I'm looking for some solutions that, given a set S of circles with 2D-center points and radii, returns a minimal sub-set M in S that covers entirely a specific circle with 2d-center point and radius. This last circle is not in S.
I've chosen circles, but it doesn't matter if we change them to squares, hexagons, etc.
You have two distinct problems: you need to turn the geometric problem into a combinatoric problem, and then you need to solve the combinatoric problem. For the latter, you are looking at a minimum set cover problem, and there should be plenty of literature on that. Personally I like Knuth's Dancing Links approach to enumerate all solutions of a set cover, but I guess for a single minimal solution you can do better. A CPLEX formulation (to match your tag) would use a binary variable for each row, and a ≥1 constraint for each column.
So now about turning geometry into combinatorics. All the lines of all your circles divide the plane into a bunch of areas. The areas are delimited by lines. Of particular relevance are the points where two or more circles meet. The exact shape of the line between these points is less relevant, and you might imagine pulling those arcs straight to come up with a more classical planar graph representation. So compute all the pair-wise intersections between all your circles. Order all intersections of a single circle by angle and connect them with graph edges in that order. Do so for all circles. Then you can do a kind of bucket fill to determine for each circle which graph faces are within and which are outside.
Now you have your matrix for the set cover: every graph face which is inside the big circle is a column you need to cover. Every circle is a row and covers some of these faces, and you know which.
I have been trying Python+OpenCV for quite long time already and followed many tutorials in order to identify particles in the following image:
My ultimate goal is to identify every particle, from there I will be able to e.g. count number of particles, calculate a size distribution, etc.
I have already tried to customize many examples several sites.
I got good hints based on:
How to define the markers for Watershed in OpenCV?
Counting particles using image processing in python
Although I was not able to achieve decent results.
How can I identify particles in this image using Python and OpenCV?
IMO, the only hope to get meaningful results is to use the fact that the particles are round. By using some homogeneity criterion, you could find candidate particle centers, and from these grow contours in such a way that they remain round and stop at edges. An option could be to draw rays from the seed point, find the closest edge points and use a robust fit of a circle or an ellipse.
Reject the shapes that are too far from roundness. This should allow you to find the unoccluded particles. Then you can continue the game from other seed points, this time growing contours that can be occluded by the already detected particles. (When an edge is hit, if it is known to belong to a particle, ignore it.)
Let's pretend the goal is to get an estimated number of particles. Also, let's assume those particles are spheres.
With that being said it should be possible to build a model, based on highlight, shadow, halftone to make the final result as accurate as it can be.
With that being said a simple proof of the concept based on highlight segmentation can be verified.
Initial result doesn't seem to be promising, but a tiny change of the contrast improves it:
Should be enough to get estimated number of stones and apply more advanced models for identified regions.
I have a sequence of points which are distributed in 2D space. They represent a shape but they are not ordered. So, I can plot them as points to give an idea of the shape, but if I plot the line connecting them, I miss the shape because the order of points is not the right order of connection.
I'm wondering, how can I put them in the right order such that, if I connect them one by one in sequence, I get a spline showing the shape they represent? I found and tried the convex hull in Matlab but with no results. The shape could be complex, for example a star and with convex hull I get a shape that is too much simplified (many points are not taken into account).
Thanks for help!
EDIT
Could be everything the image. I've randomly created one to show you a possible case, with some parts that are coming into the shape, and also points can have different distances.
I've tried with convex hull function in Matlab, that's what I get. Every time the contour have a "sharp corner", I miss it and the final shape is not what I'm looking for. Also, Matlab function has no parameter to set to change convex hull result (at least I can't see anything in the help).
hull = convhull(coords(:,1),coords(:,2));
plot(coords(hull,1),coords(hull,2),'.r');
You need to somehow order your points, so they can be in a sequence; in the case of your drawing example, the points can likely be ordered using the minimal distance, to the next -not yet used- point, starting at one end (you'll probably have to provide the end).
