OCR: How to localize characters in a serial number image? - java

I have the following problem: I have some serial numbers which always consist of 2 lines of 7 characters, (0-9 and A-Z), with a total of 14 characters. These serial numbers are located on the images of various products; I am able to localize these by using a lot of image processing and geometry transformation algorithms into the following form:
Now my aim is to read these serial numbers. I have first tried the Tesseract API after localizing the numbers into such tight images. Unfortunately, either I failed to adjust the API properly or this particular font is not in Tesseract's training set, since Tesseract is not able to properly parse the serial number. Then I quickly turned to custom solutions.
The basic thing to do is, since I know the aspect ratio and relative sizes of the characters, training a simple classifier (HOG + Linear SVM) on labeled character and background images (I have to do this in anyway) and then run it via a classical sliding window fashion, then apply non-maximum suppresion to remove false positive detections. This brute force approach does not seem to be very efficient for me, since 1) a lot feature extraction + classification operations have to run for each window 2) I have to manually label a lot of background (negative) samples, which include transition areas between two characters, the vertical space between two lines, pure background etc. Since I am able to localize the serial numbers into a rectangle which only includes a solid background except the characters, I thought of a simple foreground/background segmentation scheme. The first thing I tried is to convert the image into grayscale, downscale it and run a low pass filter to remove the high frequency noise and apply Otsu Thresholding. If I would be able localize each character almost perfectly, I could run a classifier just containing its bounding box and I won't need a lot of negative transition/background etc. labeled samples. From the above operation, I have the following result, with the optimal blur kernel size:
Now I am almost able to localize each character, but as you can see in the second image, due to bad lighting conditions, some noisy clutter is passed as foreground (especially around 0 and F, on the left side). Maybe some additional dilation/erosion operations on the binary image would help to reduce non-character clutter, but certainly I would not be able to completely eradicate them. My question is about any help and ideas about to how to localize the characters at that stage, after Otsu thresholding? I do know the width and height of each character (up to a small uncertainty caused by hand crafted measurements) and I also know that they always constitute two lines with 7 elements in each. I think about a connected component algorithm, which groups foreground pixels into blobs and then filter out blobs which do have bounding boxes with inconsistent widths and heights, but it is far from coding stage. I am open to any similar ideas or examples. (If it would be any help, I use OpenCV with Java).

When the characters are isolated and in a single piece, connected components is the way to go. Just ignore the tiny blobs and use the bounding boxes.
Sometimes characters will have small protrusions (like the F), which cause the characters to appear larger than they are. For fixed width fonts, you can adjust the box to that size.
Sometimes characters will be split in two or three pieces. You can regroup the pieces by gometric considerations and a priori knowledge on the text structure.
On such cases, achieving 100% reliability is a real challenge.

Related

displaying characters in a dot matrix

I've built a matrix of LEDs controlled by a Java program on my Raspberry Pi. I want to display characters on this matrix. So what I need to do is convert the characters to a two-dimensional boolean-Array (each LED is represented by one boolean).
The only way to do this I can think of is to design a separate matrix for each existing character, but this is way to much work.
Is there any way to do this differently?
You could rasterize (draw) a given font at a given point size using something like AWT or FreeType and then examine the image to see which pixels/LEDs should be on or off.
This will break down as the font size gets smaller. Below some point, you're probably better off coming up with the matrixes yourself rather than pouring a bunch of effort into something that doesn't work.
OTOH, "render-and-read" would be Much Less Boring... so YMMV.
you could load a monochrome image for a character with a pixel size regarding to your led matrix and check with two for loops, whether a pixel at a certain position is black (true) or white (false).

Find similar Image uing matlab or Java [duplicate]

One of the most interesting projects I've worked on in the past couple of years was a project about image processing. The goal was to develop a system to be able to recognize Coca-Cola 'cans' (note that I'm stressing the word 'cans', you'll see why in a minute). You can see a sample below, with the can recognized in the green rectangle with scale and rotation.
Some constraints on the project:
The background could be very noisy.
The can could have any scale or rotation or even orientation (within reasonable limits).
The image could have some degree of fuzziness (contours might not be entirely straight).
There could be Coca-Cola bottles in the image, and the algorithm should only detect the can!
The brightness of the image could vary a lot (so you can't rely "too much" on color detection).
The can could be partly hidden on the sides or the middle and possibly partly hidden behind a bottle.
There could be no can at all in the image, in which case you had to find nothing and write a message saying so.
So you could end up with tricky things like this (which in this case had my algorithm totally fail):
I did this project a while ago, and had a lot of fun doing it, and I had a decent implementation. Here are some details about my implementation:
Language: Done in C++ using OpenCV library.
