I am trying to approximate different shapes of a weld bead geometry cross section in additive manufacturing with a graph or ideally (but not necessarily) a function. The regions are the outer shape as well as the individual layers. (see following images)
Therefore, I applied some pre-processing methods to extract the relevant pixels which represent the geometry of a weld bead which are shown as white pixels. (see third image)
I derived this image with canny edge detection and multiple morphological operations such as closing erosion and dilation prior to that and of course converting it into grey-scale.
The "noisy" areas are the transition areas between individual layers of metal and only show up in this way, so in general there is not a "better" or "sharper" transition in thus less "noise". Pictures 3 and 4 are an example of some of the image pre-processing methods I used.
My main approach to treat the inner geometry so far was to split up the image in several sub-images and perform least squares regression on each individual one by interpreting the white pixels as data points. Afterwards I've stitched all those little approximation functions back together to form the image of the original size. I've tried it with different sizes of those sub-images. (see pictures 5 and 6)
However, this approach produces jumps between the functions as well as functions next to each other where the pixels or data points in my case should only be approximated with one function (see attached image). My next approach would be to use multivariate adaptive regression on the sub-images.
Thus, I'm asking if anybody knows a better solution for my problem, maybe even for an approximation on global scale without splitting the image into the sub-images. The approximation does not need to be a polynomial function, piece wise linear but connected functions are totally sufficient. I would be thankful if anybody knows a method that is at least capable of achieving what I want to do. Whether a pure non-linear regression method. Unfortunately I don't have many images (only 64), hence I don't think I can use an ANN. (please correct me if I'm wrong)
If you need to take a look at my code, just let me know. Thank you! :)
The best I could obtain is with bilateral filtering for denoising, then adaptive binarization.
And on a reduced image:
Related
Here`s the deal. I want to create a mask that visualizes all the changes between two images (GeoTiffs which are converted to 2D numpy arrays).
For that I simply subtract the pixel values and normalize the absolute value of the subtraction:
Since the result will be covered in noise, I use a treshold and remove all pixels with a value below a certain limit.
def treshold(array, thresholdLimit):
print("Treshold...")
result = (array > thresholdLimit) * array
return result
This works without a problem. Now comes the issue. When applying the treshold, outliers remain, which is not intended:
What is a good way to remove those outliers?
Sometimes the outliers are small chunks of pixels, like 5-6 pixels together, how could those be removed?
Additionally, the images I use are about 10000x10000 pixels.
I would appreciate all advice!
EDIT:
Both images are landsat satelite images, covering the exact same area.
The difference here is that one image shows cloud coverage and the other one is free of clouds.
The bright snakey line in the top right is part of a river that has been covered by a cloud. Since water bodies like the ocean or rivers are depicted black in those images, the difference between the bright cloud and the dark river results in the river showing a high degree of change.
I hope the following images make this clear:
Source tiffs :
Subtraction result:
I also tried to smooth the result of the tresholding by using a median filter but the result was still covered in outliers:
from scipy.ndimage import median_filter
def filter(array, limit):
print("Median-Filter...")
filteredImg = np.array(median_filter(array, size=limit)).astype(np.float32)
return filteredImg
I would suggest the following:
Before proceeding please double check if the two images are 100% registered. To check that you should overlay them using e.g. different color channels. Even minimal registration errors can render your task impossible
Smooth both input images slightly (before the subtraction). For that I would suggest you use standard implementations. Play around with the filter parameters to find an acceptable compromise between smoothness (or reduction of graininess of source image 1) and resolution
Then try to match the image statistics by applying histogram normalization, using the histogram of image 2 as a target for the histogram of image 1. For this you can also use e.g. the OpenCV implementation
Subtract the images
If you then still observe obvious noise, look at the histogram of the subtraction result and see if you can relate the noise to intensity outliers. If you can clearly separate signal and noise based on intensity, apply again a thresholding (informed by your histogram). Alternatively (or additionally), if the noise is structurally different from your signal (e.g. clustered), you could look into morphological operations to remove it.