Then you can draw a spline, maybe using Chaikin's algorithm for curves that will locally approximate a bezier curve.
You need to start working on this, and post another question with your code, if you are having difficulties.
Alpha shapes may perform better than convexhulls for this problem. Alpha shapes will touch all the points in the exterior of a point cloud, even can carve out holes.
But for complicated shape reconstruction, I would recommend you to try a beta-skeleton bsed approach discussed in https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~jrs/meshpapers/AmentaBernEppstein.pdf
See more details on β-Skeleton at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_skeleton
Quote from the linked article:
The circle-based β-skeleton may be used in image analysis to reconstruct the shape of a two-dimensional object, given a set of sample points on the boundary of the object (a computational form of the connect the dots puzzle where the sequence in which the dots are to be connected must be deduced by an algorithm rather than being given as part of the puzzle).
it is possible to prove that the choice β = 1.7 will correctly reconstruct the entire boundary of any smooth surface, and not generate any edges that do not belong to the boundary, as long as the samples are generated sufficiently densely relative to the local curvature of the surface
Cheers
Dear Stackoverflow community,
I have contours of irregular polygons as unordered datapoints (like on the figure here: https://s16.postimg.org/pum4m0pn9/figure_4.png), and I am trying to order them (ie. to create a polygon).
I cannot use the convex hull envelope because of the non convex shape of the polygon. I cannot ase a minimum distance criterion because some points of other parts of the contour lie closer (example: point A has to be joined with B, but is closer to C). I cannot use a clockwise ordering because of the irregular shape of the contour.
Do anyone knos a way to implement (preferentially in Python) an algorithm that would reorder the datapoints from a starting point?
look here finding holes in 2D point set for some ideas on how to solve this
I would create point density map (similar to above linked answer)
create list of all lines
so add to it all possible combination of lines (between close points)
not intersecting empty area in map
remove all intersecting lines
apply closed loop / connectivity analysis on the lines
then handle the rest of unused points
by splitting nearest line by them ...
depending on you map grid size and point density you may need to blend/smooth the map to cover gaps
if grid size is too big then you can miss details like on the image between points A,C
if it is too small then significant gaps may occur near low density areas
But as said this has more then one solution so you need to tweak this a bit to make the wanted output perhaps some User input for shaking the solution a bit until wanted solution found...
[notes]
you can handle this as more covex polygons ...
add line only if winding rule met
stop when no more lines found
start again with unused points
and in the end try to connect found non closed polygons ...
I got two images showing exaktly the same content: 2D-gaussian-shaped spots. I call these two 16-bit png-files "left.png" and "right.png". But as they are obtained thru an slightly different optical setup, the corresponding spots (physically the same) appear at slightly different positions. Meaning the right is slightly stretched, distorted, or so, in a non-linear way. Therefore I would like to get the transformation from left to right.
So for every pixel on the left side with its x- and y-coordinate I want a function giving me the components of the displacement-vector that points to the corresponding pixel on the right side.
In a former approach I tried to get the positions of the corresponding spots to obtain the relative distances deltaX and deltaY. These distances then I fitted to the taylor-expansion up to second order of T(x,y) giving me the x- and y-component of the displacement vector for every pixel (x,y) on the left, pointing to corresponding pixel (x',y') on the right.
To get a more general result I would like to use normalized cross-correlation. For this I multiply every pixelvalue from left with a corresponding pixelvalue from right and sum over these products. The transformation I am looking for should connect the pixels that will maximize the sum. So when the sum is maximzied, I know that I multiplied the corresponding pixels.
I really tried a lot with this, but didn't manage. My question is if somebody of you has an idea or has ever done something similar.
import numpy as np
import Image
left = np.array(Image.open('left.png'))
right = np.array(Image.open('right.png'))
# for normalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-correlation#Normalized_cross-correlation)
left = (left - left.mean()) / left.std()
right = (right - right.mean()) / right.std()
Please let me know if I can make this question more clear. I still have to check out how to post questions using latex.