Pre-processing: For the image pre-processing, i.e. transforming the image into a more raw form to give to the algorithm, I used 2 methods:
Changing color domain from RGB to HSV and filtering based on "red" hue, saturation above a certain threshold to avoid orange-like colors, and filtering of low value to avoid dark tones. The end result was a binary black and white image, where all white pixels would represent the pixels that match this threshold. Obviously there is still a lot of crap in the image, but this reduces the number of dimensions you have to work with.
Noise filtering using median filtering (taking the median pixel value of all neighbors and replace the pixel by this value) to reduce noise.
Using Canny Edge Detection Filter to get the contours of all items after 2 precedent steps.
Algorithm: The algorithm itself I chose for this task was taken from this awesome book on feature extraction and called Generalized Hough Transform (pretty different from the regular Hough Transform). It basically says a few things:
You can describe an object in space without knowing its analytical equation (which is the case here).
It is resistant to image deformations such as scaling and rotation, as it will basically test your image for every combination of scale factor and rotation factor.
It uses a base model (a template) that the algorithm will "learn".
Each pixel remaining in the contour image will vote for another pixel which will supposedly be the center (in terms of gravity) of your object, based on what it learned from the model.
In the end, you end up with a heat map of the votes, for example here all the pixels of the contour of the can will vote for its gravitational center, so you'll have a lot of votes in the same pixel corresponding to the center, and will see a peak in the heat map as below:
Once you have that, a simple threshold-based heuristic can give you the location of the center pixel, from which you can derive the scale and rotation and then plot your little rectangle around it (final scale and rotation factor will obviously be relative to your original template). In theory at least...
Results: Now, while this approach worked in the basic cases, it was severely lacking in some areas:
It is extremely slow! I'm not stressing this enough. Almost a full day was needed to process the 30 test images, obviously because I had a very high scaling factor for rotation and translation, since some of the cans were very small.
It was completely lost when bottles were in the image, and for some reason almost always found the bottle instead of the can (perhaps because bottles were bigger, thus had more pixels, thus more votes)
Fuzzy images were also no good, since the votes ended up in pixel at random locations around the center, thus ending with a very noisy heat map.
In-variance in translation and rotation was achieved, but not in orientation, meaning that a can that was not directly facing the camera objective wasn't recognized.
Can you help me improve my specific algorithm, using exclusively OpenCV features, to resolve the four specific issues mentioned?
I hope some people will also learn something out of it as well, after all I think not only people who ask questions should learn. :)
An alternative approach would be to extract features (keypoints) using the scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT) or Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF).
You can find a nice OpenCV code example in Java, C++, and Python on this page: Features2D + Homography to find a known object
Both algorithms are invariant to scaling and rotation. Since they work with features, you can also handle occlusion (as long as enough keypoints are visible).
Image source: tutorial example
The processing takes a few hundred ms for SIFT, SURF is bit faster, but it not suitable for real-time applications. ORB uses FAST which is weaker regarding rotation invariance.
The original papers
SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features
Distinctive Image Features
from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
ORB: an efficient alternative to SIFT or SURF
To speed things up, I would take advantage of the fact that you are not asked to find an arbitrary image/object, but specifically one with the Coca-Cola logo. This is significant because this logo is very distinctive, and it should have a characteristic, scale-invariant signature in the frequency domain, particularly in the red channel of RGB. That is to say, the alternating pattern of red-to-white-to-red encountered by a horizontal scan line (trained on a horizontally aligned logo) will have a distinctive "rhythm" as it passes through the central axis of the logo. That rhythm will "speed up" or "slow down" at different scales and orientations, but will remain proportionally equivalent. You could identify/define a few dozen such scanlines, both horizontally and vertically through the logo and several more diagonally, in a starburst pattern. Call these the "signature scan lines."
Searching for this signature in the target image is a simple matter of scanning the image in horizontal strips. Look for a high-frequency in the red-channel (indicating moving from a red region to a white one), and once found, see if it is followed by one of the frequency rhythms identified in the training session. Once a match is found, you will instantly know the scan-line's orientation and location in the logo (if you keep track of those things during training), so identifying the boundaries of the logo from there is trivial.
I would be surprised if this weren't a linearly-efficient algorithm, or nearly so. It obviously doesn't address your can-bottle discrimination, but at least you'll have your logos.
(Update: for bottle recognition I would look for coke (the brown liquid) adjacent to the logo -- that is, inside the bottle. Or, in the case of an empty bottle, I would look for a cap which will always have the same basic shape, size, and distance from the logo and will typically be all white or red. Search for a solid color eliptical shape where a cap should be, relative to the logo. Not foolproof of course, but your goal here should be to find the easy ones fast.)
(It's been a few years since my image processing days, so I kept this suggestion high-level and conceptual. I think it might slightly approximate how a human eye might operate -- or at least how my brain does!)
Fun problem: when I glanced at your bottle image I thought it was a can too. But, as a human, what I did to tell the difference is that I then noticed it was also a bottle...
So, to tell cans and bottles apart, how about simply scanning for bottles first? If you find one, mask out the label before looking for cans.
Not too hard to implement if you're already doing cans. The real downside is it doubles your processing time. (But thinking ahead to real-world applications, you're going to end up wanting to do bottles anyway ;-)
Isn't it difficult even for humans to distinguish between a bottle and a can in the second image (provided the transparent region of the bottle is hidden)?
They are almost the same except for a very small region (that is, width at the top of the can is a little small while the wrapper of the bottle is the same width throughout, but a minor change right?)
The first thing that came to my mind was to check for the red top of bottle. But it is still a problem, if there is no top for the bottle, or if it is partially hidden (as mentioned above).
The second thing I thought was about the transparency of bottle. OpenCV has some works on finding transparent objects in an image. Check the below links.
OpenCV Meeting Notes Minutes 2012-03-19
OpenCV Meeting Notes Minutes 2012-02-28
Particularly look at this to see how accurately they detect glass:
OpenCV Meeting Notes Minutes 2012-04-24
See their implementation result:
They say it is the implementation of the paper "A Geodesic Active Contour Framework for Finding Glass" by K. McHenry and J. Ponce, CVPR 2006.
It might be helpful in your case a little bit, but problem arises again if the bottle is filled.
So I think here, you can search for the transparent body of the bottles first or for a red region connected to two transparent objects laterally which is obviously the bottle. (When working ideally, an image as follows.)
Now you can remove the yellow region, that is, the label of the bottle and run your algorithm to find the can.
Anyway, this solution also has different problems like in the other solutions.
It works only if your bottle is empty. In that case, you will have to search for the red region between the two black colors (if the Coca Cola liquid is black).
Another problem if transparent part is covered.
But anyway, if there are none of the above problems in the pictures, this seems be to a better way.
I really like Darren Cook's and stacker's answers to this problem. I was in the midst of throwing my thoughts into a comment on those, but I believe my approach is too answer-shaped to not leave here.
In short summary, you've identified an algorithm to determine that a Coca-Cola logo is present at a particular location in space. You're now trying to determine, for arbitrary orientations and arbitrary scaling factors, a heuristic suitable for distinguishing Coca-Cola cans from other objects, inclusive of: bottles, billboards, advertisements, and Coca-Cola paraphernalia all associated with this iconic logo. You didn't call out many of these additional cases in your problem statement, but I feel they're vital to the success of your algorithm.
The secret here is determining what visual features a can contains or, through the negative space, what features are present for other Coke products that are not present for cans. To that end, the current top answer sketches out a basic approach for selecting "can" if and only if "bottle" is not identified, either by the presence of a bottle cap, liquid, or other similar visual heuristics.
The problem is this breaks down. A bottle could, for example, be empty and lack the presence of a cap, leading to a false positive. Or, it could be a partial bottle with additional features mangled, leading again to false detection. Needless to say, this isn't elegant, nor is it effective for our purposes.
To this end, the most correct selection criteria for cans appear to be the following:
Is the shape of the object silhouette, as you sketched out in your question, correct? If so, +1.
If we assume the presence of natural or artificial light, do we detect a chrome outline to the bottle that signifies whether this is made of aluminum? If so, +1.
Do we determine that the specular properties of the object are correct, relative to our light sources (illustrative video link on light source detection)? If so, +1.
Can we determine any other properties about the object that identify it as a can, including, but not limited to, the topological image skew of the logo, the orientation of the object, the juxtaposition of the object (for example, on a planar surface like a table or in the context of other cans), and the presence of a pull tab? If so, for each, +1.
Your classification might then look like the following:
For each candidate match, if the presence of a Coca Cola logo was detected, draw a gray border.
For each match over +2, draw a red border.
This visually highlights to the user what was detected, emphasizing weak positives that may, correctly, be detected as mangled cans.
The detection of each property carries a very different time and space complexity, and for each approach, a quick pass through http://dsp.stackexchange.com is more than reasonable for determining the most correct and most efficient algorithm for your purposes. My intent here is, purely and simply, to emphasize that detecting if something is a can by invalidating a small portion of the candidate detection space isn't the most robust or effective solution to this problem, and ideally, you should take the appropriate actions accordingly.
And hey, congrats on the Hacker News posting! On the whole, this is a pretty terrific question worthy of the publicity it received. :)
Looking at shape
Take a gander at the shape of the red portion of the can/bottle. Notice how the can tapers off slightly at the very top whereas the bottle label is straight. You can distinguish between these two by comparing the width of the red portion across the length of it.
Looking at highlights
One way to distinguish between bottles and cans is the material. A bottle is made of plastic whereas a can is made of aluminum metal. In sufficiently well-lit situations, looking at the specularity would be one way of telling a bottle label from a can label.
As far as I can tell, that is how a human would tell the difference between the two types of labels. If the lighting conditions are poor, there is bound to be some uncertainty in distinguishing the two anyways. In that case, you would have to be able to detect the presence of the transparent/translucent bottle itself.
Please take a look at Zdenek Kalal's Predator tracker. It requires some training, but it can actively learn how the tracked object looks at different orientations and scales and does it in realtime!
The source code is available on his site. It's in MATLAB, but perhaps there is a Java implementation already done by a community member. I have succesfully re-implemented the tracker part of TLD in C#. If I remember correctly, TLD is using Ferns as the keypoint detector. I use either SURF or SIFT instead (already suggested by #stacker) to reacquire the object if it was lost by the tracker. The tracker's feedback makes it easy to build with time a dynamic list of sift/surf templates that with time enable reacquiring the object with very high precision.
If you're interested in my C# implementation of the tracker, feel free to ask.
If you are not limited to just a camera which wasn't in one of your constraints perhaps you can move to using a range sensor like the Xbox Kinect. With this you can perform depth and colour based matched segmentation of the image. This allows for faster separation of objects in the image. You can then use ICP matching or similar techniques to even match the shape of the can rather then just its outline or colour and given that it is cylindrical this may be a valid option for any orientation if you have a previous 3D scan of the target. These techniques are often quite quick especially when used for such a specific purpose which should solve your speed problem.
Also I could suggest, not necessarily for accuracy or speed but for fun you could use a trained neural network on your hue segmented image to identify the shape of the can. These are very fast and can often be up to 80/90% accurate. Training would be a little bit of a long process though as you would have to manually identify the can in each image.
I would detect red rectangles: RGB -> HSV, filter red -> binary image, close (dilate then erode, known as imclose in matlab)
Then look through rectangles from largest to smallest. Rectangles that have smaller rectangles in a known position/scale can both be removed (assuming bottle proportions are constant, the smaller rectangle would be a bottle cap).
This would leave you with red rectangles, then you'll need to somehow detect the logos to tell if they're a red rectangle or a coke can. Like OCR, but with a known logo?
This may be a very naive idea (or may not work at all), but the dimensions of all the coke cans are fixed. So may be if the same image contains both a can and a bottle then you can tell them apart by size considerations (bottles are going to be larger). Now because of missing depth (i.e. 3D mapping to 2D mapping) its possible that a bottle may appear shrunk and there isn't a size difference. You may recover some depth information using stereo-imaging and then recover the original size.
Hmm, I actually think I'm onto something (this is like the most interesting question ever - so it'd be a shame not to continue trying to find the "perfect" answer, even though an acceptable one has been found)...
Once you find the logo, your troubles are half done. Then you only have to figure out the differences between what's around the logo. Additionally, we want to do as little extra as possible. I think this is actually this easy part...
What is around the logo? For a can, we can see metal, which despite the effects of lighting, does not change whatsoever in its basic colour. As long as we know the angle of the label, we can tell what's directly above it, so we're looking at the difference between these:
Here, what's above and below the logo is completely dark, consistent in colour. Relatively easy in that respect.
Here, what's above and below is light, but still consistent in colour. It's all-silver, and all-silver metal actually seems pretty rare, as well as silver colours in general. Additionally, it's in a thin slither and close enough to the red that has already been identified so you could trace its shape for its entire length to calculate a percentage of what can be considered the metal ring of the can. Really, you only need a small fraction of that anywhere along the can to tell it is part of it, but you still need to find a balance that ensures it's not just an empty bottle with something metal behind it.
And finally, the tricky one. But not so tricky, once we're only going by what we can see directly above (and below) the red wrapper. Its transparent, which means it will show whatever is behind it. That's good, because things that are behind it aren't likely to be as consistent in colour as the silver circular metal of the can. There could be many different things behind it, which would tell us that it's an empty (or filled with clear liquid) bottle, or a consistent colour, which could either mean that it's filled with liquid or that the bottle is simply in front of a solid colour. We're working with what's closest to the top and bottom, and the chances of the right colours being in the right place are relatively slim. We know it's a bottle, because it hasn't got that key visual element of the can, which is relatively simplistic compared to what could be behind a bottle.