I am trying to deblur an image in Python but have run into some problems. Here is what I've tried, but keep in mind that I am not an expert on this topic. According to my understanding, if you know the point spread function, you should be able to deblur the image quite simply by performing a deconvolution. However, this doesn't seem to work and I don't know if I'm doing something stupid or if I just don't understand things correctly. In Mark Newman's Computational Physics book (using Python), he touches on this subject in problem 7.9. In this problem he supplies an image that he deliberately blurred using a Gaussian point spread function (psf), and the objective of the problem is to deblur the image using a Gaussian. This is accomplished by dividing the 2D FFT of the blurred image by the 2D FFT of the psf and then taking the inverse transform. This works reasonably well.
To extend this problem, I wanted to deblur a real image taken with a camera that was deliberately out of focus. So I set up a camera and took two sets of pictures. The first set of pictures were in focus. The first was of a very small LED light in a completely darkened room and the second was of a piece of paper with text on it (using the flash). Then, without changing any of the distances or anything, I changed the focus setting on the camera so that the text was very out of focus. I then took a picture of the text using the flash and took a second picture of the LED (without the flash). Here are the blurred images.
Now, according to my understanding, the image of the blurred point light source should be the point spread function, and as such I should be able to use it to deblur my image. The problem is that when I do so I get an image that just looks like noise. After doing a little research, it seems as though noise can be a big problem when using deconvolution techniques. However, given that I have measured what I believe to be the exact point spread function, I am surprised that noise would be an issue here.
One thing I did try was to replace small values (less than epsilon) in the psf transform with either 1 or with epsilon, and I tried this with a huge range of values for epsilon. This yielded an image that was not just noise, but is also not a deblurred version of the image; it looks like a weird, blurry version of the original (non-blurred) image. Here is an image from my program (you can ignore the value of sigma, which was not used in this program).
I believe I am dealing with a noise issue, but I don't know why and I don't know what to do about it. Any advice would be much appreciated (keeping in mind that I am no expert in this area).
Note that I have deliberately not posted the code because I think that is somewhat irrelevant at this point. But I would be happy to do so if anyone thinks that would be useful. I don't think it's a programming issue because I used the same technique and it works fine when I have the known point spread function (such as when I divide the FFT of the original in-focus image by the FFT of the out-of-focus image and then inverse transform). I just don't understand why I can't seem to use my experimentally measured point spread function.
The problem you have sought to solve is, unfortunately, more difficult than you might expect. Let me explain it in four parts. The first section assumes that you are comfortable with the Fourier transform.
Why you cannot solve this problem with a simple deconvolution.
An outline to how image deblurring can be performed.
Deconvolution by FFT and why it is a bad idea
An alternative method to perform deconvolution
But first, some notation:
I use I to represent an image and K to represent a convolution kernel. I * K is the convolution of the image I with the kernel K. F(I) is the (n-dimensional) Fourier transform of the image I and F(K) is the Fourier transform of the convolution kernel K (this is also called the point spread function, or PSF). Similarly, Fi is the inverse Fourier transform.
Why you cannot solve this problem with a simple deconvolution:
You are correct when you say that we can recover a blurred image Ib = I * K by dividing the Fourier transform of Ib by the Fourier transform of K. However, lens blur is not a convolution blurring operation. It is a modified convolution blurring operation where the blurring kernel K is dependent on the distance to the object you have photographed. Thus, the kernel changes from pixel to pixel.
You might think that this is not an issue with your image, as you have measured the correct kernel at the position of the image. However, this might not be the case, as the part of the image that is far away can influence the part of the image that is close. One way to fix this problem is to crop the image so that it is only the paper that is visible.
Why deconvolution by FFT is a bad idea:
The Convolution Theorem states that I * K = Fi(F(I)F(K)). This theorem leads to the reasonable assumption that if we have an image, Ib = I * K that is blurred by a convolution kernel K, then we can recover the deblurred image by computing I = (F(Ib)/F(K)).
Before we look at why this is a bad idea, I want to get some intuition for what the Convolution Theorem means. When we convolve an image with a kernel, then that is the same as taking the frequency components of the image and multiplying it elementwise with the frequency components of the kernel.
Now, let me explain why it is difficult to deconvolve an image with the FFT. Blurring, by default, removes high-frequency information. Thus, the high frequencies of K must go towards zero. The reason for this is that the high-frequency information of I is lost when it is blurred -- thus, the high-frequency components of Ib must go towards zero. For that to happen, the high-frequency components of K must also go towards zero.