Thank you very much for input.
[left.png] http://i.stack.imgur.com/oSTER.png
[right.png] http://i.stack.imgur.com/Njahj.png
I'm afraid, in most cases 16-bit images appear just black (at least on systems I use) :( but of course there is data in there.
UPDATE 1
I try to clearify my question. I am looking for a vector-field with displacement-vectors that point from every pixel in left.png to the corresponding pixel in right.png. My problem is, that I am not sure about the constraints I have.
where vector r (components x and y) points to a pixel in left.png and vector r-prime (components x-prime and y-prime) points to the corresponding pixel in right.png. for every r there is a displacement-vector.
What I did earlier was, that I found manually components of vector-field d and fitted them to a polynom second degree:
So I fitted:
and
Does this make sense to you? Is it possible to get all the delta-x(x,y) and delta-y(x,y) with cross-correlation? The cross-correlation should be maximized if the corresponding pixels are linked together thru the displacement-vectors, right?
UPDATE 2
So the algorithm I was thinking of is as follows:
Deform right.png
Get the value of cross-correlation
Deform right.png further
Get the value of cross-correlation and compare to value before
If it's greater, good deformation, if not, redo deformation and do something else
After maximzied the cross-correlation value, know what deformation there is :)
About deformation: could one do first a shift along x- and y-direction to maximize cross-correlation, then in a second step stretch or compress x- and y-dependant and in a third step deform quadratic x- and y-dependent and repeat this procedure iterativ?? I really have a problem to do this with integer-coordinates. Do you think I would have to interpolate the picture to obtain a continuous distribution?? I have to think about this again :( Thanks to everybody for taking part :)
OpenCV (and with it the python Opencv binding) has a StarDetector class which implements this algorithm.
As an alternative you might have a look at the OpenCV SIFT class, which stands for Scale Invariant Feature Transform.
Update
Regarding your comment, I understand that the "right" transformation will maximize the cross-correlation between the images, but I don't understand how you choose the set of transformations over which to maximize. Maybe if you know the coordinates of three matching points (either by some heuristics or by choosing them by hand), and if you expect affinity, you could use something like cv2.getAffineTransform to have a good initial transformation for your maximization process. From there you could use small additional transformations to have a set over which to maximize. But this approach seems to me like re-inventing something which SIFT could take care of.
To actually transform your test image you can use cv2.warpAffine, which also can take care of border values (e.g. pad with 0). To calculate the cross-correlation you could use scipy.signal.correlate2d.
Update
Your latest update did indeed clarify some points for me. But I think that a vector field of displacements is not the most natural thing to look for, and this is also where the misunderstanding came from. I was thinking more along the lines of a global transformation T, which applied to any point (x,y) of the left image gives (x',y')=T(x,y) on the right side, but T has the same analytical form for every pixel. For example, this could be a combination of a displacement, rotation, scaling, maybe some perspective transformation. I cannot say whether it is realistic or not to hope to find such a transformation, this depends on your setup, but if the scene is physically the same on both sides I would say it is reasonable to expect some affine transformation. This is why I suggested cv2.getAffineTransform. It is of course trivial to calculate your displacement Vector field from such a T, as this is just T(x,y)-(x,y).
The big advantage would be that you have only very few degrees of freedom for your transformation, instead of, I would argue, 2N degrees of freedom in the displacement vector field, where N is the number of bright spots.
If it is indeed an affine transformation, I would suggest some algorithm like this:
identify three bright and well isolated spots on the left
for each of these three spots, define a bounding box so that you can hope to identify the corresponding spot within it in the right image
find the coordinates of the corresponding spots, e.g. with some correlation method as implemented in cv2.matchTemplate or by also just finding the brightest spot within the bounding box.
once you have three matching pairs of coordinates, calculate the affine transformation which transforms one set into the other with cv2.getAffineTransform.
apply this affine transformation to the left image, as a check if you found the right one you could calculate if the overall normalized cross-correlation is above some threshold or drops significantly if you displace one image with respect to the other.
if you wish and still need it, calculate the displacement vector field trivially from your transformation T.
