Shape Analysis and the Classification of Objects

  • F. Brent Neal
  • John C. Russ
Conference paper


Quantification of shape remains an area of active study in the field of image analysis and machine vision. We present a comparative survey of three approaches to shape measurement: classical dimensionless ratios, harmonic analysis, and invariant moments, showing their suitability for classification of objects and other statistical analyses, including quantitative structure-property relationships. We show that for topologically simple shapes and well controlled imaging conditions, all three methods can provide robust classification of objects.


shape classification shape descriptors invariant moments harmonic analysis machine vision 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    S. Loncaric, “A survey of shape analysis techniques,” Pattern Recognition, 31 (8) (1998), 983–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. R. Teague, “Image analysis via the general theory of moments,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, 70 (8) (1980), 920–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. K. Hu, “Visual pattern recognition by moment invariants,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 8 (2) (1962), 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. Flusser and T. Suk, “Pattern recognition by affine moment invariants,” Pattern Recognition, 26 (1) (1993), 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Flusser, “On the independence of rotation moment invariants,” Pattern Recognition, 33 (9) (2000), 1405–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    H. P. Schwartz and K. C. Shane, “Measurement of particle shape by Fourier analysis,” Sedimentology, 13 (3–4) (1969), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Ehrlich and B. Weinberg, “An Exact Method for Characterization of Grain Shape,” SEPM Journal of Sedimentary Research, 40 (1) (1970), 205–212.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. J. Haines and J. S. Crampton, “Improvements To The Method Of Fourier Shape Analysis As Applied In Morphometric Studies,” Palaeontology, 43 (4) (2000), 765–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    P. E. Lestrel, Ed., Fourier Descriptors and Their Applications in Biology (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997.)Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    F. B. Neal and J. C. Russ, Measuring Shape (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2012), 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    C. Brechbühler, “Parametrization of Closed Surfaces for 3-D Shape Description,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 61 (2) (1995), 154–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    N. Canterakis, “3D Zernike moments and Zernike affine invariants for 3D image analysis and recognition,” (Paper presented at the 11th Scandinavian Conference on Image Analysis, 1999.)Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    B. Ruthensteiner, N. Baeumler, and D. G. Barnes, “Interactive 3D volume rendering in biomedical publications.,” Micron, 41 (7) (2010), 886.e1–886.e17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    A. Ziegler, M. Ogurreck, T. Steinke, F. Beckmann, S. Prohaska, and A. Ziegler, “Opportunities and challenges for digital morphology.,” Biology direct, 5 (2010), 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    K. Libbrecht, Field Guide to Snowflakes (St. Paul, MN: Voyageur Press, 2006), 102–107.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    F. Kuhl and C. Giardina, “Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour,” Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 18 (3) (1982), 236–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© TMS (The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Brent Neal
    • 1
  • John C. Russ
    • 2
  1. 1.Research DivisionMilliken & CompanySpartanburgUSA
  2. 2.Dept. of Materials Science and EngineeringNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations