Evaluation of the stability of SIFT keypoint correspondence across cameras or.. “can we put a ‘C’ in SIFT?” max van kleek 6.869: learning and interfaces.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
Advertisements

Feature Detection. Description Localization More Points Robust to occlusion Works with less texture More Repeatable Robust detection Precise localization.
Object Recognition from Local Scale-Invariant Features David G. Lowe Presented by Ashley L. Kapron.
Histograms of Oriented Gradients for Human Detection
The SIFT (Scale Invariant Feature Transform) Detector and Descriptor
Object Recognition using Invariant Local Features Applications l Mobile robots, driver assistance l Cell phone location or object recognition l Panoramas,
COLORCOLOR A SET OF CODES GENERATED BY THE BRAİN How do you quantify? How do you use?
Instructor: Mircea Nicolescu Lecture 13 CS 485 / 685 Computer Vision.
IBBT – Ugent – Telin – IPI Dimitri Van Cauwelaert A study of the 2D - SIFT algorithm Dimitri Van Cauwelaert.
Content Based Image Retrieval
Object Recognition with Invariant Features n Definition: Identify objects or scenes and determine their pose and model parameters n Applications l Industrial.
Fast High-Dimensional Feature Matching for Object Recognition David Lowe Computer Science Department University of British Columbia.
Robust and large-scale alignment Image from
A Study of Approaches for Object Recognition
Object Recognition with Invariant Features n Definition: Identify objects or scenes and determine their pose and model parameters n Applications l Industrial.
MSU CSE 803 Stockman Linear Operations Using Masks Masks are patterns used to define the weights used in averaging the neighbors of a pixel to compute.
Distinctive Image Feature from Scale-Invariant KeyPoints
Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. David G. Lowe, Int. Journal of Computer Vision, 60, 2 (2004), pp Presented by: Shalomi.
Object Recognition Using Distinctive Image Feature From Scale-Invariant Key point D. Lowe, IJCV 2004 Presenting – Anat Kaspi.
Recognizing and Tracking Human Action Josephine Sullivan and Stefan Carlsson.
Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT)
SIFT - The Scale Invariant Feature Transform Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. David G. Lowe, International Journal of Computer.
1 Invariant Local Feature for Object Recognition Presented by Wyman 2/05/2006.
The SIFT (Scale Invariant Feature Transform) Detector and Descriptor
MSU CSE 803 Linear Operations Using Masks Masks are patterns used to define the weights used in averaging the neighbors of a pixel to compute some result.
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints David G. Lowe – IJCV 2004 Brien Flewelling CPSC 643 Presentation 1.
Sebastian Thrun CS223B Computer Vision, Winter Stanford CS223B Computer Vision, Winter 2005 Lecture 3 Advanced Features Sebastian Thrun, Stanford.
Scale-Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT) Jinxiang Chai.
Overview Introduction to local features
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints By David G. Lowe, University of British Columbia Presented by: Tim Havinga, Joël van Neerbos.
Computer vision.
Internet-scale Imagery for Graphics and Vision James Hays cs195g Computational Photography Brown University, Spring 2010.
Feature matching Digital Visual Effects, Spring 2005 Yung-Yu Chuang 2005/3/16 with slides by Trevor Darrell Cordelia Schmid, David Lowe, Darya Frolova,
Object Tracking/Recognition using Invariant Local Features Applications l Mobile robots, driver assistance l Cell phone location or object recognition.
Overview Harris interest points Comparing interest points (SSD, ZNCC, SIFT) Scale & affine invariant interest points Evaluation and comparison of different.
Reporter: Fei-Fei Chen. Wide-baseline matching Object recognition Texture recognition Scene classification Robot wandering Motion tracking.
Feature Detection and Descriptors
Evaluation of interest points and descriptors. Introduction Quantitative evaluation of interest point detectors –points / regions at the same relative.
CVPR 2003 Tutorial Recognition and Matching Based on Local Invariant Features David Lowe Computer Science Department University of British Columbia.
Soccer Video Analysis EE 368: Spring 2012 Kevin Cheng.
Wenqi Zhu 3D Reconstruction From Multiple Views Based on Scale-Invariant Feature Transform.
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints Ronnie Bajwa Sameer Pawar * * Adapted from slides found online by Michael Kowalski, Lehigh University.
Harris Corner Detector & Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT)
Features Digital Visual Effects, Spring 2006 Yung-Yu Chuang 2006/3/15 with slides by Trevor Darrell Cordelia Schmid, David Lowe, Darya Frolova, Denis Simakov,
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints David Lowe Presented by Tony X. Han March 11, 2008.
CSE 185 Introduction to Computer Vision Feature Matching.
A Tutorial on using SIFT Presented by Jimmy Huff (Slightly modified by Josiah Yoder for Winter )
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
Stereo Vision Local Map Alignment for Robot Environment Mapping Computer Vision Center Dept. Ciències de la Computació UAB Ricardo Toledo Morales (CVC)
Presented by David Lee 3/20/2006
776 Computer Vision Jan-Michael Frahm Spring 2012.
Recognizing specific objects Matching with SIFT Original suggestion Lowe, 1999,2004.
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints Presenter :JIA-HONG,DONG Advisor : Yen- Ting, Chen 1 David G. Lowe International Journal of Computer.
SIFT.
Another Example: Circle Detection
3D Puppetry: A Kinect-based Interface for 3D Animation
SIFT Scale-Invariant Feature Transform David Lowe
CS262: Computer Vision Lect 09: SIFT Descriptors
Interest Points EE/CSE 576 Linda Shapiro.
Presented by David Lee 3/20/2006
Lecture 07 13/12/2011 Shai Avidan הבהרה: החומר המחייב הוא החומר הנלמד בכיתה ולא זה המופיע / לא מופיע במצגת.
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
SIFT paper.
SIFT.
CSE 185 Introduction to Computer Vision
ECE734 Project-Scale Invariant Feature Transform Algorithm
Midterm Exam Closed book, notes, computer Similar to test 1 in format:
SIFT SIFT is an carefully designed procedure with empirically determined parameters for the invariant and distinctive features.
Intensity Transform Contrast Stretching Y ← u0+γ*(Y-u)/s
Presentation transcript:

