I was wondering if anyone encountered this issue.
I can reconstruct images from matlab that resembles the original image, however, the actual values are always different.
For example, original image have values in the matrix ranging from 0 to 1, while my reconstructed image ranges from -0.2 to 0.4 for example.
The reconstructed image look similar to the original image though, just that the data in the image are of different scales.
this is a sample code of what i mean.
p=phantom(64);
theta=0:1:179;
r=radon(p,theta);
ir=iradon(r,theta);
figure
subplot(1,2,1);imagesc(p)
subplot(1,2,2);imagesc(ir)
Those results aren't quite what I found.
>> min(min(ir))
-0.0583
>> max(max(ir))
0.9658
Remember that the Inverse Radon Transform can only approximate the reconstruction of the original image. With only 180 views, there's bound to be some differences.
The Radon transform inherently causes some information to be lost because pixels have to be projected onto a new coordinate system and re-binned - both during projection and back projection. This causes the reconstructed image to be degraded slightly. The Radon transform is not identically invertible like the Fourier Transform.
For better results, try using a larger image size and more viewing angles.
p=phantom(256);
theta=0:0.01:179;
And also try using a different filter (the F in F.B.P.) such as the Shepp-Logan, which reduces high frequencies and lessens overshoot.
ir=iradon(r,theta,'linear','Shepp-Logan');
Related
Currently I hope to use scale space representation to filter one image. Features in one image can be filtered using an Gaussian smooth filter with one optimal sigma. It means different features in one image can be expressed best in different scale under scale space representation.
For example, I have one image with one tree in it. In the scale space representation, three sigma values are used and they are represented as sigma0, sigma1 and sigma2. The ground is best expressed in the smoothed image with sigma0 because it contains textures mainly. The branches are best expressed in the smoother image with sigma1 and the trunk is with the smoother image with sigma2. If I hope to filter the image, I hope that the filtered pixels for the group is from the smoothed image with sigma0.
The filtered pixels for the branches are from the smoothed image with sigma1. The filtered pixels for the trunk are from the smoothed image with sigma2.
It requires that I need to determine in which smoothed image one pixel is expressed best. Is this idea plausible?
I am trying to use differece-of-Gaussian of two successive smoothed images to perform the above task. Is there any other way to combine the three smoothed image?
I use Matlab to implement the idea. The values of the three sigmas is 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. The corresponding size of Gaussian kernel is 3, 5 and 7. I use the function fspecial to generate the kernel. Are the parameter reasonable? Please share your experience with the scale space representation to help me. You can provide some links to useful papers.
your idea is very much plausible! You are just one step away from it. I did something very similar once and it looked like this:
After smoothing your images and extracting the edges for each smoothing step (I used a weighted [to compensate for maxima supression after Gauss filtering] Sobel filter for this since DOG was not quite stable for my aplication), you can proyect (and normalize) your whole stack of edge images into a single image ("cummulative edges") which will contain the characteristic edges. You can then compare the cummulative edges image (using cross-correlation or whatever you wish) with every single image in your edge stack, the biggest value of this comparation is then the smooth-scale in which the pixel is expressed the best.
Hope that makes sense for you after reading it a couple of times.
Also don't be afraid of using much bigger kernel sizes, while it all depends on your application, I ended up using things of 51 and bigger!!! (was working with 40MP images though...)
T. Lindeberg has literally dozens of papers related to this problem. I found this one the most useful, but since you are already in the right track, I don't think reading the 50 pages will make you that much smarter. The most important part of it is maybe this one:
Principle for scale selection:
In the absence of other evidence, assume that a scale level, at which some
(possibly non-linear) combination of normalized derivatives assumes a
local maximum over scales, can be treated as reflecting a characteristic
length of a corresponding structure in the data.
i am trying to plot the figure of FFT magnitude of an image using the following code in the command window:
a= imread('lena','png')
figure,imshow(a)
ffta=fft2(a)
fftshift1=fftshift(ffta)
magnitude=abs(fftshift1)
figure,imshow(magnitude),title('magnitude')
However, the figure with the title magnitude shows nothing, even though MATLAB shows that it has computed abs() on fftshift. The figure is still empty, and there is no error. Also, why do we need to compute the phase shift before magnitude?
The reason why this is probably happening is because of the following things:
When you take the 2D fft of your image, it will produce a double valued result, even though your image is mostly unsigned 8-bit integer. MATLAB assumes that double formatted images have their intensities / colours between [0,1]. By doing imshow on just the magnitude itself, you will most likely get an entirely white image because I suspect a good majority of the FFT coefficients are bigger than 1. This is probably the blank figure that you're referring to.
Even if you rescale the magnitude so that it is between [0,1], the DC coefficient will be so large that if you try to display the image, you'll only see a white dot in the middle while every other component will be black.
As a side note, the reason why you are doing fftshift is because by default, MATLAB assumes that the origin of the FFT for 2D is located at the top left corner. Doing fftshift will allow the origin to be in the middle, which is what we would intuitively expect of the 2D FFT.
In order to remedy this situation, I would suggest doing a log transformation on the FFT coefficients so you can visually see the results. I would also normalize the coefficients once you log transform it so that they go between [0,1]. Do not actually modify the FFT coefficients as this would be improper. You need to leave them the same way that it is because if you intend to do any processing on the spectrum, you would start by working on the raw image. Doing filter design or anything of that sort will require the raw spectrum, as the final filter will depend on these coefficients untouched. Unless you actually want to do a log operation as part of your pipeline, then leave these coefficients as is. As such, this can be done through the following MATLAB code:
imshow(log(1 + magnitude), []);
I'm going to show an example, using your code that you have provided but using another image as you haven't provided one here. I'm going to use the cameraman.tif image that's part of the MATLAB system path. As such:
a= imread('cameraman.tif');
figure,imshow(a);
ffta=fft2(a);
fftshift1=fftshift(ffta);
magnitude=abs(fftshift1);
figure;
imshow(log(1 + magnitude), []); %// NEW
title('magnitude')
This is what I get:
As you can see, the magnitude is displayed more nicely. Also, the DC coefficient is in the middle of the spectrum thanks to fftshift.
If you want to apply this for colour images, fft2 should still work. It will apply the 2D fft to each colour plane by itself. However, if you want this to work, you'll not only need to take the log transform, but you'll also need to normalize each plane separately. You have to do this because if we tried doing the imshow command we did earlier, it would normalize it so that the greatest value in the spectrum of the colour image gets normalized to 1. This will inevitably produce that same small dot effect that we talked about earlier.
Let's try a colour image that's built-in to MATLAB: onion.png. We will use the same code that you used above, but we need an additional step of normalizing each colour plane by itself. As such:
a = imread('onion.png');
figure,imshow(a);
ffta=fft2(a);
fftshift1=fftshift(ffta);
magnitude=abs(fftshift1);
logMag = log(1 + magnitude); %// New
for c = 1 : size(a,3); %// New - normalize each plane
logMag(:,:,c) = mat2gray(logMag(:,:,c));
end
figure; imshow(logMag); title('magnitude');
Note that I had to loop through each colour plane and use mat2gray to normalize each plane to [0,1]. Also, I had to create a new variable called logMag because I have to modify each colour plane individually, and you can't do this with a single imshow call.
With this, these are the results I get:
What's different with this spectrum is that we are applying the FFT to each colour plane separately, and so you'll see a whole bunch of colour spatters because for each location in this image, we are visualizing a linear combination of components from the red, green and blue channels. For each location, we have a value in between [0,1] for each colour plane, and the combination of these give you a colour at this location. You could say that darker colours are for locations that have a relatively low magnitude for at least one of the colour channels, while locations that are brighter have a relatively high magnitude for at least one of the colour channels.
