|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Matching images from different sources.
"Roberto Waltman" wrote in message ... Looking for information, algorithms, etc. on how to match images of the same object obtained from different sources. (Also on what would be the proper terminology to describe this problem. I'm sure I am doing a poor job here. ) For example, I may take pictures of a cloud formation using three cameras sensible to the visible, infrared and ultraviolet spectra. The cameras, although close to each other, may be located far enough to introduce parallax errors, they may have different resolutions, the images capture may not be simultaneous, so the cloud shapes may change slightly from one image to the next, etc. By 'matching' I mean scaling and rotating the images so that they can be overlaid in such a way that all the data in any area of the screen is coming from the same 'region' in the physical world. The matching process should be based only in the images, I may not have enough information about the cameras physical location and orientation. I understand that in the most general case the images could be so different that this problem is unsolvable, but I still expect to be able to find (partial) solutions when some minimal correlation level exists. Roberto, Have you come across AstroWave in your searches? "AstroWave is a program that calculates the linear transformation details needed to register one image with another, ie. rotation and scaling." http://www.planetsi.plus.com/AstroWave/AstroWave.html HTH, -- Rob |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Matching images from different sources.
On Mar 22, 1:33 pm, Roberto Waltman wrote:
"pixel.to.life" wrote: If your problem is solely because of intensity inconsistencies in the images, Unfortunately not. The images are different in other ways, but hopefully there is enough of a common structure to allow to correlate then somehow. try using normalized mutual information based image fusion. It is widely used to fuse medical images from different modality sources (e.g. CT-MRI, CT-PET etc.) , so the final alignment is largely overlap and intensity-difference independent. Heres the link to a survey article: http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~cis/cista/746...nfo_survey.pdf. Thanks, will take a look. I am only getting started on this area, so any additional information is both interesting and potentially useful. Roberto Waltman [ Please reply to the group, return address is invalid ] Hi, I thought this post might be useful to you: http://groups.google.com/group/medic...1c88659894ba/# In addition, you can also search for material on 'Fourier Mellin transform based registration'. There is more than one ways to try to estimate the 'perfect' alignment between two images, so they comney the most information when overlaid. The choice depends on criteria such as - source of images (direct [digital camers etc.], indirect [medical scans]) - noise tolerance - overlap between similar objects when images are overlaid without registration - degrees of freedom (objects imaged are affected by which of scaling, rotation, translation, shear, or deformation) - performance (speed and memory consumption) Ultimately, it boils down to optimization of a multi-variate function that would explain similarity between two given images given a transform. In medical image registration, people use Normalized mutual information as a function of given degrees of freedom of the alignment transform. Some people use Chamfer matching.. where you could use chamfer score as the function to optimize given a transform. Some people use fourier domain registration. e.g. 'Fourier Mellin transform based registration', but mostly only for rigid/affine transform estimation. There are others too.. geometric model based registration, or pointset based registration, where secondary features are extracted from subject images and registered. The choise is yours.. based on what is more important to you from the given criteria. But I think you will have to choose (1) A metric (e.g. mutual information, cross correlation, or chamfer match score) (2) An optimizer (gradient descent, simplex etc.) at the very least to begin with. Good luck, Pixel.To.Life [ http://groups.google.com/group/medicalimagingscience ] |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
spherical mirrors matching the curve of parabolic | jtaylor | Amateur Astronomy | 16 | April 29th 05 02:38 AM |
Is Any Store Price Matching Adorama on the XW's? | Edward | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | November 6th 04 01:49 AM |
ground-based matching Hubble power | JimO | Misc | 2 | February 13th 04 11:57 PM |
ground-based matching Hubble power | JimO | UK Astronomy | 2 | February 13th 04 11:57 PM |
Build your own lunar space ship by mixing & matching... | Tom Merkle | Policy | 12 | January 29th 04 03:17 AM |