Evaluation of the stability of SIFT keypoint correspondence across cameras or.. “can we put a ‘C’ in SIFT?” max van kleek 6.869: learning and interfaces thursday may 11, 2005

ubiquitous computing: computers (and cameras) are everywhere!

little sister: follow-me-around user modeling object correspondence across varying cameras/lighting/scenes is an important subgoal

applications: buliding a personal life log for yourself, interest profiling, social network mining, health care

identifying objects with local features: the SIFT transform

Orientation histogram = SIFT feature vector

recognizing objects identified and oriented keypoints used to vote for pose orientations in a hough transform pose-and-scale space

keypoint correspondence 1. % keypoints detected 2. stability of orientation histogram object orientation (away from frontal parallel) object deformation lighting direction, intensity, shading lens distortion, sharpness, ccd “quality”, noise, capture artifacts Mikolajczyk, K., C. Schmidt “A Performance Evaluation of Local Descriptors”, CVPR ‘03 Lowe, D.G. “Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints”, ICJV Me! well, sort of.. ???

cameras vary widely in sizes, configurations, capabilities, and prices the experiment Logitech QC Express 640x bit color YUV4:2:2 AGC, Auto Exposure manual focus USB iface $15 Logitech QC Pro 3000 CCD by Phillips 640x bit color YUV4:2:2, RGB AGC, Auto Exposure Auto WB manual focus USB iface $50 Sony EVI-D30 Steerable NTSC camera, DV capture card 720x480 luminance, less for color Raw DV AGC, Auto Exposure Auto focus ~$300 + $200 Nikon Coolpix 990 Digital still camera, 2048x1536 RGB Auto Gain, Auto WB, Auto Exposure Auto focus $1000 -> $500

experiment setup: 5 incandenscent lights 12 ft between camera and subject

acquiring image sets background 10 images stationary 2 front2 face right2 face left for each camera: = 16 images/cam * 4 cameras = 48

320x240 (or standard, and downsampled afterwards) RGB colorspace; jpeg quality 100; default camera settings except disabled AGC, disabled AE (locked to optimal settings)

algorithm for keypoint correspondence source image contrast stretch over whole set contrast-stretched background images background model (mean) - find(p(img) < epsilon) compute_sift_points

dilate fg mask with a disc strel intersection filter out bg key points keeping only relevant keypoints by intersecting keypoints with foreground pts

image A w/ sift keypoints orientation histograms for each keypoint in A orientation histograms for each keypoint in B image B w/ sift keypoints

orientation histograms for each keypoint in A orientation histograms for each keypoint in B match keypoints using nearest-neighbor in SIFT space

orientation histograms for each keypoint in A orientation histograms for each keypoint in B match keypoints using nearest-neighbor in SIFT space

1.1 -> > 1.1 sanity check: same (dv) camera, slightly different pose 1.1: 15 keypoints detected 1.2: 11 keypoints detected 6 properly assigned 8 in common 5 properly assigned 8 in common

4.1 -> > 4.1 nikon coolpix versus sony steerable 4.1: 18 keypoints detected 1.1: 15 keypoints detected 5 properly assigned 10 in common 5 properly assigned 10 in common

4.1 -> > 4.1 nikon coolpix versus qc pro 4.1: 18 keypoints detected 3.1: 17 keypoints detected 2 properly assigned 10 in common 5 properly assigned 10 in common

4.1 -> 2.1 nikon coolpix versus qc express 4.1: 18 keypoints detected 2.1: 22 keypoints detected 2 properly assigned 10 in common 0 properly assigned 10 in common

other results: qc pro vs qc exp (3.1 -> 2.1) 3.1->2.1 : 17 / 22 4 correct out of 6 in common 2.1->3.1: 22 / 17 0 correct out of 6 in common poor reproducibility with qcs? qc exp test (is the qc exp just too noisy?) 2.1->2.2 : 22/20 1 correct out of 8 in common 2.2->2.1 : 20/22 2 correct out of 8 in common yes. qc pro reproducibility 3.1->3.2: 17/24 6 correct out of 9 in common 3.2->3.1 : 24/17 7 correct out of 9 in common angle test using qc pro 3.1->3.4 : 0 correct out of 0 in common sensitive to out-of-plane rotation

experiment setup: 5 incandenscent lights 3 ft between camera and robot

320x240 (or standard, and downsampled afterwards) RGB colorspace; jpeg quality 100; default camera settings except disabled AGC, (locked to optimal settings)

parameters: –bins / histogram –pixels / quadrant –quadrants / keypoint –gaussian dropoff covariance keypoint splitting / multiple primary gradient directions source keypoint merging histogram blurring