I have seen a couple of images where they generally make a face out of numerous smaller images.
For example, say they tile 100 images in 10x10 grid, and somehow they vary hue/sat/col of the smaller images so that when you see the Big Picture, you see another image.
The question boils down to - say you have an image. What kind of algorithm would you apply to that image so that the average RGB value of that image is the one you have defined?
Calculate the hue/sat/value of every tile (use HSV because smaller differences here seem more "natural" to the human eye than in RGB space)
Now calculate the same values for each n*n tile of your big picture
Find the tiles with the closest HSV values (minimum of sqrt((h1-h2)^2 - (s1-s2)^2 - (v1-v2)^)) and stamp that tile scaled down to n*n into the result.
To find the HSV for a tile, it should be enough to sum up all RGB values and then divide them by the number of pixels and convert that final RGB triple into HSV. But to be save, I suggest that you try that both versions.
See which Wikipedia article for RGB <-> HSV conversions.
To refine the algorithm, you can split every tile into an mm and calculate the average HSV for each grid element. Then, when you look for a match, divide the big image into as usual but also calculate mm HSV values. Select which tile matches most of these m*m best. This allows the algorithm to select tiles which have the same structure as the big picture.
For that extra touch, try to create a gigapixel image.
Related
I have pictures in .dcm format. From Dicominfo I learned that the pixel spacing is [0.9,0.9] mm and the slice thickness is 1.98 mm.
My task: I should get the picture size in real (world) coordinates and then display the pictures in all three projections in matlab.
I had an idea that I would create a matrix in matlab, but it is difficult for me to create the pixel size spacing.
I mean that the pixel in the matrix is like a square and is 0.9mm * 0.9mm.
I don't know if my approach is correct and if there is an easy way to solve the problem.
Thank you very much for every answer
several plotting functions allow you to specify x/y/z positions of each pixel/voxel, including imagesc, pcolor, here is an example using imagesc.
% vol stores your dicom volume
vol=rand(40,50,30);
dx=[0.9,0.9,1.98];
imagesc((0:size(vol,1)-1)*dx(1), (0:size(vol,2)-1)*dx(2), vol(:,:,1))
I have two closed curve stereo rectified edge images. Is it possible to find the disparity(along x-axis in image coordinates) between the edge images and do a 3D reconstruction since I know the camera matrix. I am using matlab for the process. And I will not be able to do a window based technique as it's a binary image since a window based technique requires texture. The question how will I compute the disparity between the edge images? The images are available in the following links. Left Edge image https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5g22f6b0vge9ct/edge_left.jpg?dl=0 Right Edge Image https://www.dropbox.com/s/wjmu3pugldzo2gw/edge_right.jpg?dl=0
For this type of images, you can easily map each edge pixel from the left image to its counterpart in the right image, and therefore calculate the disparity for those pixels as usual.
The mapping can be done in various ways, depending on how typical these images are. For example, using DTW like approach to match curvatures.
For all other pixels in the image, you just don't have any information.
#Photon: Thanks for the suggestion. I did what you suggested. I matched each edge pixel in the left and right image in a DTW like fashion. But there are some pixels whose y-pixel coordinate value differ by 1 or 2 pixels, albeit they are properly rectified. So I calculated the depth by averaging those differing(up to 2-pixel difference in y-axis) edge pixels using least squares method. But I ended getting this space curve (https://www.dropbox.com/s/xbg2q009fjji0qd/false_edge.jpg?dl=0) when they actually should have been like this (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ib06yvzf3k9dny/true_edge.jpg?dl=0) which is obtained using RGB images.I couldn't think of any other reason why it would be the case since I compared by traversing along the 408 edge pixels.
I have two images – mannequin with and without garment.
Please refer sample images below. Ignore the jewels, footwear on the mannequin, imagine the second mannequin has only dress.
I want to extract only the garment from the two images for further processing.
The complexity is that there is slight displacement in the position of camera when taking the two pictures. Due to this simple subtraction to generate the garment mask will not work.
Can anyone tell me how to handle it?
I think I need to do registration between the two images so that I can extract only the garment from the image?
Any references to blogs, articles and codes is highly appreciated.
--
Thanks
Idea
This is an idea of how you could do it, I haven't tested it but my gut tells me it might work. I'm assuming that there will be slight differences in the pose of the manequin as well as the camera attitude.
Let the original image be A, and the clothed image be B.
Take the difference D = |A - B|, apply a median filter that is proportional to the largest deviation you expect from pose and camera attitude error: Dmedian = Median(D, kernelsize).
Quantize Dmedian into a binary mask Dmask = Q(Dmedian, threshold) using appropriate threshold values to obtain an approximate mask for the garment (this will be smaller than the garment itself due to the median filter). Reject any shapes in Dmedian that have too small area by setting their pixels to 0.
Expand the shape(s) in Dmask proportionally to the size of the median kernel into Emask=expand(Dmask, k*kernelsize). Then construct the difference in the masks Fmask=|Dmask - Emask| which now contains areas of pixels where the garment edge is expected to be. For every pixel in Fmask which is in this area, find the correlation Cxy between A and B using a small neighbourhood, store the correlations into an image C=1.0 - Corr(A,B, Fmask, n).
Your final garment mask will be M=C+Dmask.
Explanation
Since your image has nice and continuous swatches of colour, the difference between the two similar images will be thin lines and small gradients where the pose and camera attitude is different. When taking a median filter of the difference image over a sufficiently large kernel, these lines will be removed because they are in a minority of the pixels.
The garment on the other hand will (hopefully) have a significant difference from the colors in the unclothed version. And will generate a bigger difference. Thresholding the difference after the median filter should give you a rough mask of the garment that is undersized dues to some of the pixels on the edge being rejected due to their median values being too low. You could stop here if the approximation is good enough for you.
