I have an image like this:
What I want to do is to find the outer edge of this cell and the inner edge in the cell between the two parts of different colors.
But this image contains to much detail I think, and is there any way to simplify this image, remove those small edges and find the edges I want?
I have tried the edge function provided by matlab. But it can only find the outer edge and disturbed by those detailed edges.
This is a very challenging work due to the ambiguous boundaries and tiny difference between red and green intensities. If you want to implement the segmentation very precisely and meet some medical requirements, Shai's k-means plus graph cuts may be one of the very few options (EM algorithm may be an alternative). If you have a large database that has many similar images, some machine learning methods might help. Otherwise, I just wrote a very simple code to roughly extract the internal red region for you. The boundary is not that accurate since some of the green regions are also included.
I1=I;
I=rgb2hsv(I);
I=I(:,:,1); % the channel with relatively large margin between green and red
I=I.*(I<0.25);
I=imdilate(I, true(5));
% I=imfill(I,'holes'); depends on what is your definition of the inner boundary
bw=bwconncomp(I);
ar=bw.PixelIdxList;
% find the largest labeled area,
n=0;
for i=1:length(ar)
if length(ar{i})>n
n=length(ar{i});
num=i;
end
end
bw1=bwlabel(I);
bwfinal(:,:,1)=(bw1==num).*double(I1(:,:,1));
bwfinal(:,:,2)=(bw1==num).*double(I1(:,:,2));
bwfinal(:,:,3)=(bw1==num).*double(I1(:,:,3));
bwfinal=uint8(bwfinal);
imshow(bwfinal)
It seems to me you have three dominant colors in the image:
1. blue-ish background (but also present inside cell as "noise")
2. grenn-ish one part of cell
3. red-ish - second part of cell
If these three colors are distinct enough, you may try and segment the image using k-means and Graph cuts.
First stage - use k-means to associate each pixels with one of three dominant colors. Apply k-means to the colors of the image (each pixel is a 3-vector in your chosen color space). Run k-means with k=3, keep for each pixel its distance to centroids.
Second stage - separate cell from background. Do a binary segmentation using graph-cut. The data cost for each pixel is either the distance to the background color (if pixel is labeled "background"), or the minimal distance to the other two colors (if pixel is labeled "foreground"). Use image contrast to set the pair-wise weights for the smoothness term.
Third stage - separate the two parts of the cell. Again do a binary segmentation using graph-cut but this time work only on pixels marked as "cell" in the previous stage. The data term for pixels that the k-means assigned to background but are labeled as cell should be zero for all labels (these are the "noise" pixels inside the cell).
You may find my matlab wrapper for graph-cuts useful for this task.
Related
I have two binary images, each of which have a single white filled parallelogram and a black background. The only difference between the two images is that the parallelograms are in different locations and are slightly different from one another in shape. All the parameters between the two images are the same except for that one change.
I want to check how similar the shape of the two parallelograms are, by using some sort of comparing measure.
I looked into ssimval function in MATLAB but it seems to be taking the whole image into consideration rather than just the white blobs. Is there any other function I can use for this purpose?
For visually checking similarity, you can plot their probability density function and for numeric similarity, compute some similarity measure, such as, KL Divergence, etc.
In a simple way, you can segment your binary image with simple bwlabel function. Then use regionprops function to find perimeter and area of your desire segment. Moreover, center of region is also another comparison point.
You could do it with polygons, by using the polyshape class.
First convert the binary mask to a set of corner points. You can do it with a convex hull, by calling regionprops(bwI, 'ConvexHull').
Then convert the corner points into polygons, by calling polyshape.
Finally measure the dissimiliarities of the polygons by measuring their turning distance. Turning distance is rotation- and scaling invariant, so you might want to add additive terms to your distance metric for those if your problem demands it.
A very simple solution for comparing two binary image is using boolean operations.
Your images contains zero and one values. so If you use boolean operation.
suppose your two images are : B1 , B2
C = B1 & (~B2)
if sum(C(:))==0
% two image are same
else
% two image are different
end
I have an image which consists of a black and white document against a heterogeneous colored background. I need to automatically detect the document in my image.
I have tried Otsu's method and a Local Thresholding method, but neither were successful. Also, edge detectors like Canny and Sobel didn't work.
Can anyone suggest some method to automatically detect the document?
Here's an example starting image:
After using various threshold methods, I was able to get the following output:
What follows is an automated global method for isolating an area of low color saturation (e.g. a b/w page) against a colored background. This may work well as an alternative approach when other approaches based on adaptive thresholding of grayscale-converted images fail.
First, we load an RGB image I, covert from RGB to HSV, and isolate the saturation channel:
I = imread('/path/to/image.jpg');
Ihsv = rgb2hsv(I); % convert image to HSV
Isat = Ihsv(:,:,2); % keep only saturation channel
In general, a good first step when deciding how to proceed with any object detection task is to examine the distribution of pixel values. In this case, these values represent the color saturation levels at each point in our image:
% Visualize saturation value distribution
imhist(Isat); box off
From this histogram, we can see that there appear to be at least 3 distinct peaks. Given that our target is a black and white sheet of paper, we’re looking to isolate saturation values at the lower end of the spectrum. This means we want to find a threshold that separates the lower 1-2 peaks from the higher values.
