I am doing some detection work using OpenCV, and I need to use the distance transform. Except the distance transform function in opencv gives me an image that is exactly the same as the image I use as source. Anyone know what I am doing wrong? Here is the portion of my code:
cvSetData(depthImage, m_rgbWk, depthImage->widthStep);
//gotten openCV image in "depthImage"
IplImage *single_channel_depthImage = cvCreateImage(cvSize(320, 240), 8, 1);
cvSplit(depthImage, single_channel_depthImage, NULL, NULL, NULL);
//smoothing
IplImage *smoothed_image = cvCreateImage(cvSize(320, 240), 8, 1);
cvSmooth(single_channel_depthImage, smoothed_image, CV_MEDIAN, 9, 9, 0, 0);
//do canny edge detector
IplImage *edges_image = cvCreateImage(cvSize(320, 240), 8, 1);
cvCanny(smoothed_image, edges_image, 100, 200);
//invert values
IplImage *inverted_edges_image = cvCreateImage(cvSize(320, 240), 8, 1);
cvNot(edges_image, inverted_edges_image);
//calculate the distance transform
IplImage *distance_image = cvCreateImage(cvSize(320, 240), IPL_DEPTH_32F, 1);
cvZero(distance_image);
cvDistTransform(inverted_edges_image, distance_image, CV_DIST_L2, CV_DIST_MASK_PRECISE, NULL, NULL);
In a nutshell, I grad the image from the kinect, turn it into a one channel image, smooth it, run the canny edge detector, invert the values, and then I do the distance transform. But the transformed image looks exactly the same as the input image. What's wrong?
Thanks!
I just figured this one out.
The OpenCV distanceTransform
Calculates the distance to the closest zero pixel for each pixel of the source image.
and so it expects your edges image to be negative.
All you need to do is to negate your edges image:
edges = 255 - edges;
I believe the key here is that they look the same. Here is a small program I wrote to show the difference:
#include <opencv2/core/core.hpp>
#include <opencv2/highgui/highgui.hpp>
#include <opencv2/imgproc/imgproc.hpp>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
using namespace cv;
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
Mat before = imread("qrcode.png", 0);
Mat dist;
distanceTransform(before, dist, CV_DIST_L2, 3);
imshow("before", before);
imshow("non-normalized", dist);
normalize(dist, dist, 0.0, 1.0, NORM_MINMAX);
imshow("normalized", dist);
waitKey();
return 0;
}
In the non-normalized image, you see this:
which doesn't really look like it changed anything, but the distance steps are very small compared to the overall range of values [0, 255] (due to imshow
converting the image from 32-bit float to 8-bits for display), we can't see the differences, so let's normalize it...
Now we get this:
The values themselves should be correct, but when displayed you will need to normalize the image to see the difference.
EDIT :
Here is a small 10x10 sample from the upper-left corner of the dist
matrix show that the values are in fact different:
[10.954346, 10.540054, 10.125763, 9.7114716, 9.2971802, 8.8828888, 8.4685974, 8.054306, 7.6400146, 7.6400146;
10.540054, 9.5850525, 9.1707611, 8.7564697, 8.3421783, 7.927887, 7.5135956, 7.0993042, 6.6850128, 6.6850128;
10.125763, 9.1707611, 8.2157593, 7.8014679, 7.3871765, 6.9728851, 6.5585938, 6.1443024, 5.730011, 5.730011;
9.7114716, 8.7564697, 7.8014679, 6.8464661, 6.4321747, 6.0178833, 5.6035919, 5.1893005, 4.7750092, 4.7750092;
9.2971802, 8.3421783, 7.3871765, 6.4321747, 5.4771729, 5.0628815, 4.6485901, 4.2342987, 3.8200073, 3.8200073;
8.8828888, 7.927887, 6.9728851, 6.0178833, 5.0628815, 4.1078796, 3.6935883, 3.2792969, 2.8650055, 2.8650055;
8.4685974, 7.5135956, 6.5585938, 5.6035919, 4.6485901, 3.6935883, 2.7385864, 2.324295, 1.9100037, 1.9100037;
8.054306, 7.0993042, 6.1443024, 5.1893005, 4.2342987, 3.2792969, 2.324295, 1.3692932, 0.95500183, 0.95500183;
7.6400146, 6.6850128, 5.730011, 4.7750092, 3.8200073, 2.8650055, 1.9100037, 0.95500183, 0, 0;
7.6400146, 6.6850128, 5.730011, 4.7750092, 3.8200073, 2.8650055, 1.9100037, 0.95500183, 0, 0]
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With