Enhanced Method For Identification Of Objects Class And

Qualities In Real Images

Prof. .N.K.Darwante Prof. Dr.D.N.Kyatanavar

SRES College of engg. SRES College of engg.
Kopargaon -423603 Kopargaon-423603
Navinkumar31@rediffmail.com

Introduction: scientific discipline, computer vision is

concerned with the theory behind
artificial systems that extract information
All objects in the world are made of
from images. The image data can take
some material or another, and we usually
many forms, such as video sequences,
have a good idea what, just by looking.
views from multiple cameras, or multi-
Under typical viewing conditions, we
dimensional data from a medical scanner
find it trivial to distinguish between
[2].
different materials, such as metal, plastic
and paper, irrespective of the form of the
Object identification is important for the
object or the conditions of illumination.
everyday activities of recognition,
planning, and action. These tasks require
Human being are having ability to
the visual system to obtain geometrical
visually identify and discriminate objects
information about the shapes of objects,
class and some sort of qualities of the
their spatial layout, and their material
object like difference between cotton and
properties.
synthetic shirts, paper and cloths, plastic
chair and steel chair, this ability of
The human visual system is
human being is called perception. This
extraordinarily competent at extracting
judgment ability of human being vary for
necessary geometrical information.
wide real objects with the help of our
Navigation, judgments of collision and
sense organs eyes, ear, nose, and hand or
reaching rely on knowledge of spatial
body, we are able to identify objects
relationships between objects and
class and qualities [1].
between the viewer and object surfaces.
Shape-based recognition and actions
In this field lot of study has been done
such as grasping require information
about human ability of perception under
about the internal shapes and boundaries
visual psychophysics and their aim is to
of objects. Extracting information about
find out the inter link between visual
the material that objects are made of is
stimulus and perceptual responses to
also important for daily visual function
material properties.
[3].
On the other side in computer vision
Image features such as color, texture,
technique similar type of development is
and shading depend on the material
in progress. Here developments are for
reflectivity and roughness of a surface.
extracting the objects properties from
Distinguishing different materials is
their photographs (real Images).
useful for object detection (e.g., texture
differences are cues for separating figure
Computer vision is the science and
from ground) as well as for judging
technology of machines that see. As a
ability such as edibility (e.g., ripe fruit or
not) and grasp ability (e.g., slippery or
not). Understanding how the brain
translates retinal image intensities to
useful information about objects is a
tough problem on theoretical grounds
alone. The difficulty of object perception
arises because natural images are both
complex and objectively ambiguous. The
images received by the eye are complex
high dimensional functions of scene
information. The complexity of the
problem is evident in the primate visual
system in which approximately ten
million retinal measurements are sent to
the brain each second, where they are
processed by some billion cortical
neurons [4]. The ambiguity of image
intensities also poses a major
computational challenge to extracting
object information. Similar three
dimensional (3-D) geometrical shapes
can result in different images, and
different shapes can result in very similar
images. Similarly, the same material
(e.g., polished silver) can give rise to
drastically different images depending
on the environment, and the same image
can be due to quite different materials
[5].
Because of this we will treats object
Identification as a visual inference
problem (Helmholtz 1867) and, more
specifically, as statistical inference (Knill
& Richards 1996, Kersten 1999, Rao et
al. 2002). This approach is particularly
attractive because it has been used in
computer vision to develop theories and
algorithms to extract information from
natural images useful for recognition and
robot actions [6, 11].
Now a day’s computer graphics and
animation areas are having lots of thrust
and interest in creating simulation of
material like skin, hair, fabrics and for
identification of the objects class and
qualities, still the work that has been
done till today is found to be restricted
only up to short range of surfaces and
materials because of method available
for identification of these objects.
Therefore it is the time and need to find
out new enhanced method for
identification of objects class and
qualities, which should be useful for
large range of object identification and
judgment of their qualities by using their
real images.