As a result of the high-frequency components of K being almost zero, we see that the high-frequency components of Ib is amplified significantly (as we almost divide by zero) when we deconvolve with the FFT. This is not a problem in the noise-free case.
In the noisy case, however, this is a problem. The reason for this is that noise is, by definition, high-frequency information. So when we try to deconvolve Ib, the noise is amplified to an almost infinite extent. This is the reason that deconvolution by the FFT is a bad idea.
Furthermore, you need to consider how the FFT based convolution algorithm deals with boundary conditions. Normally, when we convolve images, the resolution decreases somewhat. This is unwanted behaviour, so we introduce boundary conditions that specify the pixel values of pixels outside the image. Example of such boundary conditions are
Pixels outside the image has the same value as the closest pixel inside the image
Pixels outside the image has a constant value (e.g. 0)
The image is part of a periodic signal, thus the row of pixel above the topmost row is equal to the bottom row of pixels.
The final boundary condition often makes sense for 1D signals. For images, however, it makes little sense. Unfortunately, the convolution theorem specifies that periodic boundary conditions are used.
In addition to this, it seems that the FFT based inversion method is significantly more sensitive to erroneous kernels than iterative methods (e.g. Gradient descent and FISTA).
An alternative method to perform deconvolution
It might seem like all hope is lost now, as all images are noisy, and deconvolving will increase the noise. However, this is not the case, as we have iterative methods to perform deconvolution. Let me start by showing you the simplest iterative method.
Let || I ||² be the squared sum of all of I's pixels. Solving the equation
Ib = I * K
with respect to I is then equivalent to solving the following optimisation problem:
min L(I) = min ||I * K - Ib||²
with respect to I. This can be done using gradient descent, as the gradient of L is given by
DL = Q * (I * K - Ib)
where Q is the kernel you get by transposing K (this is also called the matched filter in the signal processing litterature).
Thus, you can get the following iterative algorithm that will deblur an image.
from scipy.ndimage import convolve
blurred_image = # Load image
kernel = # Load kernel/psf
learning_rate = # You need to find this yourself, do a logarithmic line search. Small rate will always converge, but slowly. Start with 0.4 and divide by 2 every time it fails.
maxit = 100
def loss(image):
return 0.5 * np.sum((convolve(image, kernel) - blurred_image)**2)
def gradient(image):
return convolve(convolve(image, kernel) - blurred_image, kernel.T)
deblurred = blurred_image.copy()
for _ in range(maxit):
deblurred -= learning_rate*gradient(image)
The above method is perhaps the simplest of the iterative deconvolution algorithms. The way these are used in practice are through so-called regularised deconvolution algorithms. These algorithms work by firstly specifying a function that measures the amount of noise in an image, e.g. TV(I) (the total variation of I). Then the optimisation procedure is performed on L(I) + wTV(I). If you are interested in such algorithms, I recommend reading the FISTA paper by Amir Beck and Marc Teboulle. The paper is quite maths heavy, but you don't need to understand most of it -- only how to implement the TV deblurring algorithm.
In addition to using a regulariser, we use accelerated methods to minimise the loss L(I). One such example is Nesterov accelerated gradient descent. See Adaptive Restart for Accelerated Gradient Schemes by Brendan O'Donoghue, Emmanuel Candes for information about such methods.
An outline to how image deblurring can be performed.
Crop your image so that everything has same distance from the camera
Find the convolution kernel the same way you did now (Test your deconvolution algorithm on synthetically blurred images first)
Implement an iterative method to compute deconvolutoin
Deconvolve the image.
I'm making some photo-editing tools in python using PIL (Python Imaging Library), and I was trying to make a program which converts a photo to its 'painted' version.
I've managed to make a program which converts a photo into its distinct colours, but the problem is that the algorithm I'm using is operating on every pixel, meaning that the resulting image has very jagged differences between colours.
Ideally, I'd like to smoothen out these edges, but I don't know how!
I've checked out this site for some help, but the method there produces quite different results to what I need.
My Starting Image:
My Image with Distinct Colours:
I would like to smoothen the edges in the image above.
Results of using the method which doesn't quite work:
As you can see, using the technique doesn't smoothen the edges into natural-looking curves; instead it creates jagged edges.
I know I should provide sample output, but suprisingly, I haven't actually got it, so I'll describe it as best as I can. Simply put, I want to smoothen the edges between the different colours.
