I am trying to calculate SNR between my original image and stego image (in which secret message is embedded)
I am using gray scale image for implementation. I am calculating it following way but SNR coming as -ve..
Please correct me if i am doing anything wrong here for images
function snr_power = SNR(signal, noise)
% SNR (Signal to noise ratio)
[signalRowSize signalColSize] = size(signal);
[noiseRowSize noiseColSize] = size(noise);
signalAmp = signal(:);
noiseAmp = noise(:);
signalPower = sum(signalAmp.^2)/(signalRowSize*signalColSize);
noisePower = sum(noiseAmp.^2)/(noiseRowSize*noiseColSize);
% snr_amp = 10*log10((signalAmp./noiseAmp)^2);
snr_power = 10*log10(signalPower/noisePower);
end
An object is visible in an image because it has a different brightness
than its surroundings.
That is, the contrast of the object (i.e., the signal) must overcome the image noise. See Image. The grayscale transform can be used to boost the contrast of a selected range of pixel values, providing a valuable tool in overcoming the limitations of the human eye. The contrast at one brightness level is increased, at the cost of reducing the contrast at another brightness level. However, this only works when the contrast of the object is not lost in random image noise. This is a more serious situation; the signal does not contain enough information to reveal the object, regardless of the performance of the eye.
Find in detail here
Related
Through a combination of non-matlab/non-native tools (GDAL) as well as native tools (geoimread) I can ingest Sentinel-2A data either a indiviual bands or as an RGB image having employed gdal merge. I'm stuck at a point where using
imshow(I, [])
Produces a black image, with apparently no signal. The range of intensity values in the image are 271 - 4349. I know that there is a good signal in the image because when I do:
bit_depth = 2^15;
I = swapbytes(I);
[I_indexed, color_map] = rgb2ind(I, bit_depth);
I_double = im2double(I_indexed, 'indexed');
ax1 = figure;
colormap(ax1, color_map);
image(I_double)
i.e. index the image, collect a colormap, set the colormap and then call the image function, I get a likeness of the region I'm exploring (albeit very strangely colored)
I'm currently considering whether I should try:
Find a low-level description of Sentinel-2A data, implement the scaling/correction
Use a toolbox, possibly this one.
Possibly adjust ouput settings in one of the earlier steps involving GDAL
Comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated.
A basic scaling scheme is:
% convert image to double
I_double = im2double(I);
% scaling
max_intensity = max(I_double(:));
min_intensity = min(I_double(:));
range_intensity = max_intensity - min_intensity;
I_scaled = 2^16.*((I_double - min_intensity) ./ range_intensity);
% display
imshow(uint16(I_scaled))
noting the importance of casting to uint16 from double for imshow.
A couple points...
You mention that I is an RGB image (i.e. N-by-M-by-3 data). If this is the case, the [] argument to imshow will have no effect. That only applies automatic scaling of the display for grayscale images.
Given the range of intensity values you list (271 to 4349), I'm guessing you are dealing with a uint16 data type. Since this data type has a maximum value of 65535, your image data only covers about the lower 16th of this range. This is why your image looks practically black. It also explains why you can see the signal with your given code: you apply swapbytes to I before displaying it with image, which in this case will shift values into the higher intensity ranges (e.g. swapbytes(uint16(4349)) gives a value of 64784).
In order to better visualize your data, you'll need to scale it. As a simple test, you'll probably be able to see something appear by just scaling it by 8 (to cover a little more than half of your dynamic range):
imshow(8.*I);
I am trying to figuring out about correlation between two images that shifted by pixel each of other and measure the correlation between these images. I have images woods and rooster image like this rooster image and woods image
and then I doing some code in matlab like this
Im_Rooster = imread('rooster.jpg'); //read image file
Im_Woods = imread('woods.png');
Im_DRooster = im2double(rgb2gray(Im_Rooster)); //convert to gray image and double data type
Im_DWoods = im2double(Im_Woods);
for i = 0:1:30
Img_Rooster_shift = circshift(Im_DRooster,i,2); // shift image by 1 pixel
Img_Woods_shift = circshift(Im_DRooster,i,2);
Rooster_correlation_val(1,i+1) = corr2(Im_DRooster,Img_Rooster_shift ); // calculate correlation coefficient between original image and shifted image
Woods_correlation_val(1,i+1) = corr2(Im_DWoods,Img_Woods_shift );
end
x = 0:1:30;
figure(1),plot(x,Rooster_correlation_val,x,Woods_correlation_val) // plot the result graph
legend('rooster','woods')
and then I have plotted graph like this plot graph result
Can somebody explain the meaning of this graph result?