(that last one was the best I could find of an empty large coca cola bottle - interestingly the cap AND ring are yellow, indicating that the redness of the cap probably shouldn't be relied upon)
In the rare circumstance that a similar shade of silver is behind the bottle, even after the abstraction of the plastic, or the bottle is somehow filled with the same shade of silver liquid, we can fall back on what we can roughly estimate as being the shape of the silver - which as I mentioned, is circular and follows the shape of the can. But even though I lack any certain knowledge in image processing, that sounds slow. Better yet, why not deduce this by for once checking around the sides of the logo to ensure there is nothing of the same silver colour there? Ah, but what if there's the same shade of silver behind a can? Then, we do indeed have to pay more attention to shapes, looking at the top and bottom of the can again.
Depending on how flawless this all needs to be, it could be very slow, but I guess my basic concept is to check the easiest and closest things first. Go by colour differences around the already matched shape (which seems the most trivial part of this anyway) before going to the effort of working out the shape of the other elements. To list it, it goes:
Find the main attraction (red logo background, and possibly the logo itself for orientation, though in case the can is turned away, you need to concentrate on the red alone)
Verify the shape and orientation, yet again via the very distinctive redness
Check colours around the shape (since it's quick and painless)
Finally, if needed, verify the shape of those colours around the main attraction for the right roundness.
In the event you can't do this, it probably means the top and bottom of the can are covered, and the only possible things that a human could have used to reliably make a distinction between the can and the bottle is the occlusion and reflection of the can, which would be a much harder battle to process. However, to go even further, you could follow the angle of the can/bottle to check for more bottle-like traits, using the semi-transparent scanning techniques mentioned in the other answers.
Interesting additional nightmares might include a can conveniently sitting behind the bottle at such a distance that the metal of it just so happens to show above and below the label, which would still fail as long as you're scanning along the entire length of the red label - which is actually more of a problem because you're not detecting a can where you could have, as opposed to considering that you're actually detecting a bottle, including the can by accident. The glass is half empty, in that case!
As a disclaimer, I have no experience in nor have ever thought about image processing outside of this question, but it is so interesting that it got me thinking pretty deeply about it, and after reading all the other answers, I consider this to possibly be the easiest and most efficient way to get it done. Personally, I'm just glad I don't actually have to think about programming this!
EDIT
Additionally, look at this drawing I did in MS Paint... It's absolutely awful and quite incomplete, but based on the shape and colours alone, you can guess what it's probably going to be. In essence, these are the only things that one needs to bother scanning for. When you look at that very distinctive shape and combination of colours so close, what else could it possibly be? The bit I didn't paint, the white background, should be considered "anything inconsistent". If it had a transparent background, it could go over almost any other image and you could still see it.
Am a few years late in answering this question. With the state of the art pushed to its limits by CNNs in the last 5 years I wouldn't use OpenCV to do this task now! (I know you specifically wanted OpenCv features in the question) I feel object detection algorithms such as Faster-RCNNs, YOLO, SSD etc would ace this problem with a significant margin compared to OpenCV features. If I were to tackle this problem now (after 6 years !!) I would definitely use Faster-RCNN.
I'm not aware of OpenCV but looking at the problem logically I think you could differentiate between bottle and can by changing the image which you are looking for i.e. Coca Cola. You should incorporate till top portion of can as in case of can there is silver lining at top of coca cola and in case of bottle there will be no such silver lining.
But obviously this algorithm will fail in cases where top of can is hidden, but in such case even human will not be able to differentiate between the two (if only coca cola portion of bottle/can is visible)
I like the challenge and wanted to give an answer, which solves the issue, I think.
Extract features (keypoints, descriptors such as SIFT, SURF) of the logo
Match the points with a model image of the logo (using Matcher such as Brute Force )
Estimate the coordinates of the rigid body (PnP problem - SolvePnP)
Estimate the cap position according to the rigid body
Do back-projection and calculate the image pixel position (ROI) of the cap of the bottle (I assume you have the intrinsic parameters of the camera)
Check with a method whether the cap is there or not. If there, then this is the bottle
Detection of the cap is another issue. It can be either complicated or simple. If I were you, I would simply check the color histogram in the ROI for a simple decision.
Please, give the feedback if I am wrong. Thanks.