Previous work
Previous work in computer graphics and
computer vision: In computer graphics
the desire to create convincing
simulations of materials like skin, hair,
fabrics and so on, has led to several
formalizations of the reflectance
properties of materials. The most popular
one , the bi-directional reflectance
distribution function or BRDF,
characterizes the interaction of light with
an opaque surface[7]. For non-opaque
surfaces, effects of translucency have
been modeled using an extension of the
BRDF, the bi-directional surface
scattering reflectance distribution
function or BSSRDF[52]. The
appearance of 3-D textures can be
described by the bi-directional texture
function or BTF[8].
As BRDF is a function of four or more
variables, the space of all realizable
BRDFs is vast. Therefore BRDFs are
often approximated by parametric
models to allow efficient rendering
algorithms[6,8,11].
An alternative approach has been to use
empirically measured BRDFs that make
renderings of many complex materials
possible. The BRDF of surface can be
measured in the laboratory by a special
device, called gonioreflectometer or
estimated directly from
images(Photographs) of the surface[2,
4,25,6,7,11].
There has been some work on the
problem of 3-D texture recognition that
has employed filter and patch-based
image features to recognize instances of
textures like plaster, wool, cork and so
on [2,3,11]. This work is related to, but
does not address the problem of material
recognition. A single material category
like fabric can contain samples with
widely varying 3-D textures and these
findings are based on distinguishing
texture appearance rather than
identifying material classes.
Dror et al. demonstrated that statistics of
real world illumination can be used to
classify images of spheres as shiny,
matte, white, gray, chrome etc.[9] . Pont
and koenderink showed that statistical
measurements on images of rough
surfaces can be used to predict the nature
of illumination and surface roughness.
[10]
Figure 1. show photographs of opaque,
glossy surfaces with surface
mesostructure like the ones shown here.
Figure 1. Surface reflectance estimation
is difficult because of confounding
effects of illumination. The same sphere
is shown in two different scenes in (a)
and (b). Because of the change of
environment, the images of the spheres
are quite different, although the material
appears the same. Images (c) and (d) are
photographs of a different sphere in the
same scenes as (a) and (b). On a pixel-
bypixel basis, (c) is more similar to (a)
than (b) is, despite the difference in
material composition.
Recent work (Freeman et al. 2000,
Schrater & Kersten 2000, Kersten &
Yuille 2003) has shown how specifying
generative models in terms of influence
graphs (or Bayesian networks) (Pearl
1988), together with a description of
visual tasks, allow us to break problems
down into categories (see the example in
Figure 2A).The idea is to decompose the
description of a scene S into n
components S1, : : : , Sn; the image into
m features I1, : : : , Im; and express the
ensemble distribution as p(S1; : : : ; Sn;
I1; : : : ; Im). We represent this
distribution by a graph where the nodes
correspond to the variables S1, : : : , Sn
and I1, : : : , Im, and links are drawn
between nodes that directly influence
each other. There is a direct
correspondence between graphical
structure and the factorization (and thus
simplification) of the joint probability. In
the most complex case, every random
variable influences every other one, and
the joint probability cannot be factored
into simpler parts. In order to build
models for inference, it is useful to first
build quantitative models of image
formation—external generative models
based on real-world statistics[11].
Figure 2. Influence graphs and the visual
task. (A) An example of an influence
graph. Arrows indicate causal links
between nodes that represent random
variables. The scene class (indoor or
outdoor) influences the kind of
illumination and background that
determine the environment. The scene
also determines the kinds of objects one
may find (artificial or not). Object class
influences object reflectivity (paint or
pigment) and shape of the object. Global
features (e.g., overall contrast and color,
spatial frequency spectrum) can serve to
set a context. (B) The inference problem
depends on the task. The task specifies
which variables are important to estimate
accurately (disks) and which are not
(hexagons). Triangles represent image
measurements or features.
In 2004 , Kersten , Mamassian andYuille
proved that The Bayesian perspective
yields a uniform framework for studying
object perception. They have reviewed
work that highlights several advantages
of this perspective. First, Bayesian
theories explicitly model uncertainty.
