Optimization learning for registration of moving dynamic textures
Download
1 / 28

Optimization & Learning for Registration of Moving Dynamic Textures - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 66 Views
  • Uploaded on

Optimization & Learning for Registration of Moving Dynamic Textures. Junzhou Huang 1 , Xiaolei Huang 2 , Dimitris Metaxas 1 Rutgers University 1 , Lehigh University 2. Outline. Background Goals & Problems Related Works Proposed Method Experiment Results Discussion & Conclusion.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Optimization & Learning for Registration of Moving Dynamic Textures' - joel-hewitt


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Optimization learning for registration of moving dynamic textures

Optimization & Learning for Registration of Moving Dynamic Textures

Junzhou Huang1, Xiaolei Huang2, Dimitris Metaxas1

Rutgers University1, Lehigh University2


Outline
Outline Textures

  • Background

  • Goals & Problems

  • Related Works

  • Proposed Method

  • Experiment Results

  • Discussion & Conclusion


Background
Background Textures

  • Dynamic textures (DT)

    • static camera, exhibits a certain stationary

  • Moving Dynamic textures (MDT)

    • dynamic textures captured by a moving camera

DT, [Kwatra et al. SIGGRAPH’03]

MDT, [Fitzgibbon ICCV’01]


Background1
Background Textures

  • Video registration

    • Required by many video analysis applications

  • Traditional assumption

    • Static, rigid, brightness constancy

    • Bergen et al. ECCV’92, Black et al. ICCV’93

  • Relaxing rigid assumption

    • Dynamic textures

    • Doretto et al. IJCV’03, Yuan at al. ECCV’04, Chan et al. NIPS’05, Lin et al. PAMI’07, Rav-Acha at al. Workshop at ICCV’05


Our goals
Our Goals Textures

  • Registration of MDT

    • Recover the camera motion and register the image sequences including moving dynamic textures

Left Translation

Right Translation


Complex optimization problems
Complex Optimization Problems Textures

  • Complex optimization

    • Camera motion, dynamic texture model

    • Chicken-and-Egg Problems

  • Challenges

    • About the mean images

    • About LDS model

    • About the camera motion?


Related works
Related Works Textures

  • Fitzgibbon, ICCV’01

    • Pioneering attempt

    • Stochastic rigidity

    • Non-linear optimization

  • Vidal et al. CVPR’05

    • Time varying LDS model

    • Static assumption in small time window

    • Simple and general framework but under estimation


Formulation
Formulation Textures

  • Registration of MDT

    • I(t), the video frame

    • camera motion parameters

    • y0 , the desired average image of the video

    • y(t), related with appearance of DT

    • x(t), related with dynamics of DT


Generative model
Generative Model Textures

Generative image model for a MDT


First observation
First Observation Textures

  • Good registration

    • a good registration according to the accurate camera motion should simplify the dynamic texture model while preserving all useful information

    • Used by Fitzgibbon, ICCV’01, Minimizing the entropy function of an auto regressive process

    • Used by Vidal, CVPR’05, optimizing time varying LDS model by optimizing piecewise LDS model


Second observation
Second Observation Textures

  • Good registration

    • A good registration according to the accurate camera motion should lead to a sharp average image whose statistics of derivative filters are similar to those of the input image frames.

  • Image statistics

    • Student-t distribution / heavy tailed image priors

    • Huang et al. CVPR’99, Roth et al. CVPR’05


Prior models
Prior Models Textures

  • The Average image priors

  • The motion priors

  • The dynamic priors


Average image priors
Average Image Priors Textures

  • Student-t distribution

    • Model parameters / contrastive divergence method

(a) Before registration, (b) in the middle of registration (c) after registration


Motion dynamic priors
Motion / Dynamic Priors Textures

  • Gaussian Perturbation (Motion)

    • Uncertainty in the motion modeled by a Gaussian perturbation about the mean estimation M0 / the covariance matrix S ( a diagonal matrix.)

    • Motivated by the work [Pickup et al. NIPS’06]

  • GPDM / MAR model (Dynamic)

    • Marginalizing over all possible mappings between appearance and dynamics

    • Motivated by the work [Wang et al. NIPS’05] [Moon et al. CVPR’06]


Joint optimization
Joint Optimization Textures

  • Generative image model

  • Optimization

    • Final marginal likelihood

    • Scaled conjugate gradients algorithm (SCG)


Procedures
Procedures Textures

  • Obtaining image derivative prior model

  • Dividing the long sequence into many short image sequences

  • Initialization for video registration

  • Performing model optimization with the proposed prior models until model convergence.

  • With estimated y0, Y and X, the camera motion is then obtained


Obtaining data
Obtaining Data Textures

  • Three DT video sequences

    • DT data, [Kwatra et al. SIGGRAPH’03]

  • Synthesized MDT video sequence

    • 60 frames each, no motion from 1st to 20th frame and from 41st to 60th

    • Camera motions with speed [1, 0] from 21st to 40th


Grass mdt video
Grass MDT Video Textures

  • The average image

(a) One frame, (b) the average image after registration, (c) before registration


Grass mdt video1
Grass MDT Video Textures

  • The statistics of derivative filter responses


Evaluation comparison
Evaluation / Comparison Textures

  • False Estimation Fraction

  • Comparison with two classical methods

    • Hybrid method, [Bergen et al. ECCV’92] [Black et al. ICCV’93]

    • Vidal’method, [Vidal et al. CVPR’05]


Waterfall mdt video
Waterfall MDT Video Textures

  • Motion estimation

(a) Ground truth, (b) by hybrid method, (c) by Vidal’s, (d) proposed


Waterfall mdt video1
Waterfall MDT Video Textures

  • The average Image and its statistics

The average image and related distribution after registration by

(a) proposed method, (b) Vidal’s method, (c) hybrid method


Fef comparisons
FEF Comparisons Textures

  • On three synthesized MDT video


Real mdt video
Real MDT Video Textures

  • Moving flower bed video

  • Ours

    • 554 frames totally

    • Ground truth 110 pixels

    • Estimation 104.52 pixels ( FEF 4.98%)

  • Vidal’s

    • 250 frames

    • Ground truth 85 pixels

    • Estimation 60 pixels

      ( FEF 29.41%)


Conclusions
Conclusions Textures

  • What proposing:

    • Powerful priors for MDT registration

  • What getting out:

    • Camera motions

    • Average image

    • Dynamic texture model

  • What learning?

    • Registration simplify DT model while preserving useful information

    • Better registration lead to sharper average image


Thanks ! Textures


Thanks ! Textures


Future works
Future Works Textures

  • More complex camera motions

  • Different Metric functions for evaluation

  • Multiple dynamic texture segmentation


ad