I like your question, regardless of whether it's off topic or not :P
An interesting aside; I've just completed a subject in my degree where we covered robotics and computer vision. Our project for the semester was incredibly similar to the one you describe.
We had to develop a robot that used an Xbox Kinect to detect coke bottles and cans on any orientation in a variety of lighting and environmental conditions. Our solution involved using a band pass filter on the Hue channel in combination with the hough circle transform. We were able to constrain the environment a bit (we could chose where and how to position the robot and Kinect sensor), otherwise we were going to use the SIFT or SURF transforms.
You can read about our approach on my blog post on the topic :)
Deep Learning
Gather at least a few hundred images containing cola cans, annotate the bounding box around them as positive classes, include cola bottles and other cola products label them negative classes as well as random objects.
Unless you collect a very large dataset, perform the trick of using deep learning features for small dataset. Ideally using a combination of Support Vector Machines(SVM) with deep neural nets.
Once you feed the images to a previously trained deep learning model(e.g. GoogleNet), instead of using neural network's decision (final) layer to do classifications, use previous layer(s)' data as features to train your classifier.
OpenCV and Google Net:
http://docs.opencv.org/trunk/d5/de7/tutorial_dnn_googlenet.html
OpenCV and SVM:
http://docs.opencv.org/2.4/doc/tutorials/ml/introduction_to_svm/introduction_to_svm.html
There are a bunch of color descriptors used to recognise objects, the paper below compares a lot of them. They are specially powerful when combined with SIFT or SURF. SURF or SIFT alone are not very useful in a coca cola can image because they don't recognise a lot of interest points, you need the color information to help. I use BIC (Border/Interior Pixel Classification) with SURF in a project and it worked great to recognise objects.
Color descriptors for Web image retrieval: a comparative study
You need a program that learns and improves classification accuracy organically from experience.
I'll suggest deep learning, with deep learning this becomes a trivial problem.
You can retrain the inception v3 model on Tensorflow:
How to Retrain Inception's Final Layer for New Categories.
In this case, you will be training a convolutional neural network to classify an object as either a coca-cola can or not.
As alternative to all these nice solutions, you can train your own classifier and make your application robust to errors. As example, you can use Haar Training, providing a good number of positive and negative images of your target.
It can be useful to extract only cans and can be combined with the detection of transparent objects.
There is a computer vision package called HALCON from MVTec whose demos could give you good algorithm ideas. There is plenty of examples similar to your problem that you could run in demo mode and then look at the operators in the code and see how to implement them from existing OpenCV operators.
I have used this package to quickly prototype complex algorithms for problems like this and then find how to implement them using existing OpenCV features. In particular for your case you could try to implement in OpenCV the functionality embedded in the operator find_scaled_shape_model. Some operators point to the scientific paper regarding algorithm implementation which can help to find out how to do something similar in OpenCV.
Maybe too many years late, but nevertheless a theory to try.
The ratio of bounding rectangle of red logo region to the overall dimension of the bottle/can is different. In the case of Can, should be 1:1, whereas will be different in that of bottle (with or without cap).
This should make it easy to distinguish between the two.
Update:
The horizontal curvature of the logo region will be different between the Can and Bottle due their respective size difference. This could be specifically useful if your robot needs to pick up can/bottle, and you decide the grip accordingly.
If you are interested in it being realtime, then what you need is to add in a pre-processing filter to determine what gets scanned with the heavy-duty stuff. A good fast, very real time, pre-processing filter that will allow you to scan things that are more likely to be a coca-cola can than not before moving onto more iffy things is something like this: search the image for the biggest patches of color that are a certain tolerance away from the sqrt(pow(red,2) + pow(blue,2) + pow(green,2)) of your coca-cola can. Start with a very strict color tolerance, and work your way down to more lenient color tolerances. Then, when your robot runs out of an allotted time to process the current frame, it uses the currently found bottles for your purposes. Please note that you will have to tweak the RGB colors in the sqrt(pow(red,2) + pow(blue,2) + pow(green,2)) to get them just right.
Also, this is gona seem really dumb, but did you make sure to turn on -oFast compiler optimizations when you compiled your C code?
The first things I would look for are color - like RED , when doing Red eye detection in an image - there is a certain color range to detect , some characteristics about it considering the surrounding area and such as distance apart from the other eye if it is indeed visible in the image.
1: First characteristic is color and Red is very dominant. After detecting the Coca Cola Red there are several items of interest
1A: How big is this red area (is it of sufficient quantity to make a determination of a true can or not - 10 pixels is probably not enough),
1B: Does it contain the color of the Label - "Coca-Cola" or wave.
