I am just starting to use OpenCV to detect specific curves in an image. First, I want to verify if there is a curve, and next, I would like to identify the type of curve according to vertical or horizontal convex or concave curve. Is there an available function in OpenCV? If not, can you give me some ideas about how can I possibly write such a function? Thanks! By the way, I'm using C++.
Template matching is not a robust way to solve this problem (its like looking at an object from a small pinhole) and edge detectors don't necessarily return you the true edges in the image; false edges such as those due to shadows are returned too. Further, you have to deal with the problem of incomplete edges and other problems that scales up with the complexity of the scene in your image.
The problem you posed, in general, is a very challenging one and, except for toy examples, there are no good solutions.
A rough attempt could be to first try to detect plausible edges using an edge detector (e.g. the canny edge detector suggested). Next, use RANSAC to try to fit a subset of the points in the detected edges to your curve model.
For e.g. let's say you are trying to detect a curve of the following form f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c. RANSAC will basically try to find from among the points in the detected edges, a subset of them that would best fit this curve model. To detect different curves, change f(x) accordingly and run RANSAC for each of them. You can then try to determine if the curve represented by f(x) really exists in your image using some heuristic applied to from the points that were assigned to it by RANSAC (e.g. if too few points were fitted to the model it is likely that the curve is not there. But how to determine a good threshold for the number of points?). You model will get more complex when you have to account for allowable transformation such as rotation etc.
The problem with this approach is you are basically trying fit what you think should be in the image to the points and sometimes, even if what you are looking for is not there, it will return you the "best possible" fit. For e.g. you have a whole bunch of points detected from a concentric circle. If you try to detect straight lines from these points, RANSAC will return you the best fit line! In fact, it could give you many different lines from different runs depending on which points it selected during its random initialization stage.
For more details on how to use RANSAC on this sort of problem, have a look at RANSAC for Dummies by Marco Zuliani. He also has a nice MATLAB toolbox to accompany this tech report, which you can probably port to the language of your choice.
Unless you know what you background looks like, or if you are in control of it e.g. by forcing a clean background, this is a very difficult problem to solve.
Related
I have an application where I have to detect the presence of some items in a scene. The items can be rotated and a little scaled (bigger or smaller). I've tried using keypoint detectors but they're not fast and accurate enough. So I've decided to first detect edges in the template and the search area, using Canny ( or a faster edge detection algo ), and then match the edges to find the position, orientation, and size of the match found.
All this needs to be done in less than a second.
I've tried using matchTemplate(), and matchShape() but the former is NOT scale and rotation invariant, and the latter doesn't work well with the actual images. Rotating the template image in order to match is also time consuming.
So far I have been able to detect the edges of the template but I don't know how to match them with the scene.
I've already gone through the following but wasn't able to get them to work (they're either using old version of OpenCV, or just not working with other images apart from those in the demo):
https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/99457/Edge-Based-Template-Matching
Angle and Scale Invariant template matching using OpenCV
https://answers.opencv.org/question/69738/object-detection-kinect-depth-images/
Can someone please suggest me an approach for this? Or a code snipped for the same if possible ?
This is my sample input image ( the parts to detect are marked in red )
These are some software that are doing this and also how I want it should be:
This topic is what I am actually dealing for a year on a project. So I will try to explain what my approach is and how I am doing that. I assume that you already did the preprocess steps(filters,brightness,exposure,calibration etc). And be sure you clean the noises on image.
Note: In my approach, I am collecting data from contours on a reference image which is my desired object. Then I am comparing these data with the other contours on the big image.
Use canny edge detection and find the contours on reference
image. You need to be sure here about that it shouldn't miss some parts of
contours. If it misses, probably preprocess part should have some
problems. The other important point is that you need to find an
appropriate mode of findContours because every modes have
different properties so you need to find an appropriate one for your
case. At the end you need to eliminate the contours which are okey
for you.
After getting contours from reference, you can find the length of
every contours using outputArray of findContours(). You can compare
these values on your big image and eliminate the contours which are
so different.
minAreaRect precisely draws a fitted, enclosing rectangle for
each contour. In my case, this function is very good to use. I am
getting 2 parameters using this function:
a) Calculate the short and long edge of fitted rectangle and compare the
values with the other contours on the big image.
b) Calculate the percentage of blackness or whiteness(if your image is
grayscale, get a percentage how many pixel close to white or black) and
compare at the end.
matchShape can be applied at the end to the rest of contours or you can also apply to all contours(I suggest first approach). Each contour is just an array so you can hold the reference contours in an array and compare them with the others at the end. After doing 3 steps and then applying matchShape is very good on my side.
I think matchTemplate is not good to use directly. I am drawing every contour to a different mat zero image(blank black surface) as a template image and then I compare with the others. Using a reference template image directly doesnt give good results.
OpenCV have some good algorithms about finding circles,convexity etc. If your situations are related with them, you can also use them as a step.
At the end, you just get the all data,values, and you can make a table in your mind. The rest is kind of statistical analysis.
Note: I think the most important part is preprocess part. So be sure about that you have a clean almost noiseless image and reference.
Note: Training can be a good solution for your case if you just want to know the objects exist or not. But if you are trying to do something for an industrial application, this is totally wrong way. I tried YOLO and haarcascade training algorithms several times and also trained some objects with them. The experiences which I get is that: they can find objects almost correctly but the center coordinates, rotation results etc. will not be totally correct even if your calibration is correct. On the other hand, training time and collecting data is painful.
