I have to calculate the area, or length of the objects present in the frame.
As i use the 2d camera, the distance from the camera can't be found.
In this case, i am planning to draw a constant(X CM) line in the back ground where its length is known in CM/M.
Please find the attachment for a sample input image. (Yellow Line is a Constant line)
Consider that a person or an object stands in front of a wall, where the constant line is drawn.
Is there any way to calculate the distance of other objects with reference to the constant line?
First, it isn't a line. It is a parcel. A line is non-physical. The parcel of pixels has both area and length. The natural unit of measurement of images is pixels. Units of length are both non-physical and require assumptions.
Second, you can do a thresholded 2-d convolution. PIV-sleuth uses 2d convolution. It can allow some faster, more accurate measurement in images. Peak intensity will tell you something about the length or area. You can also use row-sum and column sum very quickly to get ideas of lengths. It helps if the images are aligned to the pixel-axes in your image. Use of affine transformations can help you test various rotations for suitability.
Related
I am writing a program that captures real time images from a scene by two calibrated cameras (so the internal parameters of the cameras are known to us). Using two view geometry, I can find the essential matrix and use OpenCV or MATLAB to find the relative position and orientation of one camera with respect to another. Having the essential matrix, it is shown in Hartley and Zisserman's Multiple View Geometry that one can reconstruct the scene using triangulation up to scale. Now I want to use a reference length to determine the scale of reconstruction and resolve ambiguity.
I know the height of the front wall and I want to use it for determining the scale of reconstruction to measure other objects and their dimensions or their distance from the center of my first camera. How can it be done in practice?
Thanks in advance.
Edit: To add more information, I have already done linear trianglation (minimizing the algebraic error) but I am not sure if it is any useful because there is still a scale ambiguity that I don't know how to get rid of it. My ultimate goal is to recognize an object (like a Pepsi can) and separate it in a rectangular area (which is going to be written as a separate module by someone else) and then find the distance of each pixel in this rectangular area, i.e. the region of interest, to the camera. Then the distance from the camera to the object will be the minimum of the distances from the camera to the 3D coordinates of the pixels in the region of interest.
Might be a bit late, but at least for someone struggling with the same staff.
As far as I remember it is actually linear problem. You got essential matrix, which gives you rotation matrix and normalized translation vector specifying relative position of cameras. If you followed Hartley and Zissermanm you probably chose one of the cameras as origin of world coordinate system. Meaning all your triangulated points are in normalized distance from this origin. What is important is, that the direction of every triangulated point is correct.
If you have some reference in the scene (lets say height of the wall), then you just have to find this reference (2 points are enough - so opposite ends of the wall) and calculate "normalization coefficient" (sorry for terminology) as
coeff = realWorldDistanceOf2Points / distanceOfTriangulatedPoints
Once you have this coeff, just mulptiply all your triangulated points with it and you got real world points.
Example:
you know that opposite corners of the wall are 5m from each other. you find these corners in both images, triangulate them (lets call triangulated points c1 and c2), calculate their distance in the "normalized" world as ||c1 - c2|| and get the
coeff = 5 / ||c1 - c2||
and you get real 3d world points as triangulatedPoint*coeff.
Maybe easier option is to have both cameras in fixed relative position and calibrate them together by stereoCalibrate openCV/Matlab function (there is actually pretty nice GUI in Matlab for that) - it returns not just intrinsic params, but also extrinsic. But I don't know if this is your case.
How do you determine that the intrinsic and extrinsic parameters you have calculated for a camera at time X are still valid at time Y?
My idea would be
to use a known calibration object (a chessboard) and place it in the camera's field of view at time Y.
Calculate the chessboard corner points in the camera's image (at time Y).
Define one of the chessboard corner points as world origin and calculate the world coordinates of all remaining chessboard corners based on that origin.
Relate the coordinates of 3. with the camera coordinate system.
Use the parameters calculated at time X to calculate the image points of the points from 4.
Calculate distances between points from 2. with points from 5.
Is that a clever way to go about it? I'd eventually like to implement it in MATLAB and later possibly openCV. I think I'd know how to do steps 1)-2) and step 6). Maybe someone can give a rough implementation for steps 2)-5). Especially I'd be unsure how to relate the "chessboard-world-coordinate-system" with the "camera-world-coordinate-system", which I believe I would have to do.
Thanks!
If you have a single camera you can easily follow the steps from this article:
Evaluating the Accuracy of Single Camera Calibration
For achieving step 2, you can easily use detectCheckerboardPoints function from MATLAB.
[imagePoints, boardSize, imagesUsed] = detectCheckerboardPoints(imageFileNames);
Assuming that you are talking about stereo-cameras, for stereo pairs, imagePoints(:,:,:,1) are the points from the first set of images, and imagePoints(:,:,:,2) are the points from the second set of images. The output contains M number of [x y] coordinates. Each coordinate represents a point where square corners are detected on the checkerboard. The number of points the function returns depends on the value of boardSize, which indicates the number of squares detected. The function detects the points with sub-pixel accuracy.
As you can see in the following image the points are estimated relative to the first point that covers your third step.
[The image is from this page at MATHWORKS.]
You can consider point 1 as the origin of your coordinate system (0,0). The directions of the axes are shown on the image and you know the distance between each point (in the world coordinate), so it is just the matter of depth estimation.
To find a transformation matrix between the points in the world CS and the points in the camera CS, you should collect a set of points and perform an SVD to estimate the transformation matrix.
But,
I would estimate the parameters of the camera and compare them with the initial parameters at time X. This is easier, if you have saved the images that were used when calibrating the camera at time X. By repeating the calibrating process using those images you should get very similar results, if the camera calibration is still valid.
Edit: Why you need the set of images used in the calibration process at time X?
You have a set of images to do the calibrations for the first time, right? To recalibrate the camera you need to use a new set of images. But for checking the previous calibration, you can use the previous images. If the parameters of the camera are changes, there would be an error between the re-estimation and the first estimation. This can be used for evaluating the validity of the calibration not for recalibrating the camera.
I am looking for a method that looks for shapes in 3D image in matlab. I don't have a real 3D sample image right now; in fact, my 3D image is actually a set of quantized 2D images.
The figure below is what I am trying to accomplish:
Although the example figure above is a 2D image, please understand that I am trying to do this in 3D. The input shape has these "tentacles", and I have to look for irregular shapes among them. The size of the tentacle from one point to another can change around but at "consistent and smooth" pace - that is it can be big at first, then gradually smaller later. But if suddenly, the shape just gets bigger not so gradually, like the red bottom right area in the figure above, then this is one of the volume of interests. Note that these shapes have more tendency to be rounded and spherical, but some of them are completely arbitrary and random.
I've tried the following methods so far:
Erode n times and dilate n times: given that the "tentacles" are always smaller than the volume of interest, this method will work as long as the volume is not too small. And, we need to have a mechanism to deal with thicker portion of the tentacle that becomes false positive somehow.
Hough Transform: although I have been suggested this method earlier (from Segmenting circle-like shapes out of Binary Image), I see that it works for some of the more rounded shape cases, but at the same time, more difficult cases such that of less-rounded, distorted, and/or arbitrary shapes can slip through this method.
Isosurface: because of my input is a set of 2D quantized images, using an isosurface allow me to reconstruct image in 3D and see things clearer. However, I'm not sure what could be done further in this case.
So can anyone suggests some other techniques for segmenting such shape out of these "tentacles"?
Every point on your image has the property that it is either part of the tentacle, or part of the volume of interest. If it is unknown apriori what the expected girth of the tentacle is, then 1 wont work because we won't be able to set n. However, we know that the n that erases the tentacle is smaller than the n that erases the node. You can for each point replace it with an integer representing the distance to the edge. Effectively, this can be done via successive single pixel erosion, and replacing each pixel with the count of the iteration at which it was erased. Lets call this the thickness at the pixel, but my rusty old mind tells me that there was a term of art for this.
Now we want to search for regions that have a higher-than-typical morphological distance from the boundary. I would do this by first skeletonizing the image (http://www.mathworks.com/help/toolbox/images/ref/bwmorph.html) and then searching for local maxima of the thickness along the skeleton. These are points on the skeleton where the thickness is larger than the neighbor points.
Finally I would sort the local maxima by the thickness, a threshold on which should help to separate the volumes of interest from the false positives.
I have a binary image, i want to detect/trace curves in that image. I don't know any thing (coordinates, angle etc). Can any one guide me how should i start? suppose i have this image
I want to separate out curves and other lines. I am only interested in curved lines and their parameters. I want to store information of curves (in array) to use afterward.
It really depends on what you mean by "curve".
If you want to simply identify each discrete collection of pixels as a "curve", you could use a connected-components algorithm. Each component would correspond to a collection of pixels. You could then apply some test to determine linearity or some other feature of the component.
If you're looking for straight lines, circular curves, or any other parametric curve you could use the Hough transform to detect the elements from the image.
The best approach is really going to depend on which curves you're looking for, and what information you need about the curves.
reference links:
Circular Hough Transform Demo
A Brief Description of the Application of the Hough
Transform for Detecting Circles in Computer Images
A method for detection of circular arcs based on the Hough transform
Google goodness
Since you already seem to have a good binary image, it might be easiest to just separate the different connected components of the image and then calculate their parameters.
First, you can do the separation by scanning through the image, and when you encounter a black pixel you can apply a standard flood-fill algorithm to find out all the pixels in your shape. If you have matlab image toolbox, you can find use bwconncomp and bwselect procedures for this. If your shapes are not fully connected, you might apply a morphological closing operation to your image to connect the shapes.
After you have segmented out the different shapes, you can filter out the curves by testing how much they deviate from a line. You can do this simply by picking up the endpoints of the curve, and calculating how far the other points are from the line defined by the endpoints. If this value exceeds some maximum, you have a curve instead of a line.
Another approach would be to measure the ratio of the distance of the endpoints and length of the object. This ratio would be near 1 for lines and larger for curves and wiggly shapes.
If your images have angles, which you wish to separate from curves, you might inspect the directional gradient of your curves. Segment the shape, pick set of equidistant points from it and for each point, calculate the angle to the previous point and to the next point. If the difference of the angle is too high, you do not have a smooth curve, but some angled shape.
Possible difficulties in implementation include thick lines, which you can solve by skeleton transformation. For matlab implementation of skeleton and finding curve endpoints, see matlab image processing toolkit documentation
1) Read a book on Image Analysis
2) Scan for a black pixel, when found look for neighbouring pixels that are also black, store their location then make them white. This gets the points in one object and removes it from the image. Just keep repeating this till there are no remaining black pixels.
If you want to separate the curves from the straight lines try line fitting and then getting the coefficient of correlation. Similar algorithms are available for curves and the correlation tells you the closeness of the point to the idealised shape.
There is also another solution possible with the use of chain codes.
Understanding Freeman chain codes for OCR
The chain code basically assigns a value between 1-8(or 0 to 7) for each pixel saying at which pixel location in a 8-connected neighbourhood does your connected predecessor lie. Thus like mention in Hackworths suggestions one performs connected component labeling and then calculates the chain codes for each component curve. Look at the distribution and the gradient of the chain codes, one can distinguish easily between lines and curves. The problem with the method though is when we have osciallating curves, in which case the gradient is less useful and one depends on the clustering of the chain codes!
Im no computer vision expert, but i think that you could detect lines/curves in binary images relatively easy using some basic edge-detection algorithms (e.g. sobel filter).
What coding techniques would allow me to to differentiate between circles, rectangles, and triangles in black and white image bitmaps?
You could train an Artificial Neural Network to classify the shapes :P
If noise is low enough to extract curves, approximations can be used: for each shape select parameters giving least error (he method of least squares may help here) and then compare these errors...
If the image is noisy, I would consider Hough transform - it may be used to detect shapes with small count of parameters, like circle (harder for rectangles and triangles).
just an idea off of the top of my head: scan the (pixel) image line-by-line, pixel-by-pixel. If you encounter the first white pixel (assuming it has a black background) you keep it's position as a starting point and look at the eight pixels surrounding it in every direction for the next white pixel. If you find an adjacent second pixel you can establish a directional vector between those two pixels.
Now repeat this until the direction of your vector changes (or the change is above a certain threshold). Keep the last point before the change as the endpoint of your first line and repeat the process for the next line.
Then calculate the angle between the two lines and store it. Now trace the third line. Calculate the angle between the 2nd and 3rd line as well.
If both angles are rectangular you probably found a rectangle, otherwise you probably found a triangle. If you can't find any straight line you could conclude that you found a circle.
I know the algorithm is a bit sketchy but I think (with some refinement) it could work if your image's quality is not too bad (too much noise, gaps in the lines etc.).
You are looking for the Hough Transform. For an implementation, try the AForge.NET framework. It includes circle and line hough transformations.