1B1: Is there enough to consider a high probability that it is a label.
Item 1 is kind of a short cut - pre-process if that doe snot exist in the image - move on.
So if that is the case I can then utilize that segment of my image and start looking more zoom out of the area in question a little bit - basically look at the surrounding region / edges...
2: Given the above image area ID'd in 1 - verify the surrounding points [edges] of the item in question.
A: Is there what appears to be a can top or bottom - silver?
B: A bottle might appear transparent , but so might a glass table - so is there a glass table/shelf or a transparent area - if so there are multiple possible out comes. A Bottle MIGHT have a red cap, it might not, but it should have either the shape of the bottle top / thread screws, or a cap.
C: Even if this fails A and B it still can be a can - partial..
This is more complex when it is partial because a partial bottle / partial can might look the same , so some more processing of measurement of the Red region edge to edge.. small bottle might be similar in size ..
3: After the above analysis that is when I would look at the lettering and the wave logo - because I can orient my search for some of the letters in the words As you might not have all of the text due to not having all of the can, the wave would align at certain points to the text (distance wise) so I could search for that probability and know which letters should exist at that point of the wave at distance x.

Troubleshooting Image Recognition Neural Network Issues

Thanks in advance for reading this.
So I'm attempting to write a neural network for recognizing a specific logo within an image. I basically have a sliding window of a specific aspect ratio that will scale the current window to the expected size of the input. The window slides around pumping input into the network, and looking at the output to determine if what's in the window is the logo that I'm looking for. In that case, it will draw a box around the edge of the window, outlining the logo.
My problem resides in the fact that the neural network reports way too high of confidence for other parts of the image, and will end up drawing so many boxes all over the place, that it's impossible to see much of the original image. So there is obviously something wrong with the neural network.
For inputting the image, I have tried unrolling as grayscale, and as color. It doesn't work either way. I've tried variations on the input size as well. When it starts to get too small, then it will get worse, but even at 57x22x3 colored unrolled input, it still fails.
So I don't think that's the issue either. My neural network has X input neurons (where X is width * height * num_colors). I have one hidden layer, also of size X, and finally, I have 1 output neuron in the output layer, outputting a value between 0.0 and 1.0, representing the total confidence.
I have 17 positive training examples (ideal output is a 1.0), and 19 negative training examples (ideal output is a 0.0). After training, the network reports nearly equal confidence of ~0.95 for all positive, and nearly equal confidence of ~0.013 for all negative examples.
My theory is the number of training examples I have is far too small, and I should collect/generate more. I had only 5 of each initially, but I didn't see any gains from going up to 17+ either.
I should note I've tried using Encog and Neuroph, and both have extremely similar results. I'm using backpropagation for learning, and have tried using learning rates between 0.3 and 0.7, as well as momentum values between 0.0 and 0.8. Regardless, the result is almost always the same.
Thank you for your help.
Usually neural networks do require a lot of samples for learning, but can't say for sure that this is your problem.
Maybe a better idea for you to do matching is to find percent match for each pixel in your pattern vs the pixel where the pattern could be in the image given (for example use sliding window style).
If you have an array of pixel colours to match your pattern against:
0xFF0000, 0x00FF00, 0x0000FF
and a pattern with these pixel colours:
0xEE0000, 0x00FF00, 0x0101DE
You can get a delta in % for each pixel, then average them. Now there are multiple way you could average (weighted averages, exponentially weighted average, etc). At the end you can get a percent match for the entire pattern: how well the pattern matches the current pixels in the sliding window. You can always keep track of the maximum score are so at the end you display only one box (the one which has the highest probability of matching the patter).
You can create a neuron for each pixel, and the dendrites can be different part of the the colour hex number. Maybe a dendrite for each R,G,B. In the example I gave above I took one dendrite for the whole colour integer.
Try using a SOM/LVQ neural network for classifying the sliding window input this matlab post should give u some ideas http://scriptbucket.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/image-classification-using-matlab-somlvq/

Efficient drawing of primitives in openGL ES 2.0

I am writing a game on Android, and it is coming along well enough. I am trying to keep everything as efficient as possible, so I am storing as much as I can in Vertex Buffer Objects to avoid unnecessary CPU overhead. However the simple act of drawing lots of unrelated primitives, or even a varying length string of sprites efficiently (such as drawing text to the screen) is escaping me.
The purpose of these primitives is menus and buttons, as well as text.