What is correlation coefficient connection between natural images?
The result imply that in natural images the probability that neighborhood pixel will share same color information is higher than the probability that it will share same light intensity/value. This is naturally explained by the fact that color in nature are result of light-matter interaction, and matter type is not distributed randomly, but usually we will find a collection of same matter in same place, while shadow depends on surrounding space so it can beahve more randomly.
When you circshift the image you actually compare neighbor pixels, this is auto-correlation but in space. When you ignore the color information than you stay with value/intensity value that can easily have higher frequencies because now we enter to light-shadow realm, that is depend on light angles and matter shape and neighbor shapes and location.
I = imread('us-currency.png');
mean = 0.5;
variance = 0.5;
J = imnoise(I,'gaussian', mean, variance);
imshow(J);
What are the effects of mean and variance on that image?
Does mean increases the brightness?
Does variance increases the amount of noise?
Input
Output
The mean and variance set which distribution the random values will taken from.
Once you add those numbers to an image you change the image properties as well.
If the image mean value is imageMeanVal, assuming the image is large, then after the addition of the random noise its mean value will be `imageMeanVal + noiseMeanVal' since the image and the noise are independent.
If you define the brightness of an image as its mean value then you're right, the mean value changes (Increase or decrease) the image brightness.
The same logic holds for the Variance / Standard Deviation.
Yet it is hard to say what's Variance of an image is.
Sometimes one could say it is the power of data in the image and the variance of the noise is the power of noise.
Hence if you increase the power of the added noise, if one looks on the power ration of the image to the noise, you decrease it and makes the data in the image harder to notice.
This is basically the SNR of the noised image.
I am trying to write a program that uses computer vision techniques to detect (and track) tiny blobs in a stream of very noisy images. The image stream comes from an dual X ray imaging setup, which outputs left and right views (different sizes because of collimating differently). My data is of two types: one set of images are not so noisy, which I am just using to try different techniques with, and the other set are noisier, and this is where the detection needs to work at the end. The image stream is at 60 Hz. This is an example of a raw image from the X ray imager:
Here are some cropped out samples of the regions of interest. The blobs that need to be detected are the small black spots near the center of the image.
Initially I started off with a simple contour/blob detection techniques in OpenCV, which were not very helpful. Eventually I moved on to techniques such as "opening" the image using morphological operators, and subsequently performing a Laplacian of Gaussian blob detection to detect areas of interest. This gave me better results for the low-noise versions of the images, but fails when it comes to the high-noise ones: gives me too many false positives. Here is a result from a low-noise image (please note input image was inverted).
The code for my current LoG based approach in MATLAB goes as below:
while ~isDone(videoReader)
frame = step(videoReader);
roi_frame = imcrop(frame, [660 410 120 110]);
I_roi = rgb2gray(roi_frame);
I_roi = imcomplement(I_roi);
I_roi = wiener2(I_roi, [5 5]);
background = imopen(I_roi,strel('disk',3));
I2 = imadjust(I_roi - background);
K = imgaussfilt(I2, 5);
level = graythresh(K);
bw = im2bw(I2);
sigma = 3;
% Filter image with LoG
I = double(bw);
h = fspecial('log',sigma*30,sigma);
Ifilt = -imfilter(I,h);
% Threshold for points of interest
Ifilt(Ifilt < 0.001) = 0;
% Dilate to obtain local maxima
Idil = imdilate(Ifilt,strel('disk',50));
% This is the final image
P = (Ifilt == Idil) .* Ifilt;
Is there any way I can improve my current detection technique to make it work for images with a lot of background noise? Or are there techniques better suited for images like this?
The approach I would take:
-Average background subtraction
-Aggressive Gaussian smoothing (this filter should be shaped based on your target object, off the top of my head I think you want the sigma about half the smallest cross section of your object, but you may want to fiddle with this) Basically the goal is blurring the noise as much as possible without completely losing your target objects (based on shape and size)
-Edge detection. Try to be specific to the object if possible (basically, look at what the object's edge looks like after Gaussian smoothing and set your edge detection to look for that width and contrast shift)
-May consider running a closing operation here.
-Search the whole image for islands (fully enclosed regions) filter based on size and then on shape.
I am taking a hunch that despite the incredibly low signal to noise ratio, your granularity of noise is hopefully significantly smaller than your object size. (if your noise is both equivalent contrast and same ballpark size as your object... you are sunk and need to re-evaluate your acquisition imo)
Another note based on your speed needs. Extreme amounts of processing savings can be made through knowing last known positions and searching locally and also knowing where new targets can enter the image from.
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.