One way to do this in an automated way is through Gaussian Mixture Modeling (GMM). GMM can be slow, but since you’re processing images offline I assume this is not an issue. We’ll use Matlab’s fitgmdist function here and attempt to fit 3 Gaussians to the saturation image:
% Find threshold for calling ROI using GMM
n_gauss = 3; % number of Gaussians to fit
gmm_opt = statset('MaxIter', 1e3); % max iterations to converge
gmmf = fitgmdist(Isat(:), n_gauss, 'Options', gmm_opt);
Next, we use the GMM fit to classify each pixel and visualize the results of our GMM classification:
% Classify pixels using GMM
gmm_class = cluster(gmmf, Isat(:));
% Plot histogram, colored by class
hold on
bin_edges = linspace(0,1,256);
for j=1:n_gauss, histogram(Isat(gmm_class==j), bin_edges); end
In this example, we can see that the GMM ended up grouping the 2 far left peaks together (blue class) and split the higher values into two classes (yellow and red). Note: your colors might be different, since GMM is sensitive to random initial conditions. For our use here, this is probably fine, but we can check that the blue class does in fact capture the object we’d like to isolate by visualizing the image, with pixels colored by class:
% Visualize classes as image
im_class = reshape(gmm_class ,size(Isat));
imagesc(im_class); axis image off
So it seems like our GMM segmentation on saturation values gets us in the right ballpark - grouping the document pixels (blue) together. But notice that we still have two problems to fix. First, the big bar across the bottom is also included in the same class with the document. Second, the text printed on the page is not being included in the document class. But don't worry, we can fix these problems by applying some filters on the GMM-grouped image.
First, we’ll isolate the class we want, then do some morphological operations to low-pass filter and fill gaps in the objects.
Isat_bw = im_class == find(gmmf.mu == min(gmmf.mu)); %isolate desired class
opened = imopen(Isat_bw, strel('disk',3)); % morph open
closed = imclose(Isat_bw, strel('disk',50)); % morph close
imshow(closed)
Next, we’ll use a size filter to isolate the document ROI from the big object at the bottom. I’ll assume that your document will never fill the entire width of the image and that any solid objects bigger than the sheet of paper are not wanted. We can use the regionprops function to give us statistics about the objects we detect and, in this case, we’ll just return the objects’ major axis length and corresponding pixels:
% Size filtering
props = regionprops(closed,'PixelIdxList','MajorAxisLength');
[~,ridx] = min([props.MajorAxisLength]);
output_im = zeros(numel(closed),1);
output_im(props(ridx).PixelIdxList) = 1;
output_im = reshape(output_im, size(closed));
% Display final mask
imshow(output_im)
Finally, we are left with output_im - a binary mask for a single solid object corresponding to the document. If this particular size filtering rule doesn’t work well on your other images, it should be possible to find a set of values for other features reported by regionprops (e.g. total area, minor axis length, etc.) that give reliable results.
A side-by-side comparison of the original and the final masked image shows that this approach produces pretty good results for your sample image, but some of the parameters (like the size exclusion rules) may need to be tuned if results for other images aren't quite as nice.
% Display final image
image([I I.*uint8(output_im)]); axis image; axis off
One final note: be aware that the GMM algorithm is sensitive to random initial conditions, and therefore might randomly fail, or produce undesirable results. Because of this, it's important to have some kind of quality control measures in place to ensure that these random failures are detected. One possibility is to use the posterior probabilities of the GMM model to form some kind of criteria for rejecting a certain fit, but that’s beyond the scope of this answer.
need some help here on image processing. I'm using Matlab and try to segment the following figure based on the two major peaks (in yellow). The color yellow means higher value and blue means low value (on z-axis, or image color from 0 to 1 for your convenience). The ideal cut is roughly the line from point (1,75) to (120,105). But I want a systematic way to derive this rather than by observation.
My intuition was to first identify the two peaks (based on this), and then classify each point/pixel on this figure to the two peaks (the metric here is to compute the shortest Euclidean distance to the edge of the two peaks).
And I end up with the following fig.
As you can see, the cut is pretty much a straight line, which I'm not quite satisfied. Maybe I can use the orientation of the peak circle and somehow tilt the line.. but I'm not sure how to do so? Any clues? Thanks.
This is an Image segmentation problem.
you can use GMM Gaussian of Mixture Model to model the image.
in your case the number of components will be 2.
after you model the image by using this mixture, you can find the probability of each pixel P(pixel x belong to the first component or the second component)
check
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/272162
http://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/cluster-data-from-mixture-of-gaussian-distributions.html
I'm looking for a quick way to combine overlapping blocks into one image. Assume the size of the full image and the coordinates of each block within the full image are known. Also assume the blocks are regularly spaced both horizontally and vertically.
The catch - in the overlapping region, a pixel in the output image should get a value according to a weighted average of the corresponding pixels in the overlapping blocks. The weights should be proportional to the distance from the block center.
So, for example, take a pixel location p (relative to the full image coordinates) in the overlapping region between block B1 and B2. Assume the overlap region is due to a horizontal shift only of size h. If B1(p) and B2(p) are the values at that location as they appear in blocks B1,B2, and d1,d2 are the respective distances of p from the center of blocks B1 and B2 then in the output image O the location p will get O(p) = (h-d1)/h*B1(p) + (h-d2)/h*B2(p).
Note that generally, there can be up to 4 overlapping blocks in any region.
I'm looking for the best way to do this in Matlab. Hopefully, for any choice of distance function.
blockproc and alike can help splitting an image into blocks but allow for very basic combination of results. imfuse comes close to what I need, but offers simple non-weighted alpha blending only. bwdist seems to be useful, but I haven't figured what the most efficient method to put it to use is.
You should use the command im2col.
Once you have all your patches in vectors aligned in one matrix you'll be able to work on the columns (Filtering per patch) and rows (Filtering between patches).
It will be trickier than the classic usage of im2col but it should work.
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.