Hope this helps!
Can't be sure about your version of "lena.png", but if it's a color RGB picture, you need to convert it first to grayscale, or at least select which RGB plane you want to examine.
I.e., the following works for http://optipng.sourceforge.net/pngtech/img/lena.png (color png):
clear; close all;
a = imread('lena','png');
ag = rgb2gray(a);
ag = im2double(ag);
figure(1);
imshow(ag);
F = fftshift( fft2(ag) ); % also try fft2(ag, N, N) where N < image size. Say N=128.
magnitude=abs(F);
figure(2);
imshow(magnitude);
My goal is to make a ridge(mountain)-like shape from the given line. For that purpose, I applied the gaussian filter to the given line. In this example below, one line is vertical and one has some slope. (here, background values are 0, line pixel values are 1.)
Given line:
Ridge shape:
When I applied gaussian filter, the peak heights are different. I guess this results from the rasterization problem. The image matrix itself is discrete integer space. The gaussian filter is actually not exactly circular (s by s matrix). Two lines also suffer from rasterization.
How can I get two same-peak-height nice-looking ridges(mountains)?
Is there more appropriate way to apply the filter?
Should I make a larger canvas(image matrix) and then reduce the canvas by interpolation? Is it a good way?
Moreover, I appreciate if you can suggest a way to make ridges with a certain peak height. When using gaussian filter, what we can do is deciding the size and sigma of the filter. Based on those parameters, the peak height varies.
For information, image matrix size is 250x250 here.
You can give a try to distance transform. Your image is a binary image (having only two type of values, 0 and 1). Therefore, you can generate similar effects with distance transform.
%Create an image similar to yours
img=false(250,250);
img(sub2ind(size(img),180:220,linspace(20,100,41)))=1;
img(1:200,150)=1;
%Distance transform
distImg=bwdist(img);
distImg(distImg>5)=0; %5 is set manually to achieve similar results to yours
distImg=5-distImg; %Get high values for the pixels inside the tube as shown
%in your figure
distImg(distImg==5)=0; %Making background pixels zero
%Plotting
surf(1:size(img,2),1:size(img,1),double(distImg));
To get images with certain peak height, you can change the threshold of 5 to a different value. If you set it to 10, you can get peaks with height equal to the next largest value present in the distance transform matrix. In case of 5 and 10, I found it to be around 3.5 and 8.
Again, if you want to be exact 5 and 10, then you may multiply the distance transform matrix with the normalization factor as follows.
normalizationFactor=(newValue-minValue)/(maxValue-minValue) %self-explanatory
Only disadvantage I see is, I don't get a smooth graph as you have. I tried with Gaussian filter too, but did not get a smooth graph.
My result:
I'm receiving depth images of a tof camera via MATLAB. the delivered drivers of the tof camera to compute x,y,z coordinates out of the depth image are using openCV function, which are implemented in MATLAB via mex-files.
But later on I can't use those drivers anymore nor use openCV functions, therefore I need to implement the 2d to 3d mapping on my own including the compensation of radial distortion. I already got hold of the camera parameters and the computation of the x,y,z coordinates of each pixel of the depth image is working. Until now I am solving the implicit equations of the undistortion via the newton method (which isn't really fast...). But I want to implement the undistortion of the openCV function.
... and there is my problem: I dont really understand it and I hope you can help me out there. how is it actually working? I tried to search through the forum, but havent found any useful threads concerning this case.
greetings!
The equations of the projection of a 3D point [X; Y; Z] to a 2D image point [u; v] are provided on the documentation page related to camera calibration :
(source: opencv.org)
In the case of lens distortion, the equations are non-linear and depend on 3 to 8 parameters (k1 to k6, p1 and p2). Hence, it would normally require a non-linear solving algorithm (e.g. Newton's method, Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm, etc) to inverse such a model and estimate the undistorted coordinates from the distorted ones. And this is what is used behind function undistortPoints, with tuned parameters making the optimization fast but a little inaccurate.
