Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th

# Wavelets by nikeborome

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 25

• pg 1
```									Wavelets

Fast Multiresolution Image
Querying
Jacobs et.al. SIGGRAPH95
Outline
   Overview / Background
 Wavelets

   2D Image matching
 L1,L2 metrics
 Wavelet metric
 Evaluation

   Use in 3D
Image matching
 2D analogue of 3D shape matching
What are we trying to match?
   Looking for different images of the same things?
 Different projections
 Different colors

   Looking for images that look the same?
 Look   for similar shapes and colors

   Metric to discern like human eye
Wavelets
   Decompose a signal into component parts
 Fourier analysis: a signal can be represented
as a (possibly infinite) sum of sine and cosine
functions
 Signal becomes a set of wavelet
coefficients
 Coefficients represent features of signal
Wavelets II
 Signal can be completely reconstructed
from all the coefficients
 Signal can be partially reconstructed from
some coefficients
Wavelets for 2D Images
 Each color plane in image is signal
 Coefficients will represent visual features
in the image
 Store as many coefficients as needed
 Image   compression (see next slide)
   c.f. Statistical shape descriptors
Wavelet Reconstruction

SIGGRAPH 96 Course Notes: Wavelets in Computer Graphics
Comparing Images
 Develop a metric that describes how
closely two images match
 Smaller difference in metric = images
more similar
Image metrics
   Comparing images Q and T, with dimensions i,j
   L1-Norm
Q, T 1   Q[i, j ]  T [i, j ]
i, j

   For each pixel in Q, calculate the difference
between Q[i,j] and T[i,j]
   Add absolute value of differences of all i,j to form
metric
Image metrics II
   L2-Norm
1/ 2
                         2
Q, T   2
   Q[i, j ]  T [i, j ] 
                          
 i, j                     
   For each pixel in Q, calculate the square of the
difference between Q[i,j] and T[i,j]
   Add for all i,j, and take square root
   Better than L1?
Image metrics III
   Problems with L1 and L2
 Expensive  to compute / compare: O(i*j)
 Not discriminating in cases with
 Color Shift
 Misregistration

 Noise / Dithering

   In general, not good descriptors
 c.f.   D1, D2 in 3D
Wavelets as image metrics
 Capture features of images e.g. edges in
coefficients
 Use Haar wavelets
 Square  basis functions
 Easy to implement and compute

   Calculate coefficients, truncate, quantize
Truncation
 128x128 image has 1282 coefficients
 Truncation = only storing largest ‘n’
coefficients
 ‘n’ ~ 40-60 depending on exact use
high frequency information i.e. detail
 Loss   of that information is desirable
Quantization
   Reduce precision of wavelet magnitude
 Large +ve  +1
 Large –ve  -1
 Else  0

   Turns out this works well for matching
Wavelet metric
~         ~
Q, T  w0, 0 Q[0,0]  T [0,0]   wi , j Q[i, j ]  T [i, j ]
i, j

 Q,T are query and target image
coefficients
 w is weighting function
Weighting function
   Weighting function applied to give particular
pairs of coefficients different significance in
comparison
   Gives ability to statistically tune the metric
   Determined experimentally from dataset
(Appendix A)
   Weights expensive to calculate
 Compute  fewer
 Bins to map range of i,j onto a weight
Wavelet metric II
~             ~
Q, T  w0 Q[0,0]  T [0,0] 
~
               wbin (i , j ) Q[i, j ]  T [i, j ]
i , j:Q[ i , j ] 0

 For i=0, j=0 value in Q and T is
proportional to the average overall color
 From quantization, use ≠
Calculating coefficients
 Standard two-dimensional Haar wavelet
decomposition
 Decompose each row, then decompose
each column of the result
 Trivial to implement
Wavelet metric III
   Final metric is
 T[0,0]
 Sign,   i and j of n largest coefficients in T
Faster Matching
   To speed up matching, use 6 arrays
 One  for each combination of R,G,B,+,-
 DR+, DR-, …
 Each i,j in Dx is a list of all images with a
metric coefficient in that color range, with that
sign
Evaluation
   Better than L1 and L2
   Matches to ~1% of database
   Compact
   Fast to compare: similar complexity to an 8x8 pixel
image L1/L2 for any resolution
   More robust
   Misregistration
   Color shifting
   Dithering
   Different resolutions
Evaluation II
Evaluation III
   Limits
 Scaling ~1.5 times
 Rotation ~20 degrees
 Translation ~ 15% of width
Matching in 3D
 Can this be used in 3D as well
 Compares image rather than geometry
 Render 3D into voxels?
 Projection of 3D object into 2D?

   In general, other 3D specific methods
probably much better

```
To top