I've seen something called a Gaussian blur, but I'm not quite sure as to how to apply it here as the answers I've seen always mention some sort of threshold, and are usually to do with binary images, so I don't think it can apply here.
Edge enhancement does the opposite of edge smoothing, so this is certainly not the tool you should use.
Unfortunately, there is little that you can do because edge smoothing will indeed smoothen the jaggies, but it will also destroy the true edges, resulting in a blurred image. Edge-preserving smoothing is also a dead-end.
You should have a look at the methods to extract the "cartoon part" of an image. There is a lot of literature on this topic, though often pretty sophisticated.
You can enhance the quality of your "Image with Distinct Colours" by applying a median filter with a radius of 2:
If you want to get "comic-like" dark edges, you can calculate the edges of the original image using a sobel filter, convert the edge map to grayscale, then multiply the resulting edge map with 2, inverse the map and add each non-white pixel of the edge map to the original image. This will result in:
This is of course only a starting point as the result leaves much to be desired, but it should give you a good idea about the basic concept.
I'm newbie in computer vision. My goal is to distinguish individual cells on a set of pictures like this: Example
Basically, I blur whole image, find region maximum on it and use it like seed in watershed algorithm on distance tranfsform of threesholded blurred image. In fact I'm following tutorial which you can find here:
github/luispedro/python-image-tutorial
(sorry, can't post more than 2 links).
My problem is that some cells in my set have very distinguishable dark nucleus (which you can see on the example) and my algorithm produce results like this which are cleary wrong.
Of course it's possible to fix it by increasing strength of gaussian blur but it will merge some other cells toghether which is even worse.
What can be done to solve this problem? What are other possibilites if watershed just isn't situable for this case (keeping in mind that my set is pretty small and learning seems impossible)?
The watershed tends to over-segment if you don't use a watershed with markers.
Usually, we start with DNA/DAPI segmentation that is easy, and it provides the number of cells and the inner markers for the watershed.
If you blur the images, you smooth all the patterns. You should use an alternate sequential filter (opening / closing) in order to simplify each zone, and then try an ultimate eroded in order to find the number of inner seed for your watershed.
I have written a program in Python which automatically reads score sheets like this one
At the moment I am using the following basic strategy:
Deskew the image using ImageMagick
Read into Python using PIL, converting the image to B&W
Calculate calculate the sums of pixels in the rows and the columns
Find peaks in these sums
Check the intersections implied by these peaks for fill.
The result of running the program is shown in this image:
You can see the peak plots below and to the right of the image shown in the top left. The lines in the top left image are the positions of the columns and the red dots show the identified scores. The histogram bottom right shows the fill levels of each circle, and the classification line.
The problem with this method is that it requires careful tuning, and is sensitive to differences in scanning settings. Is there a more robust way of recognising the grid, which will require less a-priori information (at the moment I am using knowledge about how many dots there are) and is more robust to people drawing other shapes on the sheets? I believe it may be possible using a 2D Fourier Transform, but I'm not sure how.
I am using the EPD, so I have quite a few libraries at my disposal.
First of all, I find your initial method quite sound and I would have probably tried the same way (I especially appreciate the row/column projection followed by histogramming, which is an underrated method that is usually quite efficient in real applications).
However, since you want to go for a more robust processing pipeline, here is a proposal that can probably be fully automated (also removing at the same time the deskewing via ImageMagick):
Feature extraction: extract the circles via a generalized Hough transform. As suggested in other answers, you can use OpenCV's Python wrapper for that. The detector may miss some circles but this is not important.
Apply a robust alignment detector using the circle centers.You can use Desloneux parameter-less detector described here. Don't be afraid by the math, the procedure is quite simple to implement (and you can find example implementations online).
Get rid of diagonal lines by a selection on the orientation.
Find the intersections of the lines to get the dots. You can use these coordinates for deskewing by assuming ideal fixed positions for these intersections.
This pipeline may be a bit CPU-intensive (especially step 2 that will proceed to some kind of greedy search), but it should be quite robust and automatic.
The correct way to do this is to use Connected Component analysis on the image, to segment it into "objects". Then you can use higher level algorithms (e.g. hough transform on the components centroids) to detect the grid and also determine for each cell whether it's on/off, by looking at the number of active pixels it contains.