However, in the particular case of image lens correction (as opposed to point correction), there is a much more efficient approach based on a well-known image re-sampling trick. This trick is that, in order to obtain a valid intensity for each pixel of your destination image, you have to transform coordinates in the destination image into coordinates in the source image, and not the opposite as one would intuitively expect. In the case of lens distortion correction, this means that you actually do not have to inverse the non-linear model, but just apply it.
Basically, the algorithm behind function undistort is the following. For each pixel of the destination lens-corrected image do:
Convert the pixel coordinates (u_dst, v_dst) to normalized coordinates (x', y') using the inverse of the calibration matrix K,
Apply the lens-distortion model, as displayed above, to obtain the distorted normalized coordinates (x'', y''),
Convert (x'', y'') to distorted pixel coordinates (u_src, v_src) using the calibration matrix K,
Use the interpolation method of your choice to find the intensity/depth associated with the pixel coordinates (u_src, v_src) in the source image, and assign this intensity/depth to the current destination pixel.
Note that if you are interested in undistorting the depthmap image, you should use a nearest-neighbor interpolation, otherwise you will almost certainly interpolate depth values at object boundaries, resulting in unwanted artifacts.
The above answer is correct, but do note that UV coordinates are in screen space and centered around (0,0) instead of "real" UV coordinates.
Source: own re-implementation using Python/OpenGL. Code:
def correct_pt(uv, K, Kinv, ds):
uv_3=np.stack((uv[:,0],uv[:,1],np.ones(uv.shape[0]),),axis=-1)
xy_=uv_3#Kinv.T
r=np.linalg.norm(xy_,axis=-1)
coeff=(1+ds[0]*(r**2)+ds[1]*(r**4)+ds[4]*(r**6));
xy__=xy_*coeff[:,np.newaxis]
return (xy__#K.T)[:,0:2]
I am trying to understand how exactly the upsampling and downsampling of a 2D image I have, would happen using Bilinear interpolation. Now I am aware of how bilinear interpolation works using a 2x2 neighbourhood values to interpolate the data point inside this 2x2 area using weights. But what I am not aware of, is asked below. My objectives and specific queries are -
1.To start with I have a 2D image of values(size MxN). The width(M) and height(N) of this image is not fixed, but will change from case to case. This 2D image needs to be down-sampled using bilinear interpolation to a grid of size PxQ (P and Q are to be configured as input parameters) e.g. lets take PxQ is 8x8. And assume input 2D array image is of size 200x100. i.e 200 columns, 100 rows.
Now how while performing downsampling using bilinear interpolation of this 200x100 image, should I first obtain a downsampled image of size 100x50 (downsampling by 2 in both dimensions using bilinear interpolation); then a 50x25 image(again by doing downsampling by 2 in both dimensions), then a 25x12 image, then a 12x12(this time doing downsampling by linear(not bilinear!) interpolation only along the rows, and finally drop some pixels to get 8x8.
Any pointers to exact algorithm or different ways to achieve this, are appreciated.
2.Above question raises another one - how to downsample using bilinear interpolation by a non-integer scale factor, e.g. how to go from a say 8x8 image array to a 6x2 image wherein resampling/scaling factors in both dimensions are not integers.
3.Then when I get a 8x8 sized image I need to upsample it by bilinear interpolation to the same original size I started with- MxN. If I need to go from 8x8 to say 20x20. How would it interpolate in between points in a row and would it interpolate a full row by some means. Again in case of non-integer scale factors how would bilinear interpolation for upsampling happen. Exact steps.
And finally I need to implement this in C.
I tried visualizing these particular questions by taking different examples, but not got a clear picture of how this bilinear interpolation would happen while downsampling and upsampling. All I have is plenty of paper sheets having'dots and crossed' pictures on my desk, but still no clear solution!
Any detailed reading material, books appreciated.