Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

Successfully reported this slideshow.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

No Downloads

Total views

6,397

On SlideShare

0

From Embeds

0

Number of Embeds

6

Shares

0

Downloads

432

Comments

8

Likes

7

No notes for slide

- 1. Background Subtraction Shashank Dhariwal Manmeet Singh Kapoor Adham Beyki 1
- 2. Agenda Introduction Challenges Various Techniques &Comparison Mixture of Gaussians Advantages & Disadvantages Implementation & Results References 2
- 3. Introduction A computational vision process Identifies frame A moving objects from the video class of techniques for segmentation[1] 3
- 4. The Problem Aim: Given a frame sequence from a fixed camera, detecting all the foreground objects. Approach: detecting foreground as difference between the current frame & an image of the scene’s static background. | framei – backgroundi| > Th 4
- 5. Challenges Illumination Changes Motion Changes Changes in Background Geometry • Gradual • Sudden • Camera Oscillations • High Frequency Objects • Parked cars… 5
- 6. Various Techniques Running Gaussian Average Temporal Median Filter Mixture of Gaussians(MoG) Kernel Density Estimation(KDE) Sequential Kernel Density Approximation(SKDA) Co-occurrence of Image Variance Eigenbackgrounds 6
- 7. Comparison Method Speed Memory Accuracy I I Low-Medium Temporal Median Filter ns ns Low-Medium Mixture of Gaussians m m High Kernel Density Estimation n n High Sequential KD Approximation m+1 m Medium-High Co-occurrence of Image Variance 8n/N2 nK/N2 Medium M n Medium Running Gaussian Average Eigenbackgrounds Table 1 – Comparison [2] 7
- 8. Mixture of Gaussian Deals with • Repeated motion • Background clutter • Long term scene change 8
- 9. Mixture of Gaussian Problems with other techniques [3] 1. Averaging images over time -Not robust to scenes with slow moving objects -Single Threshold for entire scene 2. Modelling each pixel using Kalman filter -Not robust to backgrounds with repetitive change -Takes significant time to re-establish the background 3. Modelling each pixel using single Gaussian -Good indoor performance - Not good enough out-door scenes for repetitive change 9
- 10. Mixture of Gaussian Hypothesis : If we model each pixel as a mixture of Gaussians to determine whether or not a pixel is part of the background, then we will arrive at an effective approach to separate the background and foreground, which can be used for real-time tracking.[ 3] Used in tracking of moving objects: 1. Separating Foreground from Background (our agenda) 2. Tracking Objects in Foreground (not in the scope) 10
- 11. Mixture of Gaussian Fig 1 . [ 3 ] 11
- 12. Background Subtraction -MoG Pixel process : It’s the history of the pixel ‘X’’s value from frame 1 to ‘t’. [4] Part 1 : For above pixel process of ‘X’ the probability of observing a ‘X’ at frame ‘t’ is as follows, K = no. of Gaussian in the mixture (generally 3-5). [4] weight(i,t) = estimate of the weight of Gaussian in the mixture means (i,t) = mean value of the Gaussian at time ‘t’ Covariance(i,t) = Covariance matrix of Gaussian in the matrix = Variance * Identity matrix 12
- 13. Background Subtraction -MoG Decision making : For each Gaussian in the mixture of pixel X if pixel X <= 2.5 (probability of .996) standard deviation form the mean then the Gaussian is said to be ‘matched’ - Increase the weight - Adjust the mean closer to X(t) - Decrease the Variance Else the Gaussian is ‘unmatched’ - Decrease the weight If all the Gaussians in the mixture for pixel X(t) are unmatched - Mark X(t) as foreground pixel - Find the least probable Gaussian in the mixture and replace it with a new Gaussian with the following parameters: - Mean = X(t) i.e present value of X - Variance as a high value - Weight as a low value 13
- 14. Background Subtraction -MoG Part 2 : Updating of parameters and using a suitable heuristic for distributions that represent background pixels Based on the decision made , change the following parameters using the equations given below: Where - α (alpha) is the learning parameter. - M (i,t) value is set to 1 for model that matched and 0 for rest - µ(mean) and σ (Std Deviation) for unmatched remain same and changes for the matched distributions - ρ is the updating parameter 14
- 15. Background Subtraction -MoG Advantages : Robust against movement that are part of background, e.g moving branches of a tree Robust against rain , snow, etc…. Disadvantages: Not a good subtraction when shadows are there Difficulty with objects overlapping Fast lighting changes were also an issue. Gives false positives 15
- 16. Implementation Outdoor Scene Moving cars Stopped cars Pedestrians Luminosity changes Shadows Leaves and branches of trees 16
- 17. Implementation Frame Difference as the easiest method o Objects with uniformly distributed intensity o Objects must be moving all the time! Computationally cheap Highly adaptive background model Tuning threshold value (=25 for our example) 17
- 18. Implementation MoG a complex method o Parametric model o Mixture of Gaussian components o Comparing pixel value with tracking Gaussian components Very good at separating objects Suppressing background noise Parameter optimisation Not quickly enough adaptive background model 18
- 19. Implementation 19
- 20. References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Tarun Baloch, MSc Thesis ‘Background Subtraction in Highly Illuminated Indoor Environment’ Indian Institute of Technology, 2010 M. Piccardi. Background Subtraction techniques : A Review . In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2004, Volume 4, pages 3099– 3104, 2005. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2004.1400815. Eric Thul , ECSE-626 Final Project: An evaluation of Chris Stauffer and W. E. L. Grimson’s method for background subtraction, 2008, www.cs.mcgill.ca/~ethul/pub/course/ecse626/project-report.pdf C. Stauffer and W. E. L. Grimson. Adaptive background mixture models for realtime tracking. IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1999, 2:252, 1999. URL http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/CVPR.1999.784637. A A Mazeed, Mark Nixon and Steve Gunn, Classifiers Combination for Improved Motion Segmentation, 2004,eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk › ECS › Research › Publications Omar Javed, Khurram Shafique and Mubarak Shah, A hierarchical approach to robust background subtraction using colour and gradient information,2002, visionnas2.cs.ucf.edu/papers/javed_wmvc_2002.pdf Sen-Ching S.Chung and Chandrika Kamath, Robust techniques for background subtraction in urban traffic video, 2004, www.llnl.gov/casc/sapphire/pubs/UCRL-CONF-200706.pdf 20

No public clipboards found for this slide

Login to see the comments