For drawing the menus, I could just make a vertex array for each element (menu background, buttons, etc), but since they are all just quads, this feels very inefficient. I could also create a sort of drawQuad() function that lets me just transparently load a single saved vertex array with data for xy/height&width/color/texture/whatever. However, reloading each element of the array with the new coordinates and other data each time, to copy it to the Float Buffer (For C++ guys, this is a special step you have to do in Java to pass the data to GL) so I can resend it to the GPU also feels lacking in efficiency, though I don't know how else I could do it. (One boost in efficiency I could see is setting the quad coordinates to be a unit square and then using Uniforms to scale it, but this seems unscalable).
For text it is even worse since I don't know how long the text will be and don't want to have to create larger buffers for larger text (causing the GC to randomly fire later). The alternate is to draw each letter with a independent draw command, but this also seems very inefficient for even a hundred letters on the screen (Since I read that you should try to have as few draw commands as possible).
It is also possible that I am looking way too deep into the necessary optimization of openGL, but I don't want to back myself into a corner with some terrible design early on.
You should try looking into the idea of interleaving data for your glDrawArrays calls.
Granted this link is for iphone, but there is a nice graphic at the bottom of the page that details this concept. http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/06/opengl-es-from-ground-up-part-8.html
I'm going to assume for drawing your characters that you are specifying some vertex coords and some texture coords into some sort of font bitmap to pick the correct character.
So you could envision your FloatBuffer as looking like
[vertex 1][texcoord 1][vertex 2][texcoord 2][vertex 3][texcoord 3]
[vertex 2][texcoord 2][vertex 3][texcoord 3][vertex 4][texcoord 4]
The above would represent a single character in your sentence if you're using GL_TRIANGLES, and you could expand on this idea to have vertices 5 - 8 to represent the second character and so on and so forth. Now you could draw all of your text on screen with a single glDrawArrays call. Now you might be worried about having redundant data in your FloatBuffer, but the savings will be huge. For example, in rendering a teapot with 1200 vertices and having this redundant data in my buffer, I was able to get a very visible speed increase over calling glDrawArrays for each individual triangle maybe something like 10 times better.
I have a small demo on sourceforge where I use data interleaving to render the teapot I mentioned earlier.
Its the ShaderProgramTutorial.rar. https://sourceforge.net/projects/androidopengles/files/ShaderProgram/
Look in teapot.java in the onDrawFrame function to see it.
On a side note you might find some of the other things on that sourceforge page helpful in your future Android OpenGL ES 2.0 fun!

JOGL: How can I draw many strings quickly

I'm using JOGL (OpenGL for Java) for my application and I need to draw tons of strings on screen at once and my current solution is far too slow. Right now I'm drawing the strings using TextRenderer using the draw3D method and for even a moderate number of strings (around 300-500), it just kills the FPS. I started messing with drawing text onto the object textures, which is much faster, but there are a few problems with it. The first is that allocating all those textures requires a lot of memory. The second is that I need to find a way to size the texture so its only as big as the string and then map it to the object without stretching. The problem there is that all these thousands of boxes are using a single model being rendered with a call list. I'm not sure its possible to change the texture mapping for each object in that situation.
I don't mind if the text appears flat or 3D, it just has to be positioned in 3D space. I would prefer to render the text in the highest quality possible without sacrificing too much speed, since readability of the text is the most important part of the application. Also, nearly all of the strings are different, there aren't many duplicates.
So, my question: Am I going down the right path with drawing the strings on the textures, and if so, how can I overcome those 2 problems? Or is there another method that would suit my needs?
Depending on exactly how TextRenderer works - you might be able to use display lists to batch up your text drawing commands.
If TextRenderer works by having a texture of individual character glyphs and piecing together a string a glyph at a time: it'll be fine. just bookend your text drawing code with glNewList and glEndList. Once a list is defined, just use glCallList to use it.
If however, TextRenderer works by drawing complete strings into a texture and using one quad per string - display lists may not work. If the strings in one batch do not all fit within TextRenderer's cache, it will delete the least-recently used one to reclaim some space. Display lists will only recreate the OpenGL calls made, and so the work done by TextRenderer to update the string cache texture will be lost and you'll get incorrect output. From a quick scan of the source, I suspect that TextRenderer works in this manner.
To summarise: Display lists will greatly speed up your rendering, but will only if you don't overflow TextRenderer's string cache texture and don't use the TextRenderer after the display list has been defined.
If you can't meet these constraints you're going to have to go a bit hardcore and write your own text renderer that renders glyph-by-glyph - it'll then be trivial to cache the output geometry and extremely quick to re-render. There's an example of such a system here, with the tool to create a font here. It uses LWJGL rather than JOGL, but the translation between the two will be the least of your worries if you want to integrate it - it's meshed with the texture management etc.

Categories