You have rather bad image quality very bad light conditions, so you have only two ways:
1. To use filters -> binary threshold -> find_contours -> matchShape. But this very unstable algorithm for your object type and image quality. You will get a lot of wrong contours and its hard to filter them.
2. Haarcascades -> cut bounding box -> check the shape inside
All "special points/edge matching " algorithms will not work in such bad conditions.
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!
The shape of an object is detected on a bw image. The object is a black continuous shape, the background is white.
We use PCA (http://docs.opencv.org/3.1.0/d1/dee/tutorial_introduction_to_pca.html) to get the object direction and align the object. Currently the shape itself (the points on the contour) is the input to the opencv PCA implementation. This usually works very well. But from time to time there is small dirt on the object border, causing the shape to pass around the dirt. This causes more points and more weight on one side, slightly turning the object.
Idea: Instead of the contour, we use the area of the object as input for our PCA analysis. The issue there, to check all points on if they are inside the contour and then use them for PCA slows the application down. This part will be about 52352 times slower.
New Approach: We take random points in the image, check if they are inside the shape and if so, use them for our PCA. We have to see if we can get the consistent quality needed from this approach.
Is there already a similar implementation in opencv which is using the area instead of the shape?
Another approach would be to put a mesh over the object and use the mesh points inside the object for PCA.
Is there already something similar available one can just use or does one quickly need to implement something like this?
Going for straight lines around the object isn't an option.
Given that we have received very limited information about your problem (posting images would help a lot) and you do not seem to know the probability density function of the noise, your best bet is to consider the noise to be Gaussian.
As such, and following your intuition, my suggested approach is to take a few (by a few I mean statistically relevant but not raising the computation time that much) random points that lie inside the object and compute the PCA.
Repeat this procedure in an iterative loop and store somewhere the resulting rotation angles you get from the application of the PCA to the object shape.
Stop once you have enough point, compute the mean of the rotation angles: this is a decent estimate of the true angle. Compute also the standard deviation to get a measure of the quality of your estimation. By "enough points" you can consider that ~30 points is usually considered to be "enough" for being representative of the underlying population according to the central limit theorem.
If you want, you can improve on this approach in many ways, for example doing robust estimation of the true angle once you have collected enough points. It all depends on the data you have at hand...take my suggestion just as a starting point.
There are few parameters that you could change, in which may improve your system.
First is the threshold you use to binarize your image. I don't know what your application is about, but you could use other color systems, or normalize your image by cromacity, and after that, apply the new threshold.
Other aspect is to exclude shapes (contours) that have bigger or smaller area that what you are expecting.
To add up, you may use a blur filter before detect contours.
I don't know how the noise looks but when you say "small dirt" I think it might be only some few pixels that is a lot smaller then the object it self, but it might be attached to the object. To reduce this noise it might be possible to perform an opening (morphology) on the binary image.
http://docs.opencv.org/2.4/doc/tutorials/imgproc/opening_closing_hats/opening_closing_hats.html
I'm trying to track little white dots on edges table. In most of case it works. I'm using cornerHarris function like it's used in this tutorial : http://docs.opencv.org/doc/tutorials/features2d/trackingmotion/harris_detector/harris_detector.html .
Sometimes, I have got a problem : reflection of the light on edges creates point of interest which I have to not consider.
For example :
I'm searching to the two nearest points of the top corners, as you can see on the right edges, i have find dots(red and green dots) and on the left edges, light noise is a problem (cyan and blue dots).
Does someone knows a method to keep only dots white on my picture ? Thankyou and sorry for my english
On the purely image processing part, I would recommend using some kind of shape feature analysis(like comparing the histogram in say 8x8 around your currently examined point of interest to precomputed ones of the features you want .
This would mean that you first look for points with Harris corners, then compare the features to dismiss unwanted ones ( euclidian distance in the 8x8 = 64D ?). This of course assumes the existence of a strong feature (read "taking time to find a good one")
It also assumes you already know what your feature points look like beforehand.
Alternative more on the computer vision side : use geometry of your corner points repartition to your advantage : you probably want a distorted rectangle, so make sure you find one ! Surely you can compute a function that gives the validity of the last feature point assuming 3 others ? (Distance of intersection of the 2 lines generated by the other 3 points ...)
The typical and coolest approach would then apply RANSAC to it : try random (but not all !) combinations of your points and check which one fits best using that function, and consider those as good.
If you intend on tracking over time or over several images, you will have to tune it a bit, as ransac can occasionally fail (statistics of random combinations ...), and you would then use points from your previously successful run to guestimate the position.
Last idea for the moment : use some color-aware derivation technique : do you compute Harris corner of the rgb image or of a flattened version to gray ? Some gradients use color information as extra tip to discern edges, and I'm not sure the corners you're finding use any of those. Then again it might mean reimplementing Harris corners algorithm (try it, it's fun, and not that hard if you have a good algebra library to do the heavy work)
I recommend the geometric test of fitting as it uses wisely model-info of your system rather than assumptions on how reflections look like.
Really funny introduction to RANSAC : danielwedge.com/ransac/
Edit : Trusty photoshop knows what I mean : I highlighted the invalid shapes
Valid grid, photoshop says so
Invalid grid, logical, right ?