I am working on a project that requires me to detect and track a human in a live video from a webcam connected to a Beagleboard xm.
I have completed this task using Opencv in pixel domain. The results on the board are very accurate but extremely slow. Many people have suggested me to leave pixel domain and do the same task in an h.264/MPEG-4 compressed video as it would extremely reduce the computational overhead.
I have read many research papers but failed to discover any software platform or a library that I can use to analyze and process h.264 compressed videos.
I will be thankful if someone can suggest me some library for h.264 compressed video analysis and guide me further.
Thanks and Regards.
I'm not sure how practical this really is (I've never tried to do it), but my guess would be that what they're referring to would be looking for a block of macro-blocks that all have (nearly) identical motion vectors.
For example, let's assume you have a camera that's not panning, and the picture shows a car driving across the screen. Looking at the motion vectors, you should have a (roughly) car-shaped bunch of macro-blocks that all have similar motion vectors (denoting the motion of the car). Then, rather than look at the entire picture for your object of interest, you can look at that block in isolation and try to identify it. Likewise, if the camera was panning with the car, you'd have a car-shaped block with small motion vectors, and most of the background would have similar motion vectors in the opposite direction of the car's movement.
Note, however, that this is likely to be imprecise at best. Just for example, let's assume our mythical car as driving in front of a brick building, with its headlights illuminating some of the bricks. In this case, a brick in one picture might (easily) not point back at the same brick in the previous picture, but instead point at the brick in the previous picture that happened to be illuminated about the same. The bricks are enough alike that the closest match will depend more on illumination than the brick itself.
You may be able, eventually, to parse and determine that h.264 has an object, but this will not be "object tracking" like your looking for. openCV is excellent software and what it does best. Have you considered scaling the video down to a smaller resolution for easier analysis by openCV?
I think you are highly over estimating the computing power of this $45 computer. Object recognition and tracking is VERY hard computationally speaking. I would start by seeing how many frames per second your board can track and optimize from there. Start looking at where your bottlenecks are, you may be better off processing raw video instead of having to decode h.264 video first. Again, RAW video takes a LOT of RAM, and processing through that takes a LOT of CPU.
Minimize overhead from decoding video, minimize RAM overhead by scaling down the video before analysis, but in the end, your asking a LOT from a 1ghz, 32bit ARM processor.
FFMPEG is a very old library that is not being supported now a days. It has very limited capabilities in terms of processing and object tracking in h.264 compressed video. Most of the commands usually are outdated.
The best thing would be to study h.264 thoroughly and then try to implement your own API in some language like Java or c#.
Related
So a while back about a year ago I was interested in building my own barebones augmented reality (AR) library. My goal was to be able to take a video of something (anything really) and then be able to place augmentations (3D objects that weren't really there) in the video. So for example I might take a video of my living room and then, through this AR library/tool, I'd be able to add in maybe a 3D avatar of a monster sitting on top of my coffee table. So, knowing absolutely nothing about the subject or computer vision in general, I had settled for the following strategy:
Use 3D reconstruction tools/techniques (Structure from Motion, or SfM) to build up a 3D model of everything in the video (e.g. a 3D model of my living room)
Analyze that 3D model (really a 3D pointcloud to be exact) for flat surfaces
Add my own logic to determine what objects (3D models such as Blender files, etc.) to place in what area of the video's 3D model (e.g. monster standing on top of the coffee table)
The hardest part: inferring the camera orientation in each frame of the video, and then figuring out how to orient the augmentation (e.g. monster) correctly based on what the camera is pointed at, and then "merging" the augmentation's 3D model into the main video 3D model. This means that as the camera moves around my living room, the monster appears to remain standing in the same place on my coffee table. I never figured out a good solution for this but figured if I could get to this 4th step that I'd find some solution.
After several difficult weeks (computer vision is hard!) I got the following pipeline of tools to work with mixed success:
I was able to feed sample frames of a video (e.g. a video taken while walking around my living room) into OpenMVG and produce a sparse pointcloud PLY file/model of it
Then I was able to feed that PLY file into MVE and produce a dense pointcloud (again PLY file) of it
Then I fed the dense pointcloud and the original frames into mvs-texturing to produce a textured 3D model of my video
About 30% of the time, this pipeline worked amazing! Here's the model of the front of my house. You can see my 3D front yard, my son's 3D playhouse and even kinda/sorta make out windows and doors!
About 70% of the time the pipelined failed with indecipherable errors, or produced something that looked like an abstract painting. Additionally, even with automated scripting involved, it took the tooling about 30 mins to produce the final 3D textured model...so pretty slow.
