noise that will be present (vertical/horizontal lines etc) an alternative approach is to design a more specific algorithm e.g. filter out the noise and find center of gravity etc.
Answer to comment:
The idea is to separate the algorithm into independent stages. I do not know how the specific algorithm you have works but presumably it could take a binary or grayscale image where high values means pixel part of circle and low values pixel not part of circle, the present algorithm also needs to give some kind of confidence value on the circle it finds. This present algorithm would then represent some stage(s) at the end of the complete algorithm. You will then have to add the first stage which is to generate feature images for all kind of input you want to handle. For the two examples it should suffice with one intensity image (simply grayscale) and one image where each pixel represents the local variance. In the color case do a color transform an use the hue value perhaps? For every input feed all feature images to the later stage, use the confidence value to select the most likely candidate. If you have other unknowns that your algorithm need as input parameters (circle size etc) just iterate over the possible values and make sure your later stages returns confidence values.