By expanding the mask we obtained above we get a probable region for the "true" edge. The above process has served to narrow our search region for the true edge considerably and we can apply a more costly correlation search between the images along this edge to find where the garment is. High correlation means no carment and low correlation means garment.
We use the inverted correlation as an alpha value together with the initially smaller mask to obtain a alpha valued mask of the garment that can be used for extracting it.
Clarification
Expand: What I mean by "expanding the mask" is to find the contour of the mask region and outsetting/growing/enlarging it to make it larger.
Corr(A,B,Fmask,n): Is just an arbitrarily chosen correlation function that gives correlation between pixels in A and B that are selected by the mask Fmask using a region of size n. The function returns 1.0 for perfect match and 0.0 for anti-match for each pixel tested. A good function is this pseudocode:
foreach px_pos in Fmask where Fmask[px_pos] == 1
Ap = subregion(A, px_pos, size) - mean(mean(A));
Bp = subregion(B, px_pos, size) - mean(mean(B))
Cxy = sum(sum(Ap .* Bp))*sum(sum(Ap .* Bp)) / (sum(sum(Ap.*Ap))*sum(sum(Bp.*Bp)))
C[px_pos] = 1.0 - Cxy;
end
where subregion selects a region of size size around the pixel with position px_pos.
You can see that if Ap == Bp then Cxy=1
Here with i have attached two consecutive frames captured by a cmos camera with IR Filter.The object checker board was stationary at the time of capturing images.But the difference between two images are nearly 31000 pixels.This could be affect my result.can u tell me What kind of noise is this?How can i remove it.please suggest me any algorithms or any function possible to remove those noises.
Thank you.Sorry for my poor English.
Image1 : [1]: http://i45.tinypic.com/2wptqxl.jpg
Image2: [2]: http://i45.tinypic.com/v8knjn.jpg
That noise appears to result from camera sensor (Bayer to RGB conversion). There's the checkerboard pattern still left.
Also lossy jpg contributes a lot to the process. You should first have an access to raw images.
From those particular images I'd first try to use edge detection filters (Sobel Horizontal and Vertical) to make a mask that selects between some median/local histogram equalization for the flat areas and to apply some checker board reducing filter to the edges. The point is that probably no single filter is able to do good for both jpeg ringing artifacts and to the jagged edges. Then the real question is: what other kind of images should be processed?
From the comments: if corner points are to be made exact, then the solution more likely is to search for features (corner points with subpixel resolution) and make a mapping from one set of points to the other images set of corners, and search for the best affine transformation matrix that converts these sets to each other. With this matrix one can then perform resampling of the other image.
One can fortunately estimate motion vectors with subpixel resolution without brute force searching all possible subpixel locations: when calculating a matched filter, one gets local maximums for potential candidates of exact matches. But this is not all there is. One can try to calculate a more precise approximation of the peak location by studying the matched filter outputs in the nearby pixels. For exact match the output should be symmetric. Otherwise the 'energies' of the matched filter are biased towards the second best location. (A 2nd degree polynomial fit + finding maximum can work.)
Looking closely at these images, I must agree with #Aki Suihkonen.
In my view, the main noise comes from the jpeg compression, that causes sharp edges to "ring". I'd try a "de-speckle" type of filter on the images, and see if this makes a difference. Some info that can help you implement this can be found in this link.
In a more quick and dirty fashion, you apply one of the many standard tools, for example, given the images are a and b:
(i) just smooth the image with a Gaussian filter, this can reduce noise differences between the images by an order of magnitude. For example:
h=fspecial('gaussian',15,2);
a=conv2(a,h,'same');
b=conv2(b,h,'same');
(ii) Reduce Noise By Adaptive Filtering
a = wiener2(a,[5 5]);
b = wiener2(b,[5 5]);
(iii) Adjust ntensity Values Using Histogram Equalization
a = histeq(a);
b = histeq(b);
(iv) Adjust Intensity Values to a Specified Range
a = imadjust(a,[0 0.2],[0.5 1]);
b = imadjust(b,[0 0.2],[0.5 1]);
If your images are supposed to be black and white but you have captured them in gray scale there could be difference due to noise.
You can convert the images to black and white by defining a threshold, any pixel with a value less than that threshold should be assigned 0 and anything larger than that threshold should be assigned 1, or whatever your gray scale range is (maybe 255).
Assume your image is I, to make it black and white assuming your gray scale image level is from 0 to 255, assume you choose a threshold of 100:
ind = find(I < 100);
I(ind) = 0;
ind = find(I >= 100);
I(ind) = 255;
Now you have a black and white image, do the same thing for the other image and you should get very small difference if the camera and the subject have note moved.
I'm using the MNIST digit images for a machine learning experiment, and I'm trying to center each image based on position, rather than the center of mass that they are centered on by default.
I'm using the regionprops class, BoundingBox method to extract the images. I create a B&W copy of the greyscale, use this to determine the BoundingBox properties (regionprops works only B&W images) and then apply that on the greyscale original to extract the precise image rectangle. This works fine on ~98% of the images.
The problem I have is that the other ~2% of images has some kind of noise or errant pixel in the upper left corner, and I end up extracting only that pixel, with the rest of the image discarded.
How can I incorporate all elements of the image into a single rectangle?
EDIT: Further research has made me realise that I can summarise and rephrase this question as "How do I find the bounding box for all regions?". I've tried adjusting a label matrix so that all regions are the same label, to no avail.
You can use an erosion mask with the same size of that noise to make it totally disappear " using imerode followed by imdilate to inverse erosion ", or you can use median filter