Well, looks like Google ARCode and Apple ARKit beat me to the punch! These frameworks can take live video feeds from your smartphone and accomplish exactly what I had been trying to accomplish about a year ago: real-time 3D AR. Very, very similar (but much more advanced & interactive) as Pokemon Go. Take a video of your living room, and voila, an animated monster is sitting on your coffee table, and you can interact with it. Very, very, very cool stuff.
My question
I'm jealous! Of course, Google and Apple can hire some best-in-show CV/3D recon folks, but I'm still jealous!!! I'm curious if there are any hardcore AR/CV/3D recon gurus out there that either have insider knowledge or just know the AR landscape so well that they can speak to what kind of tooling/pipeline/technology is going on behind the scenes here with ARCode or ARKit. Because I practically broke my brain trying to figure this out on my own, and I failed spectacularly.
Was my strategy (explained above) ballpark-accurate, or way off base? (Again: 3D recon of video -> surface analysis -> frame-by-frame camera analysis, model merge)?
What kind of tooling/libraries/techniques are at play here?
How do they accomplish this in real-time whereas, if my 3D recon even worked, it took 30+ mins to be processed & generated?
Thanks in advance!
I understand your jealousy and as a Computer Vision engineer I have it experienced many times before :-).
The key for AR on mobile devices is the fusion of computer vision and inertial tracking (the phone's gyroscope).
Quote from Apple's ARKit docu:
ARKit uses a technique called visual-inertial odometry. This process
combines information from the iOS device’s motion sensing hardware
with computer vision analysis of the scene visible to the device’s
camera.
Quote from Google's ARCore docu:
The visual information is combined with inertial measurements from the
device's IMU to estimate the pose (position and orientation) of the
camera relative to the world over time.
The problem with this approach is that you have to know every single detail about your camera and IMU sensor. They have to be calibrated and synced together. No wonder it is easier for Apple than for the common developer. And this is also the reason why Google only supports a couple of phones for the ARCore preview.
I want to build a depth camera that finds out any image from particular distance. I have already read the following link.
http://www.i-programmer.info/news/194-kinect/7641-microsoft-research-shows-how-to-turn-any-camera-into-a-depth-camera.html
https://jahya.net/blog/how-depth-sensor-works-in-5-minutes/
But couldn't understand clearly which hardware requirements need & how to integrated into all together?
Thanks
Certainly, a depth sensor needs an IR sensor, just like in Kinect or Asus Xtion and other cameras available that provides the depth or range image. However, Microsoft came up with machine learning techniques and using algorithmic modification and research which you can find here. Also here is a video link which shows the mobile camera that has been modified to get depth rendering. But some hardware changes might be necessary if you make a standalone 2D camera into a new performing device. So I would suggest you to see the hardware design of the existing market devices as well.
one way or the other you would need two angles to the same points to get a depth. So search for depth sensors and examples e.g. kinect with ros or openCV or here
also you could transfere two camera streams into a point cloud but that's another story
Here's what I know:
3D Cameras
RGBD and Stereoscopic cameras are popular for these applications but are not always practical / available. I've prototyped with Kinects (v1,v2) and intel cameras (r200,d435). Certainly those are preferred even today.
2D Cameras
IF YOU WANT TO USE RGB DATA FOR DEPTH INFO then you need to have an algorithm that will process the math for each frame; try an RGB SLAM. A good algo will not process ALL the data every frame but it will process all the data once and then look for clues to support evidence of changes to your scene. A number of BIG companies have already done this (it's not that difficult if you have a big team w big money) think Google, Apple, MSFT, etc etc.
Good luck out there, make something amazing!
I was trying to get RGBDemo(mostly reconstructor) working with 2 logitech stereo cameras, but I did not figure out how to do it.
I noticed that there is a opencv grabber in nestk library and its header file is included in the reconstructor.cpp. Yet, when I try "rgbd-viewer --camera-id 0", it keeps looking for kinect.
My questions:
1. Is RGBDemo only working with kinect so far?
2. If RGBDemo can work with non-kinect stereo cameras, how do I do that?
3. If I need to write my own implementation for non-kinect stereo cameras, any suggestion on how to start?
Thanks in advance.
if you want to do it with non-kinect cameras. You don't even need stereo. There are algorithms now that are able to determine whether two images' viewpoints are sufficiently different that they can be used as if they were taken by a stereo camera. In fact, they use images from different cameras that are found on the internet and reconstruct 3D models of famous places. I can write you a tutorial on how to get it working. I've been meaning to do so. The software is called Bundler. Along with Bundler, people often also use CMVS and PMVS. CMVS preprocesses the images for PMVS. PMVS generates dense clouds.
BUT! I highly recommend that you don't go this route. It makes a lot of mistakes because there is so much less information in 2D images. It makes it very hard to reconstruct the 3D model. So, it ends up making a lot of mistakes, or not working. Although Bundler and PMVS are awesome compared to previous software, the stuff you can do with kinect is on a whole other level.
To use kinect will only cost you $80 for the kinect off of ebay or $99 off of amazon and another $5 for the power adapter off of amazon. So, I'd highly recommend this route. Kinect provides much more information for the algorithm to work with than 2D images do, making it much more effective, reliable and fast. In fact, it could take hours to process images with Bundler and PMVS. Whereas with kinect, I made a model of my desk in just a few seconds! It truly rocks!
Are there any open source code which will take a video taken indoors (from a smart phone for example of a home or office buildings, hallways) and superimpose that on a 2D picture showing the path traveled? This can be a handr drawn picture or a photo of a floor layout.
First I thought of doing this using the accelerometer and compass sensors but thought that perhaps one can get better accuracy with the visual odometer approach. I only need 0.5 to 1 meter accuracy. The phone will also collect important information indoors (no gps) for superimposing that data on the path traveled (this is the real application of this project and we know how to do this part). The post processing of the video can be done later on a stand alone computer so speed and cpu power is not a issue.
Challenges -
The user will simply hand carry the smart phone so the video taker is moving (walking) and not fixed
limit the video rate to keep the file size small (5 frames/sec? is that ok?). Typically need perhaps a full hour of video
Will using inputs from the phone sensors help the visual approach?
any help or guidance is appreciated Thanks
I have worked in the area for quite some time. There are three points which I'd care to make.
Vision only is hard
Vision based navigation using just a cellphone camera is very difficult. Most of the literature with great results show ~1% distance traveled as state-of-the-art but is usually using stereo cameras. Stereo helps a great deal, particularly in indoor environments for coping with scale drift. I've worked on a system which achieves 0.5% distance traveled for stereo but only roughly 5% distance traveled for monocular. While I can't share code, much of our system was inspired by this Sibley and Mei paper.
Stereo code in our case ran at full 60fps on a desktop. Provided you can push data fast enough, it'll be fine. With your error envelope, you can only navigate for 100m or so. Is that enough?
Multi-sensor is way to go. Though other sensors are worse than vision by themselves.
I've heard some good work with accelerometers mounted on the foot to do ZUPT (zero velocity updates) when the foot is briefly motionless on the ground while taking a step in order to zero out drift. This approach has the clear drawback of needing to mount the device on your foot, making a vision approach largely useless.
Compass is interesting but will be distracted by the ton of metal within an office building. Translating few feet around a large metal cabinet might cause 50+ degrees of directional jump.
Ultimately, a combination of sensors is likely to be the best if you can make that work.
Can you solve a simpler problem?
How much control do you have over your environment? Can you slap down fiducial markers? Can you do wifi triangulation? Does it need to be an initial exploration? If you can go through the environment before hand and produce visual bubbles (akin to Google Street View) to match against, you'll be much more accurate.
I'm not aware of any software that does this directly (though it might exist) but stuff similar to what you want to do has been done. A few pointers:
Google for "Vision based robot localization" the problem you state is very similar to the problem robots with a camera have when they enter a new environment. In this field the approach is usually to have the robot map its environment and then use the model for later reference, but the techniques are similar to what you'll need.
Optical flow will roughly tell you in what direction the camera is moving, but it won't tell you the speed because you have no objective reference. This is because you don't know if the things you see moving in the video feed are 1cm away and very small or 1 mile away and very big.
If you know the camera matrix of the camera recording the images you could try partial 3D scene reconstruction techniques to take a stab at the speed. Note that you can do the 3D scene stuff without the camera matrix (this is the "uncalibrated" part you see in the title of a lot of the google results), the camera matrix will let you add real world object sizes (and hence distances) to your reconstruction.
The amount of images/second you need depends on the speed of the camera. More is better, but my guess is that 5/second should be sufficient at walking speeds.
Using extra sensors will help. Probably the robot localization articles talk about this as well.
Im trying to do a screen-flashing application, that flashes the screen according to the music(which will be frequencies, such as healing frequencies, etc...).
I already made the player and know how will I make the screen flash, but I need to make the screen flash super fast according to the music, for example if the music speeds up, the screen-flash will flash faster. I understand that I would achieve this by FFT or DSP(as I only need to know when the frequency raises from some Hz, lets say 20 to change the color, making the screen-flash).