This is important in accounting for how
the visual system combines large
amounts of objectively ambiguous
information to yield percepts that are
rarely ambiguous. Second, in the context
of specific experiments, Bayesian
theories are optimal, and thus define
ideal observers. Ideal observers
characterize visual information for a task
and can thus be critical for interpreting
psychophysical and neural results. Third,
Bayesian methods allow the
development of quantitative theories at
the information processing level,
avoiding premature commitment to
specific neural mechanisms. This is
closely related to the importance of
extensibility in theories. Bayesian
models provide for extensions to more
complicated problems involving natural
images and functional tasks as illustrated
in recent advances in computer vision.
Fourth, Bayesian theories emphasize the
role of the generative model and thus tie
naturally to the growing body of work on
graphical models and Bayesian networks
in other areas, such as language, speech,
concepts, and reasoning. The generative
models also suggest top-down feedback
models of information processing.[11]
Large number of study deals with the
interaction of material properties with
other factors that influence surface
appearance [12]. The perception of
reflectance properties of synthetic
objects depends on the complexity of
surface shapes [10].
Synthetic stimuli are popular in studies
of surface perception because
appearance parameters can be varied
easily.
One hypothesis called as ‘inverse optics’
suggests that the visual system estimates
the parameters of an internal model of
the 3-D layout and illumination of a
scene, so as to be consistent with the 2-D
retinal image. This hypothesis has had
some success in explaining material
judgments [13]. On the other hand,
some have argued that in real world
scenes, the surface geometry,
illumination distributions and material
properties are too complex and too
uncertain for inverse optics to have much
success.
Proposed work:
As the enormous variety of substances to
be found in the environment, it seems
reasonable to presume that our capacity
for recognizing different materials rivals
our ability to recognize different objects.
And yet very little research has been
carried out.
Therefore I came across following key
questions for this proposed work:
What are the necessary and sufficient
conditions to recognize different
materials? What sources of information
are available to an observer as a result of
the different ways that materials interact
with light? What are the principles
dimensions underlying the representation
of materials in the observer’s visual
system? One very important source of
information about material identity
results from the wide range of optical
properties that different materials
exhibit. Different materials reflect,
transmit, refract, disperse, and polarize
light to different extents and in different
ways; this provides a rich set of optical
cues for distinguishing materials. For
most materials, the majority of the light
that is not absorbed is reflected from the
surface, and thus a material’s surface
reflectance properties are surely some of
its most important optical attributes.
When light is reflected from a surface, it
is generally scattered in many directions,
producing a pattern that is characteristic
of the material. Variation in the
distribution of scatter gives rise to such
varied visual appearances as bronze,
plaster-of- Paris, gloss paint, and gold. In
this work, we present a number of
theoretical and empirical observations on
the conditions under which humans are
good at estimating surface reflectance
properties. We also discuss a number of
cues that appear to underlie this aptitude.
Computer vision has shown how the
problems of complexity and ambiguity
can be handled using Bayesian inference,
which provides a common framework
for modeling artificial and biological
vision. In addition, studies of natural
images have shown statistical
regularities that can be used for
designing theories of Bayesian inference.
The goal of understanding biological
vision also requires using the tools of
psychophysics and neurophysiology to
investigate how the visual pathways of
the brain transform image information
into percepts and actions.
We hypothesized that there are some
relatively simple image measurements
that can provide useful information about
surface properties. We considered
photographs of hand-made surfaces and
materials like paper, modeling clay,
soap, candies etc. [14]. These surfaces
were opaque, glossy and possessed
significant surface mesostructure.. We
found that simple statistics of the
photographs of such surfaces, like the
moment and percentile statistics of the
luminance histogram or filter outputs can
provide useful information about
physical albedo and gloss.
Helmholtz proposed that the visual
system resolves ambiguity through built-
in knowledge of the scene and how
retinal images are formed and uses this
knowledge to automatically and
unconsciously infer the properties of
objects.