Update
It seems cv2.getAffineTransform expects an awkward input data type 'float32'. Let's assume the source coordinates are (sxi,syi) and destination (dxi,dyi) with i=0,1,2, then what you need is
src = np.array( ((sx0,sy0),(sx1,sy1),(sx2,sy2)), dtype='float32' )
dst = np.array( ((dx0,dy0),(dx1,dy1),(dx2,dy2)), dtype='float32' )
result = cv2.getAffineTransform(src,dst)
I don't think a cross correlation is going to help here, as it only gives you a single best shift for the whole image. There are three alternatives I would consider:
Do a cross correlation on sub-clusters of dots. Take, for example, the three dots in the top right and find the optimal x-y shift through cross-correlation. This gives you the rough transform for the top left. Repeat for as many clusters as you can to obtain a reasonable map of your transformations. Fit this with your Taylor expansion and you might get reasonably close. However, to have your cross-correlation work in any way, the difference in displacement between spots must be less than the extend of the spot, else you can never get all spots in a cluster to overlap simultaneously with a single displacement. Under these conditions, option 2 might be more suitable.
If the displacements are relatively small (which I think is a condition for option 1), then we might assume that for a given spot in the left image, the closest spot in the right image is the corresponding spot. Thus, for every spot in the left image, we find the nearest spot in the right image and use that as the displacement in that location. From the 40-something well distributed displacement vectors we can obtain a reasonable approximation of the actual displacement by fitting your Taylor expansion.
This is probably the slowest method, but might be the most robust if you have large displacements (and option 2 thus doesn't work): use something like an evolutionary algorithm to find the displacement. Apply a random transformation, compute the remaining error (you might need to define this as sum of the smallest distance between spots in your original and transformed image), and improve your transformation with those results. If your displacements are rather large you might need a very broad search as you'll probably get lots of local minima in your landscape.
I would try option 2 as it seems your displacements might be small enough to easily associate a spot in the left image with a spot in the right image.
Update
I assume your optics induce non linear distortions and having two separate beampaths (different filters in each?) will make the relationship between the two images even more non-linear. The affine transformation PiQuer suggests might give a reasonable approach but can probably never completely cover the actual distortions.
I think your approach of fitting to a low order Taylor polynomial is fine. This works for all my applications with similar conditions. Highest orders probably should be something like xy^2 and x^2y; anything higher than that you won't notice.
Alternatively, you might be able to calibrate the distortions for each image first, and then do your experiments. This way you are not dependent on the distribution of you dots, but can use a high resolution reference image to get the best description of your transformation.
Option 2 above still stands as my suggestion for getting the two images to overlap. This can be fully automated and I'm not sure what you mean when you want a more general result.
Update 2
You comment that you have trouble matching dots in the two images. If this is the case, I think your iterative cross-correlation approach may not be very robust either. You have very small dots, so overlap between them will only occur if the difference between the two images is small.
In principle there is nothing wrong with your proposed solution, but whether it works or not strongly depends on the size of your deformations and the robustness of your optimization algorithm. If you start off with very little overlap, then it may be hard to find a good starting point for your optimization. Yet if you have sufficient overlap to begin with, then you should have been able to find the deformation per dot first, but in a comment you indicate that this doesn't work.
Perhaps you can go for a mixed solution: find the cross correlation of clusters of dots to get a starting point for your optimization, and then tweak the deformation using something like the procedure you describe in your update. Thus:
For a NxN pixel segment find the shift between the left and right images
Repeat for, say, 16 of those segments
Compute an approximation of the deformation using those 16 points
Use this as the starting point of your optimization approach
You might want to have a look at bunwarpj which already does what you're trying to do. It's not python but I use it in exactly this context. You can export a plain text spline transformation and use it if you wish to do so.