Advertisement

Automatic Selection of the Optimal Local Feature Detector

  • Bruno FerrariniEmail author
  • Shoaib Ehsan
  • Naveed Ur Rehman
  • Ales̆ Leonardis
  • Klaus D. McDonald-Maier
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9730)

Abstract

A large number of different local feature detectors have been proposed in the last few years. However, each feature detector has its own strengths and weaknesses that limit its use to a specific range of applications. In this paper is presented a tool capable of quickly analysing input images to determine which type and amount of transformation is applied to them and then selecting the optimal feature detector, which is expected to perform the best. The results show that the performance and the fast execution time render the proposed tool suitable for real-world vision applications.

Keywords

Feature detector Repeatability Performance evaluation 

References

  1. 1.
    Crete, F., Dolmiere, T., Ladret, P., Nicolas, M.: The blur effect: perception and estimation with a new no-reference perceptual blur metric. In: Electronic Imaging 2007, pp. 64920I–64920I. International Society for Optics and Photonics (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ehsan, S., Kanwal, N., Clark, A., McDonald-Maier, K.: Improved repeatability measures for evaluating performance of feature detectors. Electron. Lett. 46(14), 998 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ehsan, S., Clark, A.F., Ferrarini, B., McDonald-Maier, K.: JPEG, blur and uniform light changes image database. http://vase.essex.ac.uk/datasets/index.html
  4. 4.
    Ehsan, S., Clark, A.F., Ferrarini, B., Rehman, N.U., McDonald-Maier, K.D.: Assessing the performance bounds of local feature detectors: Taking inspiration from electronics design practices. In: 2015 International Conference on Systems, Signals and Image Processing (IWSSIP), pp. 166–169. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ehsan, S., Clark, A.F., McDonald-Maier, K.D.: Rapid online analysis of local feature detectors and their complementarity. Sensors 13(8), 10876–10907 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferrarini, B., Ehsan, S., Rehman, N.U., McDonald-Maier, K.D.: Performance characterization of image feature detectors in relation to the scene content utilizing a large image database. In: 2015 International Conference on Systems, Signals and Image Processing (IWSSIP), pp. 117–120. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferrarini, B., Ehsan, S., Rehman, N.U., McDonald-Maier, K.D.: Performance comparison of image feature detectors utilizing a large number of scenes. J. Electron. Imaging 25(1), 010501 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mikolajczyk, K., Tuytelaars, T., Schmid, C., Zisserman, A., Matas, J., Schaffalitzky, F., Kadir, T., Gool, L.V.: A comparison of affine region detectors. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 65(1–2), 43–72 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tuytelaars, T., Mikolajczyk, K.: Local invariant feature detectors: a survey. Found. Trends Comput. Graph. Vis. 3(3), 177–280 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang, Z., Sheikh, H.R., Bovik, A.C.: No-reference perceptual quality assessment of jpeg compressed images. In: Proceedings of 2002 International Conference on Image Processing 2002, vol. 1, pp. 1-477. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Ferrarini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shoaib Ehsan
    • 1
  • Naveed Ur Rehman
    • 2
  • Ales̆ Leonardis
    • 3
  • Klaus D. McDonald-Maier
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and Electronic EngineeringUniversity of EssexColchesterUK
  2. 2.Department of Electrical EngineeringCOMSATS Institute of Information TechnologyIslamabadPakistan
  3. 3.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations