I have black and white image after binarization. After that I have image like below:
How can I remove the small lines parallel to the long curves using OpenCV?. I can remove them by removing all small objects, but I want to remove only the small parallel
lines.
This looks like a Canny artifact (or some kind of ringing artifact) to me. There are several ways to remove them.
An empiric but not too computing intensive method would be to locate all small features, and superimpose them with the same image shifted by [+/-]X, [+/-]Y. If the feature is completely coincident with the shifted image, i.e., all pixels in the white feature are also white in the shifted image, then you are probably looking at an artifact.
To evaluate "smallness" of feature, you can use a basic floodfill. This method is cheap because you can simulate shifting with pointers, without really allocating four shifted images. It is prone to false positives wherever you really have small parallel lines, and to false negatives if the artifacts are very large.
Another method would be to posterize twice the original image with different thresholds. While the "real" lines will stay together, the ringing artifacts will have a different strength. At that point you evaluate the image difference, and consider "artifact" all features that are farther than a given threshold from the image track. This is a bit more computation intensive, yields better results, but depends on what you have for an original image, i.e. what is your workflow.
It is possible that reevaluating the workflow (altering the edge detection phase) could avoid the creation of the artifacts altogether.
use cvBlobslib library to detect the white patches as blobs...the cvBlobslib library gives functions by which you can find out different features of the blobs like area , and ellipticity...so if you want only the smaller patches parallel to the long curve...then ..
Get the long curve on the basis of area covered by the blob or the preimeter i.e. contour length of the blob...
Get the ellipticity or the orientation of the major axis of the long curve after fitting an ellipse(cvBlobslib library will do that for you..!!)...
Filter all those blobs which are less than a threshold in terms of area or contour and have the same orientation as the long curve....
hope this might work..
If you know the orientation of your line in advance, you can do a morphological closing with a custom structuring element adapted to your needs.
See morphomat on wikipedia
See opencv documentation
Perhaps similar to what the others said, but in simpler words: since the small lines seem to have roughly half the thickness of the long ones, if you don't really care about preserving the long lines the way they are, you could apply several times a simple algorithm that "makes the lines thinner", until the small ones disappear. What you need to do is scan the image pixel by pixel and when you detect a white pixel above or below or to the left or to the right of a black pixel, you store its coordinates in a vector. After you traverse the entire image, you make all the pixels specified by the coordinates in the vector black. You could define some threshold empirically for the number of iterations of this algorithm.
Here are steps exploiting the fact that parallel lines are increasing edge density.
1) Apply adaptive Threshold on gray image to get many edges.
2) Erode 3x3 (or experiment but small) Morphological Operation.
3) Take Logical Not to get edge density.
4) Apply Dilate of like 3x3 or 5x5. It will dilate edges to merge and make a region.
5) Now Erode 7x7 (or experiment for higher then last dilate) Morphological Operation. It will remove most of the non-required region, long lines and small stray areas.
Output is is MASK for removal region. You can apply contour detection on original image and remove contour-object for matching position in mask high precision removal.
OR if you don't need high-precision result simply And with mask's NOT.
Why not doing something like:
Find the long curves (using findContours and filter by size).
Find the small curves
For each long curve, calculate the minimal distance between each point of every small curve and the long curve.
Calculate the mean and the standard deviation of these minimal distances.
Reject small curves for which either the mean minimal distance to the long curve is too large, or small curves for which the standard deviation of the minimal distances is large.
The result will probably be better (and faster) is you skeletonize the image first.
Good luck with it,
Related
I'm working on a facedetection app using segmentation of skinpixels with a predefined skinmodel in YCrCb space.
I'm loosely basing my algorithms of this report; http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=767122&tag=1, by Douglas Chai and King N. Ngan.
I first segment out all skin pixels (see left).
After that I perform some calculations to reduce the noise (see steps below). It results in a filtered bitmap 1/8th the size of original. Ideally this would be noise free both in face and background area, but it isn't. I have already tried to reduce it by using my density map and then checking neighbouring 3x3 area pixels and eroding/dilating pixel values depending on their neighbours. Then I resize this bitmap and apply the result as a mask on the original image (see right image for result, ignore my censorship).
My question is, what methods do you recommend for getting rid of the noise?
Also, are there any good methods to get smoother contours ? Ideally I would not like to use "find biggest contour and flood fill", preferably something more sophisticated.
There also seem to be bit of a displacement of the resized mask (it cuts of a bit too much on my right side of the face, and shows a bit too much on the left side). What can be causing this?
the easiest way to do smoother contours is to interpolate your data to a higher resolution using an interpolation scheme. You may look in openCV, that will result in smoother transitions between points.
I hope it will help a little bit. Good luck.
I can successfully threshold images and find edges in an image. What I am struggling with is trying to extract the angle of the black edges accurately.
I am currently taking the extreme points of the black edge and calculating the angle with the atan2 function, but because of aliasing, depending on the point you choose the angle can come out with some degree of variation. Is there a reliable programmable way of choosing the points to calculate the angle from?
Example image:
For example, the Gimp Measure tool angle at 3.12°,
If you're writing your own library, then creating a robust solution for this problem will allow you to develop several independent chunks of code that you can string together to solve other problems, too. I'll assume that you want to find the corners of the checkerboard under arbitrary rotation, under varying lighting conditions, in the presence of image noise, with a little nonlinear pincushion/barrel distortion, and so on.
Although there are simple kernel-based techniques to find whole pixels as edge pixels, when working with filled polygons you'll want to favor algorithms that can find edges with sub-pixel accuracy so that you can perform accurate line fits. Even though the gradient from dark square to white square crosses several pixels, the "true" edge will be found at some sub-pixel point, and very likely not the point you'd guess by manually clicking.
I tried to provide a simple summary of edge finding in this older SO post:
what is the relationship between image edges and gradient?
For problems like yours, a robust solution is to find edge points along the dark-to-light transitions with sub-pixel accuracy, then fit lines to the edge points, and use the line angles. If you are processing a true camera image, and if there is an uncorrected radial distortion in the image, then there are some potential problems with measurement accuracy, but we'll ignore those.
If you want to find an accurate fit for an edge, then it'd be great to scan for sub-pixel edges in a direction perpendicular to that edge. That presupposes that we have some reasonable estimate of the edge direction to begin with. We can first find a rough estimate of the edge orientation, then perform an accurate line fit.
The algorithm below may appear to have too many steps, but my purpose is point out how to provide a robust solution.
Perform a few iterations of erosion on black pixels to separate the black boxes from one another.
Run a connected components algorithm (blob-finding algorithm) to find the eroded black squares.
Identify the center (x,y) point of each eroded square as well as the (x,y) end points defining the major and minor axes.
Maintain the data for each square in a structure that has the total area in pixels, the center (x,y) point, the (x,y) points of the major and minor axes, etc.
As needed, eliminate all components (blobs) that are too small. For example, you would want to exclude all "salt and pepper" noise blobs. You might also temporarily ignore checkboard squares that are cut off by the image edges--we can return to those later.
Then you'll loop through your list of blobs and do the following for each blob:
Determine the direction roughly perpendicular to the edges of the checkerboard square. How you accomplish this depends in part on what data you calculate when you run your connected components algorithm. In a general-purpose image processing library, a standard connected components algorithm will determine dozens of properties and measurements for each individual blob: area, roundness, major axis direction, minor axis direction, end points of the major and minor axis, etc. For rectangular figures, it can be sufficient to calculate the topmost, leftmost, rightmost, and bottommost points, as these will define the four corners.
Generate edge scans in the direction roughly perpendicular to the edges. These must be performed on the original, unmodified image. This generally assumes you have bilinear interpolation implemented to find the grayscale values of sub-pixel (x,y) points such as (100.35, 25.72) since your scan lines won't fall exactly on whole pixels.
Use a sub-pixel edge point finding technique. In general, you'll perform a curve fit to the edge points in the direction of the scan, then find the real-valued (x,y) point at maximum gradient. That's the edge point.
Store all sub-pixel edge points in a list/array/collection.
Generate line fits for the edge points. These can use Hough, RANSAC, least squares, or other techniques.
From the line equations for each of your four line fits, calculate the line angle.
That algorithm finds the angles independently for each black checkerboard square. It may be overkill for this one application, but if you're developing a library maybe it'll give you some ideas about what sub-algorithms to implement and how to structure them. For example, the algorithm would rely on implementations of these techniques:
Image morphology (e.g. erode, dilate, close, open, ...)
Kernel operations to implement morphology
Thresholding to binarize an image -- the Otsu method is worth checking out
Connected components algorithm (a.k.a blob finding, or the OpenCV contours function)
Data structure for blob
Moment calculations for blob data
Bilinear interpolation to find sub-pixel (x,y) values
A linear ray-scanning technique to find (x,y) gray values along a specific direction (which will also rely on bilinear interpolation)
A curve fitting technique and means to determine steepest tangent to find edge points
Robust line fit technique: Hough, RANSAC, and/or least squares
Data structure for line equation, related functions
All that said, if you're willing to settle for a slight loss of accuracy, and if you know that the image does not suffer from radial distortion, etc., and if you just need to find the angle of the parallel lines defined by all checkboard edges, then you might try..
Simple kernel-based edge point finding technique (Laplacian on Gaussian-smoothed image)
Hough line fit to edge points
Choose the two line fits with the greatest number of votes, which should be one set of horizontal-ish lines and the other set of vertical-ish lines
There are also other techniques that are less accurate but easier to implement:
Use a kernel-based corner-finding operator
Find the angles between corner points.
And so on and so on. As you're developing your library and creating robust implementations of standalone functions that you can string together to create application-specific solutions, you're likely to find that robust solutions rely on more steps than you would have guessed, but it'll also be more clear what the failure mode will be at each incremental step, and how to address that failure mode.
Can I ask, what C++ library are you using to code this?
Jerry is right, if you actually apply a threshold to the image it would be in 2bit, black OR white. What you may have applied is a kind of limiter instead.
You can make a threshold function (if you're coding the image processing yourself) by applying the limiter you may have been using and then turning all non-white pixels black. If you have the right settings, the squares should be isolated and you will be able to calculate the angle.
Once this is done you can use a path finding algorithm to find some edge, any edge will do. If you find a more or less straight path, you can use the extreme points as you are doing now to determine the angle. Since the checker-board rotation is only relevant within 90 degrees, your angle should be modulo 90 degrees or pi over 2 radians.
I'm not sure it's (anywhere close to) the right answer, but my immediate reaction would be to threshold twice: once where anything but black is treated as white, and once where anything but white is treated as black.
Find the angle for each, then interpolate between the two angles.
Your problem have few solutions but all have one very important issue which you seem to neglect. Note: When you are trying to make geometrical calculation in the image, the points you use must be as far as possible one from the other. You are taking 2 points inside a single square. Those points are very close one to another, so a slight error in pixel location of of the points leads to a large error in the angle. Why do you use only a single square, when you have many squares in the image?
Here are few solutions:
Find the line angle of every square. You have at least 9 squares in the image, 4 lines in each square which give you total of 36 angles (18 will be roughly at 3[deg] and 18 will be ~93[deg]). Remove the 90[degrees] and you get 36 different measurements of the angle. Sort them and take the average of the middle 30 (disregarding the lower 3 and higher 3 measurements). This will give you an accurate result
Second solution, find the left extreme point of the leftmost square and the right extreme point of the rightmost square. Now calculate the angle between them. The result will be much more accurate because the points are far away.
A third algorithm which will give you accurate results because it doesn't involve finding any points and no need for thresholding. Just smooth the image, calculate gradients in X and Y directions (gx,gy), calculate the angle of the gradient in each pixel atan(gy,gx) and make histogram of the angles. You will have 2 significant peaks near the 3[deg] and 93[deg]. Just find the peaks by searching the maximum in the histogram. This will work even if you have a lot of noise in the image, even with antialising and jpg artifacts, and even if you have other drawings on the image. But remember, you must smooth the image a lot before calculating the derivatives.
I am writing an application in C++ that requires a little bit of image processing. Since I am completely new to this field I don't quite know where to begin.
Basically I have an image that contains a rectangle with several boxes. What I want is to be able to isolate that rectangle (x, y, width, height) as well as get the center coordinates of each of the boxes inside (18 total).
I was thinking of using a simple for-loop to loop through the pixels in the image until I find a pattern but I was wondering if there is a more efficient approach. I also want to see if I can do it efficiently without using big libraries like OpenCV.
Here are a couple example images, any help would be appreciated:
Also, what are some good resources where I could learn more about image processing like this.
The detection algorithm here can be fairly simple. Your box-of-squares (BOS) is always aligned with the edge of the image, and has a simple structure. Here's how I'd approach it.
Choose a colorspace. Assume RGB is OK for now, but it may work better in something else.
For each line
For each pixel, calculate the magnitude difference between the pixel and the pixel immediately below it. The magnitude difference is simply sqrt((X-x)^2+(Y-y)^2+(Z-z)^2)), where X,Y,Z are color coordinates of the first pixel, and x,y,z are color coordinates of the pixel below it. For RGB, XYZ=RGB of course.
Calculate the maximum run length of consecutive difference magnitudes that are below a certain threshold magThresh. You may also choose a forgiving version of this: maximum run length, but allowing intrusions up to intrLen pixels long that must be followed by up to contLen pixels long runs. This is to take care of possible line-to-line differences at the edges of the squares.
Find the largest set of consecutive lines that have the maximum run lengths above minWidth and below maxWidth.
Thus you've found the lines which contain the box, and by recalculating data in 2.1 above, you'll get to know where the boxes are in horizontal coordinates.
Detecting box edges is done by repeating the same thing but scanning left-to-right within the box. At that point you'll have approximate box centroids that take no notice of bleeding between pixels.
This can be all accomplished by repeatedly running the image through various convolution kernels followed by doing thresholding, I'd think. The good thing is that both of those operations have very fast library implementations. You do not want to reimplement them by hand, it will be likely significantly slower.
If you insist on doing it yourself (personally I'd use OpenCV, it's industrial-strength and free), you're going to need an edge detection algorithm first. There are a good few out there on the internet, but be prepared for some frightening mathematics...
Many involve iterating over each pixel, and lifting it and it's neighbours' values into a matrix, and then convolving with a kernel matrix. Be aware that this has to be done for every pixel (in principle though, in your case you can stop at the first discovered rectangle), and for each colour channel - so it would be highly advisable to push onto the GPU.
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.
I'm doing some image processing, and am trying to keep track of points similar to those circled below, a very dark spot of a couple of pixels diameter, with all neighbouring pixels being bright. I'm sure there are algorithms and methods which are designed for this, but I just don't know what they are. I don't think edge detection would work, as I only want the small spots. I've read a little about morphological operators, could these be a suitable approach?
Thanks
Loop over your each pixel in your image. When you are done considering a pixel, mark it as "used" (change it to some sentinel value, or keep this data in a separate array parallel to the image).
When you come across a dark pixel, perform a flood-fill on it, marking all those pixels as "used", and keep track of how many pixels were filled in. During the flood-fill, make sure that if the pixel you're considering isn't dark, that it's sufficiently bright.
After the flood-fill, you'll know the size of the dark area you filled in, and whether the border of the fill was exclusively bright pixels. Now, continue the original loop, skipping "used" pixels.
How about some kind of median filtering? Sample values from 3*3 grid (or some other suitable size) around the pixel and set the value of pixel to median of those 9 pixels.
Then if most of the neighbours are bright the pixel becomes bright etc.
Edit: After some thinking, I realized that this will not detect the outliers, it will remove them. So this is not the solution original poster was asking.
Are you sure that you don't want to do an edge detection-like approach? It seems like a comparing the current pixel to the average value of the neighborhood pixels would do the trick. (I would evaluate various neighborhood sizes to be sure.)
Personally I like this corner detection algorithms manual.
Also you can workout naive corner detection algorithm by exploiting idea that isolated pixel is such pixel through which intensity changes drastically in every direction. It is just a starting idea to begin from and move on further to better algorithms.
I can think of these methods that might work with some tweaking of parameters:
Adaptive thresholds
Morphological operations
Corner detection
I'm actually going to suggest simple template matching for this, if all your features are of roughly the same size.
Just copy paste the pixels of one (or a few features) to create few templates, and then use Normalized Cross Correlation or any other score that OpenCV provides in its template matching routines to find similar regions. In the result, detect all the maximal peaks of the response (OpenCV has a function for this too), and those are your feature coordinates.
Blur (3x3) a copy of your image then diff your original image. The pixels with the highest values are the ones that are most different from their neighbors. This could be used as an edge detection algorithm but points are like super-edges so set your threshold higher.
what a single off pixel looks like:
(assume surrounding pixels are all 1)
original blurred diff
1,1,1 8/9,8/9,8/9 1/9,1/9,1/9
1,0,1 8/9,8/9,8/9 1/9,8/9,1/9
1,1,1 8/9,8/9,8/9 1/9,1/9,1/9
what an edge looks like:
(assume surrounding pixels are the same as their closest neighbor)
original blurred diff
1,0,0 6/9,3/9,0/9 3/9,3/9,0/9
1,0,0 6/9,3/9,0/9 3/9,3/9,0/9
1,0,0 6/9,3/9,0/9 3/9,3/9,0/9
Its been a few years since i did any image processing. But I would probably start by converting to a binary representation. It doesn't seem like you're overly interested in the grey middle values, just the very dark/very light regions, so get rid of all the grey. At that point, various morphological operations can accentuate the points you're interested in. Opening and Closing are pretty easy to implement, and can yield pretty nice results, leaving you with a field of black everywhere except the points you're interested in.
Have you tried extracting connected components using cvContours? First thresholding the image (using Otsu's method say) and then extracting each contour. Since the spots you wish to track are (from what I see in your image) somewhat isolated from neighborhood they will some up as separate contours. Now if we compute the area of the Bounding Rectangle of each contour and filter out the larger ones we'd be left with only small dots separate from dark neighbors.
As suggested earlier a bit of Morphological tinkering before the contour separation should yield good results.