But I've found that I understand NOTHING, even less try to implement it to my application.
Can somebody help me out to learn whichever both of them? My email is sismetic_chaos#hotmail.com. I really need help, I've been stucked for like 3 days not coding or doing anything at all, trying to understand, but I dont.
PS:My application is written in C++ and Qt.
PS:Thanks for taking the time to read this and the willingness to help.
Edit: Thanks to all for the answers, the problem is in no way solved yet, but I appreciate all the answers, I didnt thought I would get so many answers and info. Thanks to you all.
This is a difficult problem, requiring more than an FFT. I'll briefly describe how I implemented beat detection when I was writing software for professional DJ equipment.
First of all, you'll need to cut down the amount of data you're dealing with, since there are only two or three beats per second, but tens of thousands of samples. You'll also need to look at different frequency ranges, since some types of music carry the tempo in the bassline, and others in percussion or other instruments. So pass the signal through several band-pass filters (I chose 8 filters, each covering one octave, from low bass to high treble), and then downsample each band by averaging the power over a few hundred samples.
Every few seconds, you'll have a thousand or so samples in each band. Your next tool is an autocorrelation, to identify repetitive patterns in the music. The peaks of the autocorrelation tell you what the beat is more or less likely to be; but you'll need to make up some heuristics to compare all the frequency bands to find a beat that you can be confident in, and to avoid misleading syncopations. If you can manage that, then you'll have a reasonable guess at the tempo, but no idea of the phase (i.e. exactly when to flash the screen).
Now you can look at the a smoothed version of the audio data for peaks, some of which are likely to correspond to beats. Initially, look for the strongest peak over the course of a few seconds and take that as a downbeat. In conjunction with the tempo you estimated in the first stage, you can predict when the next beat is due, and measure where you actually saw something like a beat, and adjust your estimate to more closely match the data. You can also maintain a confidence level based on how well the predicted beats match the measured peaks; if that drops too low, then restart the beat detection from scratch.
There are a lot of fiddly details to this, and it took me some weeks to get it working nicely. It is a difficult problem.
Or for a simple visualisation effect, you could simply detect peaks and flash the screen for each one; it will probably look good enough.
The output of a FFT will give you the frequency spectrum of an audio sample, but extracting the tempo from the FFT output is probably not the way you want to go.
One thing you can do is to use peak detection to identify the volume "spikes" that typically occur on the "down-beats" of the music. If you can identify the down-beats, then you can use a resource like bpmdatabase.com to find the tempo of the song. The tempo will tell you how fast to flash and the peaks you detected will tell you when to start flashing. Have your app monitor your flashes to make sure that they generally occur at the same time as a peak (if the two start to diverge, then the tempo may have changed mid-song).
That may sound straightforward, but this is actually a very non-trivial thing to implement. You might want to read this SO question for more information. There are some quality links in the answers there.
If I'm completely mis-interpreting what you are trying to do and you need to do FFTs for something different, then you might want to look at using one of the existing FFT libraries to do the heavy lifting for you. Some examples are FFTW and KissFFT.
It sounds like maybe you're trying to get your visualizer to flash the screen in time with the
music somehow. I don't think calculating the FFT is going to help you here. At any
given instant, there will be many simultaneous frequency components, all over the audio spectrum (roughly 20 Hz to 20 kHz). But you're likely to be a lot more interested in the
musical tempo (beats per minute -- more like 5 Hz or below), and that's not going to show
up anywhere in an FFT of the raw audio signal.
You probably need something much simpler -- some sort of real-time peak detection.
Whenever you see a peak greater than some threshold above the average volume,
make your screen flash.
Of course, more complicated visualizations might well take advantage of the FFT,
but not the one you're describing.
My recommendation would be to find a library that does this for you. Unless you have a lot of mathematics to back you up, I think you will be wasting a ton of your time trying to learn FFTs when all you really want out is some sort of 'base hits per minute' number out which you can adjust your graphics to accordingly.
Check out this similar post:
here
It took me about three weeks to understand the mathematics behind FFTs and then another week to write something in Matlab using those concepts. If you are discouraged after three days, don't try and roll your own.
I hope this is helpful advice and not discouraging.
-Brian J. Stinar-
As previous answers have noted, an FFT is probably not the tool you need in order to solve your problem, which requires tempo detection rather than spectral analysis.
For an example of what can be done using FFT - and of how a particular FFT implementation was integrated into a Qt application, take a look at this blog post which describes the spectrum analyzer demo I developed. Code for the demo is shipped with Qt itself, in the demos/spectrum directory.