Bayesian statistical decision theory
formalizes Helmholtz’s idea of
perception as inference. Theoretical
observers that use Bayesian inference to
make optimal interpretations are called
ideal observers [11].
with the help of this research work we
would like to use standard approach for
identification of objects class and
qualities in real images. Most
psychophysical studies that discussed
previously have considered restricted
classes of materials. Controlled stimuli
are a popular tool to study human vision,
but there is also increasing interest in the
perception of “natural” images i.e.
scenes in the real world that contain man
made and natural objects. Great strides
have been made in the fields of objects
recognition and scene perception by
using photographs of the objects. There
exist large image collections of object
and scene categories that are used in both
the psychophysics and computer vision
communities [15]. It is unfortunate that
there are no such resources to study
material perception.
In this work, we are going to introduce
new image databases for real world
material categories like plastic, metal,
glass, wood and so on. These databases
allow us to study high level judgments of
material category, in contrast to past
work that has focused entirely on
estimating reflectance parameters. We
present experiments that establish that
observers can make these judgments of
material category reliably, quickly and in
challenging conditions. It is well known
that observers can categorize scenes and
objects in images that they have never
seen before, even when stimuli are
presented very briefly [16]. We will
concentrate on material categorization
which can be fast and flexible.
Next, we will examine how our
observers make these rapid judgments of
material category. We examine two
extreme possibilities that might explain
observer’s performance. One possibility
is that observers employ simple, low
level cues like color or high spatial
frequencies e.g. wood is brown or fabrics
have fine details. The experiments show
that categorization performance cannot
be explained by such simple cues.
Another explanation of our results can be
that observers use high-level knowledge
about object identity to categorize
materials e.g. buckets are made from
plastic or chairs from wood. We consider
special categories of objects – ‘fake
fruits, flowers and desserts, and
demonstrate that shape- based object
identity does not account for material
categorization performance either.
We evaluate state of art techniques in
computer vision for the purpose of
material categorization. There is little
prior work in computer vision on the
topic of material recognition, except on
the specific problem of 3-D texture
recognition. We find that current
techniques in computer vision are
inadequate for categorizing materials on
our databases. We discuss our findings
and conclude that material recognition is
a rich and challenging problem domain
and there is much ground to be covered
in both visual perception and computer
vision.
Finally, in the interest of clarity, we now
discuss what we mean by the terms
texture, shape and object in the context
of material recognition. We will use an
operational definition of texture, inspired
by recent work in texture synthesis
techniques [32,83]. The class of images
that can be successfully reproduced by
these ‘texture’ synthesis methods is what
we will refer to as a ‘texture’. The
distinction between material and texture
in real world surfaces is tricky and often
we will evoke this operational definition
to separate the two, by shape, we will
mean the 3-D physical layout of surfaces
and by object, we mostly mean shape
based identify. For example, a chair is
instantly recognizable by its typical
shape and silhouette, as are trees and
mugs and cars. In this work, we will
assume that a ceramic mug a plastic mug
belong to the same object class, but
different material categories.
Here study can be extended for different
judgment like
1. Eye movements and material
judgments
2. Judgment of softness
3. Judgments beyond shape and
color [17].
Object identification is closely related to
texture recognition. Texture has been
defined in terms of dimensions like
periodicity, orientation and randomness
[18]. Still we don’t want to use the
method used for texture Identification
because our aim is to classify the objects
as paper fabric. For verifying the result
first we will develop database of
different object images from internet as
well as real photographs. Then we will
categorize these images and then extract
features required for identification for
objects class and qualities.
We want to concentrate on three kinds of
low- level image features-simple global
statistics of images, local jet like
features, and SIFT features [19]. In this
global statistics comprise the mean,
variance, skewness and kurtosis of
various sub bands of steer able pyramid
decomposition [20]. Such features have
been used successfully in texture
analysis and synthesis and also recently
of object Identification [21]. In addition
to these global statistics local features
which are pixel – level features that have
proven useful in recognizing faces,
object and scenes will improve result. Jet
like features can be computed by
considering the coefficients of the
steerable, QMF and Haar pyramids at
each pixel location in the original image
for 3 scales and 4 orientations per
pyramid [1]. Scale –invariant feature
transform (SIFT) we are going to use at
each pixel location in the image. We are
going to use SIFT features over
grayscale versions of images in the
standard way. Because above two other
features already uses color and the
human classification study shows that
color was not crucial.
