Automatic Extraction and Classification of Footwear Patterns

  • Maria Pavlou
  • Nigel M. Allinson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4224)


Identification of the footwear traces from crime scenes is an important yet largely forgotten aspect of forensic intelligence and evidence. We present initial results from a developing automatic footwear classification system. The underlying methodology is based on large numbers of localized features located using MSER feature detectors. These features are transformed into robust SIFT or GLOH descriptors with the ranked correspondence between footwear patterns obtained through the use of constrained spectral correspondence methods. For a reference dataset of 368 different footwear patterns, we obtain a first rank performance of 85% for full impressions and 84% for partial impressions.


Scale Invariant Feature Transform Crime Scene Automatic Extraction Maximally Stable Extremal Region Correct Recognition Rate 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bodziak, W.J.: Footwear impression evidence detection, recovery and examination, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2000)Google Scholar
  2. Girod, A.: Computer classification of the shoeprint of burglars’ shoes. Forensic Science Int. 82, 59–65 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Geradts, Z., Keijzer, J.: The image-database REBEZO for shoeprints with developments on automatic classification of shoe outsole designs. Forensic Science Int. 82, 21–31 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Sawyer, N.: SHOE-FIT A computerised shoe print database. In: Proc. European Convention on Security and Detection, pp. 86–89 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. Ashley, W.: What shoe was that? The use of computerised image database to assist in identification, Forensic Science Int. 82, 7–20 (1996)Google Scholar
  6. Mikkonen, S., Suominen, V., Heinonen, P.: Use of footwear impressions in crime scene investigations assisted by computerised footwear collection system. Forensic Science Int. 82, 67–79 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mikkonen, S., Astikainen, T.: Databased classification system for shoe sole patterns - identification of partial footwear impression found at a scene of crime. Journal of Forensic Science 39(5), 1227–1236 (1994)Google Scholar
  8. Bouridane, A., Alexander, A., Nibouche, M., Crookes, D.: Application of fractals to the detection and classification of shoeprints. In: Proc. 2000 Int. Conf. Image Processing, vol. 1, pp. 474–477 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. Alexander, A., Bouridane, A., Crookes, D.: Automatic classification and recognition of shoeprints. In: Proc. Seventh Int. Conf. Image Processing and Its Applications, vol. 2, pp. 638–641 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. de Chazal, P., Flynn, J., Reilly, R.B.: Automated processing of shoeprint images based on the Fourier Transform for use in forensic science. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence 27(3), 341–350 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Zhang, L., Allinson, N.: Automatic shoeprint retrieval system for use in forensic investigations. In: UK Workshop On Computational Intelligence, UKCI05 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. Mikolajczyk, K., Tuytelaars, T., Schmid, C., Zisserman, A., Matas, J., Schaffalitzky, F., Kadir, T., Van Gool, L.: A comparison of affine region detectors, Int. Journal of Computer Vision 65(1/2), 43–72 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mikolajczyk, K., Schmid, C.: Scale and affine invariant interest point detectors, Int. Journal of Computer Vision 60(1), 63–86 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mikolajczyk, K., Schmid, C.: A performance evaluation of local descriptors. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence 27(10), 1615–1630 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pilu, M.: A direct method for stereo correspondence based on singular value decomposition. In: IEEE Conf. Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition (CVPR 1997), p. 261 (1997)Google Scholar
  16. Scott, G., Longuet-Higgins, H.: An algorithm for associating the features of two patterns. In: Proc. Royal Society London, vol. B244, pp. 21–26 (1991)Google Scholar
  17. Ullman, S.: The interpretation of Visual Motion. MIT Press, Cambridge (1979)Google Scholar
  18. Data taken from the UK National Shoewear Database, Forensic Science Service, Birmingham, B37 7YN, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Pavlou
    • 1
  • Nigel M. Allinson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations