Performance Comparison of KLT and CAMSHIFT Algorithms for Video Object Tracking
Human detection and tracking is one of the most crucial tasks in video analysis. We can find its applications in areas like video surveillance, augmented reality, traffic supervision. KLT and CAMSHIFT are two popular algorithms for this task. In this paper, we present a comparison of their performance in different scenarios. As a result, this paper provides concrete statistics to choose an appropriate algorithm for tracking, given the nature of the objects and surrounding. Our experiments show that KLT algorithm is advantageous for crowded scenes, whereas CAMSHIFT performs better for tracking a specific target. Based on our analysis, we conclude that KLT algorithm performs more efficiently than CAMSHIFT algorithm for video object tracking.
KeywordsVideo object tracking KLT CAMSHIFT Video surveillance system
- 1.Kolekar, M. H., Bharti, N., & Patil, P. N. (2016). Detection of fence climbing using activity recognition by support vector machine classifier. In 2016 IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON) (pp. 398–402). Singapore.Google Scholar
- 2.Kushwaha, A. K. S., Prakash, O., Khare, A., & Kolekar, M. H. (2012). Rule based human activity recognition for surveillance system. In Proceedings of the IEEE 4th International conference on Intelligent Human Computer Interaction, 27–29 December 2012, (pp. 466–471). IIT Kharagpur, India.Google Scholar
- 3.Kolekar, M. H., & Dash, D. P. (2016). Hidden Markov model based human activity recognition using shape and optical ow based features. In Proceedings of the IEEE Region Conference (TENCON), November 2016, (pp. 393–397).Google Scholar
- 6.Rai, H., Kolekar, M. H., Keshav, N., & Mukherjee, J. K. (2015). Trajectory based unusual human movement identification for video surveillance system. In H. Selvaraj, D. Zydek, & Chmaj, G. (Eds.), Progress in systems engineering. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 366). Springer, Cham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Kolekar, M., Palaniappan, K., Sengupta, S., & Seetharaman, G. (2009). Semantic concept mining based on hierarchical event detection for soccer video indexing. Journal of Multimedia, 4, 298–312. https://doi.org/10.4304/jmm.4.5.
- 8.Kolekar, M. H., & Sengupta, S. (2006). Event-importance based customized and automatic cricket highlight generation. In 2006 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, Toronto, Ont, (pp. 1617–1620).Google Scholar
- 11.Tomasi, C., & Shi, J. (1994). Good features to track. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (pp. 593–600).Google Scholar
- 13.Bradski, G. R. (1998). Computer vision face tracking for use in a perceptual user interface. In IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision, Princeton, NJ, (pp. 214–219).Google Scholar
- 14.Yin, F., Makris, D., & Velastin, S. (2007). Performance evaluation of object tracking algorithms. In 10th IEEE International Workshop on Performance Evaluation of Tracking and Surveillance (PETS2007).Google Scholar
- 15.Maggio, E., Piccardo, E., Regazzoni, C., Cavallaro, A. (2006). Particle PHD filter for multi-target visual tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP 2007), Honolulu (USA), April 15–20.Google Scholar
- 16.Maggio, E., Cavallaro, A. (2005). Hybrid particle filter and mean shift tracker with adaptive transition model. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP 2005), Philadelphia, 19–23 March 2005, (pp. 221–224).Google Scholar