I created some MATLAB code, that find somes shapes in an image
using regionpros and bwbounaries functions.
I have:
STATS = regionprops(L, 'all');
and from STATS I could easily find all my shapes Area and Perimeter.
My problem is the following: I want to find the "square" shapes and I do
in all shapes the following calculation 16 * area / (perimeter * perimeter),
if this value is near one then I "may" have a square. But other shapes too like
circles or rectangles are near one too. (Also some squares could be rotated
in the image).
Is there a better way to distinguish the shapes (like circles, triangles ...)?
Matlab has a function
procrustes(X,Y)
which will compute distance between two shapes based on the types of transformations it would take to move the points defined by X onto the points defined by Y. For many shape classification tasks, minimizing this distance is a useful way of categorizing noisy instances of shapes. If your problem has 'perfect' shapes, this should work extremely well. Just have Y fixed as a perfect square, and any time that the linear transformation from X to Y is a pure scaling, then you know X is also a square. You could do some simple logical checking to select only shapes satisfying this sort of property.
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
The picture below shows a triangular surface mesh. Its vertices are exactly on the surface of the original 3D object but the straight edges and faces have of course some geometric error where the original surface bends and I need some algorithm to estimate the smooth original surface.
Details: I have a height field of (a projectable part of) this surface (a 2.5D triangulation where each x,y pair has a unique height z) and I need to compute the height z of arbitrary x,y pairs. For example the z-value of the point in the image where the cursor points to.
If it was a 2D problem, I would use cubic splines but for surfaces I'm not sure what is the best solution.
As commented by #Darren what you need are patches.
It can be bi-linear patches or bi-quadratic or Coon's patches or other.
I have found no much reference doing a quick search but this links:
provide an overview: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Courses/cs4620/2013fa/lectures/17surfaces.pdf
while this is more technical: https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~dfg/graphics/graphics2010/GraphicsHandout05.pdf
The concept is that you calculate splines along the edges (height function with respect to the straight edge segment itself) and then make a blending inside the surface delimited by the edges.
The patch os responsible for the blending meaning that inside any face you have an height which is a function of the point position coordinates inside the face and the values of the spline ssegments which are defined on the edges of the same face.
As per my knowledge it is quite easy to use this approach on a quadrilateral mesh (because it becomes easy to define on which edges sequence to do the splines) while I am not sure how to apply if you are forced to go for an actual triangulation.
I have a list of triangles in 3D that form a surface (ie a triangulation). The structure is a deformed triangular lattice. I want to know the change in area of the deformed hexagons of the voronoi tessalation of the lattice with respect to the rest area of the undeformed lattice cells (ie with respect to a regular hexagon). In fact, I really want the sum of the squared change in area of the hexagonal unit cells associated with those triangles.
Background/Math details:
I'm approximating a curved elastic sheet by a triangular lattice. One way to tune the poisson ratio (elastic constant) of the sheet is by adding a 'volumetric' strain energy term to the energy. I'm trying to compute a 'volumetric' strain energy of a deformed, elastic, triangular lattice, defined as: U_volumetric = 1/2 T (e_v)^2, where e_v=deltaV/V is determined by the change in area of a voronoi cell with respect to its reference area, which is a known constant.
Reference: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265853755_Finite_element_implementation_of_a_non-local_particle_method_for_elasticity_and_fracture_analysis
Want:
Sum[ (DeltaA/ A).^2 ] over all hexagonal cells.
My data is stored in the variables:
xyz = [ x1,y1,z1; x2,y2,z2; etc] %the vertices/particles in 3D
TRI = [ vertex0, vertex1, vertex2; etc] %
where vertex0 is the row of xyz for the particle sitting at vertex 0 of the first triangle.
NeighborList = [ p1n1, p1n2, p1n3, p1n4, p1n5,p1n6 ; p2n1...]
% where p1n1 is particle 1's first nearest neighbor as a row index for xyz. For example, xyz(NL(1,1),:) returns the xyz location of particle 1's first neighbor.
AreaTRI = [ areaTRI1; areaTRI2; etc]
I am writing this in MATLAB.
As of now, I am approximating the amount of area attributed to each vertex as 1/3 of the triangle's area, then summing over the 6 nearest neighbor triangles. But a voronoi cell area will NOT be exactly equal to Sum_(i=0,1,...5) 1/3* areaTRI_i, so this is a bad approximation. See the image in the link above, which I think makes this clearer.
You can do this using the DUALMESH-submission on the file exchange:
DUALMESH is a toolbox of mesh processing routines that allow the construction of "dual" meshes based on underlying simplicial triangulations. Support is provided for various planar and surface triangulation types, including non-Delaunay and non-manifold types.
Simply use the following commands to generate a vector areas of all the dual elements' areas. The ordering will correspond to the nodes xyz.
[cp,ce,pv,ev] = makedual2(xyz, TRI);
[~,areas(cp(:,1))] = geomdual2(cp,ce,pv,ev);
You might want to have a look at the boundary areas using:
trisurf(TRI, xyz(:,1), xyz(:,2), areas);
The dual cells of boundary nodes theoretically are unbounded and thus should have infinite area. This submission handles it differently however: Instead of an unbounded cell it will return the intersection of the unbounded cell with the original mesh.
Also mind that your question is not well defined if the mesh you are working with is not planar, as the dual mesh cells will be planar and won't scale the same way as the triangles. So this solution will probably only work correctly if your mesh is really 2D. (From what I can tell, the paper you mention is also only for the 2D-case.)
I am currently doing some image segmentation on a bone qCT picture, see for instance images below.
I am trying to find the different borders in the picture for instance the outer border separating the bone to the noisy background. In this analysis I am getting a list of points (vec(1,:) containing x values and vex(2,:) containing the y values) in random order.
To get them into order I am using using a block of code which effectively takes the first point vec(1,1),vec(1,2) and then finds the closest point among the rest of the points in the vector. And then repeats.
Now my problem is that I want to smooth the data but how do I do that as the points lie in a circular formation? (I do have the Curve Fitting Toolbox)
Not exactly a smoothing procedure, but a way to simplify your data would be to compute the boundary of the convex hull of the data.
K = convhull(O(1,:), O(2,:));
plot(O(1,K), O(2,K));
You could also consider using alpha shapes if you want more control.
I have the image includes circular, elipsoidal, square objects and somethings like these. I want to get only circual objects. I applyed a filter by using Solidity and Enccentricity levels of objets but I could not remove square objects. Square objects which have not sharp corners have nearly same Solidity and Enccentricity level with circular objects.
My question is that is there any other parameter or way to detect square objects?
You can compare the area of the mask to its perimeter using the following formula
ratio = 4 * pi * Area / ( Perimeter^2 )
For circles this ration should be very close to one, for other shapes it should be significantly lower.
See this tutorial for an example.
The rationale behind this formula: circles are optimal in their perimeter-area ratio - max area for given perimeter. Given Perimeter, you can estimate radius of equivalent circle by Perimeter = 2*pi*R, using this estimated R you can compute the "equivalent circle area" using eqArea = pi*R^2. Now you only need to check the ratio between the actual area of the shape and the "equivalent area" computed.
Note: since Area and Perimeter of objects in mask are estimated based on the pixel-level discretization these estimates may be quite crude especially for small shapes. Consider working with higher resolution masks if you notice quantization/discretization errors.
There exists a Hough transform (imfindcircles) in order to find circles within an image which is what you needed in the first place.