For the best result depending upon above
type of features appropriate classifier
will be selected. Then we will train our
classifiers on two kinds of tasks-binary
material classification (e.g. plastic vs.
steel, cotton vs. stone) and the all
category classification.
Similarly we are going to acquire a
second image database which focuses on
the changes in appearance with
illumination and viewpoint variation,
rather than variation in the material
samples themselves. So for simplicity,
we will acquire images by fixing camera
and then varying illumination across
three representative conditions.
Because of many unknown
parameters of the image, it is
hard to analyze automatically or
visually) the images and to
detect and recognize objects in
them. For solving this problem a
powerful technique is available
called as image fusion.
The term fusion means in
general an approach to
extraction of information
adopted in several domains. The
goal of image fusion is to
integrate complementary
information from all frames into
one new image containing
information the quality of which
cannot be achieved otherwise.
Here, the term “better quality”
means less blur and geometric
distortion, less noise, and higher
spatial resolution. We may
expect that object detection and
recognition will be easier and
more reliable when performed
on the fused image. Regardless
of the particular fusion
algorithm, it is unrealistic to
assume that the fused image
can recover the original scene
o[x, y] exactly. A reasonable
goal of the fusion is a discrete
version of o[x, y] that has higher
spatial resolution than the
resolution of the LR images and
that is free of the volatile blurs.
In
the sequel, we will refer to this
fused image as a high resolution
(HR) image f [i, j ].

Figure 3: Image fusion in brief:
acquired images (left),
registered frames (middle),
fused image (right). Fused
image can recover the original
scene
This method is useful for
improving visual quality and
spatial resolution of digital
images acquired by low-
resolution sensors. The method
is based on fusing several
images (channels) of the same
scene. It consists of three major
steps - image registration (spatial
alignment), which should compensate for
geometric deformations (Wk) , followed
by a multichannel (or multiframe) blind
deconvolution (MBD) and
superresolution (SR) fusion. With the
help of our proposed work we would like
to develop one integrated system that
simultaneously estimates image
blurs and recovers the original
undistorted image, all in high
resolution, without any prior
knowledge of the blurs and
original image.
With the help of this method we
would like to make the task of
object detection and
identification much easier for
human observers as well as for
automatic systems. We imagine
the application of the proposed
method in security and
surveillance systems.[22]
In this research work we are going to
develop a new algorithm for solving the
unconstrained optimization formulation
of regularized image
reconstruction/restoration. For this we
can use different types of regularization
(wavelet-based, total variation) based on
a variable splitting technique, which
yields an equivalent constrained
problem. This constrained problem is
then addressed using an augmented
Lagrangian method, more specifically,
the alternating direction method of
multipliers (ADMM).. Experiments on a
set of standard image recovery problems
(deconvolution, MRI reconstruction,
inpainting) have shown that the proposed
algorithm will be faster than previous
state-of-the-art methods. Current and
future work involves using a similar
approach to solve constrained
formulations of the forms [23].
References:
1. Dana H. Ballard and Christopher M.
Brown (1982). Computer Vision.
Prentice Hall. ISBN 0131653164.
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/BO
OKS/BANDB/bandb.htm.
2. David Marr (1982). Vision. W. H.
Freeman and Company. ISBN 0-
7167-1284-9.
3. Azriel Rosenfeld and Avinash Kak
(1982). Digital Picture Processing.
Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-597301-
2.
4. Berthold Klaus Paul Horn (1986).
Robot Vision. MIT Press. ISBN 0-
262-08159-8.
5. Olivier Faugeras (1993). Three-
Dimensional Computer Vision, A
Geometric Viewpoint. MIT Press.
ISBN 0-262-06158-9.
6. Tony Lindeberg (1994). Scale-Space
Theory in Computer Vision.
Springer. ISBN 0-7923-9418-6.
 http://www.nada.kth.se/~tony/book.h
tml.
7. James L. Crowley and Henrik I.
Christensen (Eds.) (1995). Vision as
Process. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 3-
540-58143-X and ISBN 0-387-
58143-X.