Our final yr project presentation

1. VIRTUAL MOUSE
Nikhil Mane -100731
Saurabh Shigwan -100753
Noel Francis -100674
Group- 17

2. • An Introduction
• Why Virtual Mouse is Needed
• Existing System
• Proposed System
• Flow Charts
• Hardware and Software Requirements
• Work Done
• Conclusion
References
Table of Contents

3. • “Your mouse has moved. Windows must be
restarted for the change to take effect.”
<click on OK to continue>

4. SPATIAL – An Introduction
• There is no other more popular navigation/interaction device
than the mouse.
• Overcoming the restrictions a corporeal device has would
enrich the experience of interaction.
• Keeping this in mind, we present an idea of implementing a
virtual mouse system as an alternative.
Virtual Mouse is:
• User makes a specified hand gesture that is captured by a
camera.
• Object recognition techniques are used to extract
information from the capture.
• This is then translated to some meaningful event on the
screen.
An Introduction

5. Why VIRTUAL MOUSE is Needed
• Mouse is a physical device subject to mechanical wear
and tear.
• It is not easy to adapt to different environments and is
often limited by environment.
• Limited functions even in present operational
environments.
• VIRTUAL MOUSE hopes to fulfill these requirements of
the user by overcoming normal physical barriers.

6. Existing System
TrackBall:
• The user rolls the ball with the thumb, fingers, or the palm
of the hand to move a cursor.
• Large tracker balls are common on CAD workstations for
easy precision.
• Before the advent of the touchpad, small trackballs were
common on portable computers.
Disadvantages
• Usually not as accurate as a mouse.
• Ball mechanism of trackballs requires more frequent
cleaning than a mouse.
• Not very user friendly.

7. Existing System(continued)
Mechanical Mouse :
• A single ball that could rotate in any direction.
• As part of the hardware package of the Xerox
Alto computer.
• Detection of the motion of the ball was light based with
the help of chopper wheels.
Disadvantages
• Cannot provide high precision performance.
• Has specific surface requirements to operate.
• Needs more desk space when compared with a
trackball.

8. Existing System(continued)
Optical Mouse :
• Uses a light-emitting diode and photodiodes to detect
movement relative to the underlying surface.
• Digital image correlation, a technology pioneered by the
defense industry for tracking military targets.
• Use image sensors to image naturally occurring texture
in materials such as wood, cloth, mouse pads and
• Image captures in continuous succession and
comparison to determine mouse movement.
Disadvantages
• Special hardware required.
• Again, specific surface requirements.

9. Proposed System
Features of VIRTUAL MOUSE:
• Any new product should either make human life
more comfortable, more productive or more fun.
• Provides greater flexibility than the existing system.
• Can provide more functions depending on the choice
of object.
• Easy to modify and adapt
• Less prone to physical damage due to absence of a
fixed physical device.
• Avoid the mouse-related wrist damage like CTS & RSI.
• Also, there is a certain degree of fun & entertainment
associated with the whole idea.

10. Proposed System(continued)
It is divided into the following modules:
• Module 1 (Image Acquisition).
• Module 2 (Object Recognition).
• Module 3 (Object Tracing and Information Retrieval).
• Module 4 (Point Coordinate Calculation and Motion Analysis).
• Module 5 (Setting Cursor Position)
• Module 6 (Event Generation)

11. Flow charts
USER
Virtual
Mouse
OS
Virtual
Mouse

12. Flow charts (continued)
Camera
Capture
Module
Mouse Driver
Module
Camera
Capture
Module
Image
Acquisition
Object
Recognition
Trace
Object
Coordinate
calculation
Mouse Driver
Module
Setting Cursor
Position
Event
Generation

13. Final Flow chart
Image
Acquisition
Object
Recognition
Trace Object
Coordinate
calculation
Setting Cursor
Position
Event
Generation

14. Hardware and Software Requirements
Hardware Requirements-
• Intel Pentium D processor 1.8 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 processor 1.8
GHz or higher
• 3 GB RAM
• 5 GB HDD space
• Peripheral webcam at least 30 frames/second, 640x480 resolution
Software Requirements-
• Windows XP x86 or higher (for x86 environment)
• Windows XP professional x64 or higher (for x64 environment)
• .NET framework 3.5 or higher
• Visual Studio 2008 professional
• EmguCV library (wrapper of OpenCV library for .NET framework)
• EmguCV library 64 bit binaries (for developing on x64 environment)
• Webcam drivers (device specific)

15. Work Done
• Studied the existing systems and available information
to understand.
• Hence, proposed a new system.
• Main purpose – to eliminate physical constraints and
add adaptability.
• A literature survey in relation to the various contexts
was done.
• Implementation work has been started.
• VM

16. Conclusion
• VIRTUAL MOUSE is an idea of implementing an adaptable, multi-
functional navigation/interaction tool that overcomes physical
barriers.
• The system will be ‘real’ enough to not affect the interaction much.
• Ease of use is the foremost concern.
• Availability, Adaptability and Ability
• Project goal will be to build a system that satisfies all three ideals
Future Enhancement :
• Development for specific objects.
• Creation of particular action areas for utility.
• More advanced and highly specific functionality.

17. References
• 1. Richard E. Woods, Rafael C. Gonzalez, “Digital Image Processing”, Pearson Education Asia, 3/E, 2008
• 2. Ming-Hsuan Yang, Narendra Ahuja, “Face detection and gesture recognition for human- computer interaction” O’Reilly, 2006.
• 3. Gary Bradski, Adrian Kaehler, “Learning OpenCV: Computer Vision with the OpenCV Library”, Shroff/O'Reilly, 2008
• 4. Stanley B. Lippman, Josee Lajoie, “A C++ Primer”, Addison-Wesley, 3rd Edition 2008
• 5. Ivor Horton, “Ivor Horton's Beginning Visual C++ 2008”, Wiley India Pvt. Ltd/Wrox, 2008
• 6. Jon Skeet, “C# in Depth”, Manning Publication, Second Edition, 2008
• 7. Kogent Solutions Inc. , “.NET 3.5 Programming Black Book: Covering .NET Framework, VB 2008, C# 2008, And ASP.NET 3.5” , Wiley India Pvt.
Ltd, 2010
• 8. Christian Nagel, Bill Evjan, Jay Glynn, Morgan Skinner, Karli Watson, “Professional C# 2008”, Wiley, 2008
• 9. Chensheng Wang, Fei Wang “A Knowledge-based Strategy for Object Recognition and Reconstruction”, 2009
• 10. Soo Chahn Lee, Duck Hoon Kim, IlDongYun andSangUk Lee School of EECS, “How Can We Evaluate Object Recognition Algorithms” ,IEEE, 25
June 2005
• 11. M. A. Moni, A B M Shawkat Ali, “HMM based Hand Gesture Recognition: A Review on Techniques and Approaches”, IEEE, 03 January 2006
• 12. Jacinto Nascimento, Jorge S. Marques,”New Performance Evaluation Metrics for Object Detection Algorithms”, ISR/IST, 2006.
• 13. http://opencv.willowgarage.com/wiki/
• 14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCV’
• 15. http://www.emgu.com/wiki/index.php/OpenCV
• 16. http://www.cs.iit.edu/~agam/cs512/lect-notes/opencv-intro/opencv-intro.html
• 17. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa139615.aspx
• 18. http://www.youtube.com/user/badrepent
• 19. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3652327/choice-between-win32-apis-and-net-framework
• 20. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3762081/using-c-for-real-time-applications
• 21. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3691198/selecting-an-appropriate-ide
22. http://note.sonots.com/SciSoftware/haartraining.html
•

18. THANK YOU
ANY SUGGESTIONS