Post on 07-Oct-2020
transcript
000
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
011
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
030
031
032
033
034
035
036
037
038
039
040
041
042
043
044
045
046
047
048
049
050
051
052
053
054
055
056
057
058
059
060
061
062
063
064
065
066
067
068
069
070
071
072
073
074
075
076
077
078
079
080
081
082
083
084
085
086
087
088
089
090
091
092
093
094
095
096
097
098
099
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
On Witkin Range of Phase Congruency
Anonymous CVPR submission
Paper ID 648
Abstract
This article identifies a scale manifestative concept inlow-level vision, which we call Witkin range of phase con-gruency, and proposes a simple method for calculating thisimage feature. This concept is similar to the range of stabil-ity in Witkin’s scale space filtering, but we define it in termsof the phase congruency among Gabor-type wavelets of dif-ferent frequencies. The Witkin range of phase congruencyleads to a representational and computational scheme forcombining image information from multiple scales. In par-ticular, it adds two new dimensions to the traditional edgerepresentation produced by Canny edge detector, namely,the width and sharpness of the edge point. As a result, itcombines the edge representation and region representationinto an edged-region representation. In addition, this con-cept unifies two ubiquitous classes of visual phenomena,namely, geometric structures and stochastic textures, in ascale manifestative framework, which can account for thecontinuous transition from structures to textures in the pro-cess of image scaling or zooming. We illustrate our methodby a number of experiments on natural images.
1. Introduction
Scale is one of the most important issue in vision. Visualphenomena in natural scenes can appear at a wide rangeof scales in images, because of the variabilities in objectsizes, viewing distances, and camera resolution. Therefore,a meaningful interpretation of a natural image must be ei-ther scale invariant or scale manifestative. “Scale invariant”means that the interpretation will stay invariant under imagescaling. “Scale manifestative” means that the interpretationhas explicit scale parameters that follow simple and explicittransformations under image scaling.
There have been a number of multi-scale theories in vi-sion, most notably, the scale space theory [21, 8] and themulti-resolution wavelet analysis [11]. It has been a com-mon sense that we need to combine information from mul-tiple scales, mainly because some visual phenomena suchas edges can persist over a range of scales.
The scale persistency has long been observed. For in-stance, Marr [12] proposed the “coincidence assumption,”which holds that only those features that spatially coin-cident at all scales are meaningful. Witkin, in his paperon scale space filtering [21], investigated the persistencyof local maxima of Gaussian derivatives of 1D signal overscales, and explicitly identified the stability ranges of theselocal maxima in scale space. These ranges can then betranslated into flat intervals as basic elements for represent-ing the 1D signal. Witkin’s idea has been extended to 2Dby Lindeberg [8, 9] and other researchers. But the behaviorof the maxima of Gaussian derivatives in 2D is much morecomplicated than 1D, so that tracing maxima in 2D can bedifficult.
Parallel to scale space theory, the coincidence over scaleshas been extensively studied in the context of phase con-gruency of Fourier transform or Gabor wavelet transform.Morrone et al. [14] observed that image features appear atlocations where the Fourier components of the image at dif-ferent frequencies are maximally in phase. A phase congru-ency function is defined to measure the agreement amongthe phases at each position, and this function turns out to beequal to the local energy of the image [19, 16]. Kovesi [6]developed a computational method for phase congruencyfeature detection in 2D image, using log-Gabor wavelets tocompute local phases and energies. The phase congruencyfunction is defined on each pixel. Unlike Witkin’s scalespace filtering, it does not involve tracing over scales or fre-quencies, and is therefore simpler to implement in 2D.
The phase congruency function is elegant in terms of itsrelationship with image energy. However, it is not scalemanifestative, in the sense that it does not tell us the rangeof frequencies over which the phases are congruent. In thispaper, we introduce Witkin’s idea of range of stability tothe framework of phase congruency, and replace the phasecongruency function by the phase congruency range or whatwe call Witkin range.
The Witkin range gives us a more informative descrip-tion of image features. For instance, for an image structuresuch as an edge, the Witkin range can be translated into geo-metric scale parameters of the cross-section profile perpen-
1
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
dicular to the edge elongation. In particular, the high fre-quency end of the Witkin range tells us the sharpness of thetransition of the image intensity across the edge, whereasthe low frequency end of the Witkin range tells us the widthor breadth of the two flat regions on the two sides of theedge. In other words, the Witkin range enables us to notonly detect the edge curves, but also recognize the edged-regions, so that we can form a representation that combinesboth edge-based concept and region-based concept.
In natural scenes, there are two ubiquitous classes of vi-sual phenomena. One is geometric structures that can berepresented by lines and regions. The other is stochastic tex-tures that are often characterized by some feature statistics.Although these two types of patterns often appear distinc-tively different, they are actually intrinsically connected:the same group of objects can be perceived as either ge-ometric structures or stochastic textures depending on theviewing distance and camera resolution. Due to this scal-ing connection, it is natural to believe that the visual sys-tem must estimate scale parameters explicitly, and trace thechange of the scale parameters over the image scaling pro-cess that can be caused by the change of viewing distance.We shall show that the Witkin range provides us with cru-cial scale information for describing large scale geometricstructures and small scale stochastic textures.
The Witkin range of phase congruency can be useful foredge representation, edge-based object recognition, track-ing and matching, and texture recognition. It also shedslight on low-level vision theories such as sparse coding,meaningful alignment, and natural image statistics.
2. Background
2.1. Witkin stability range
A key motivation for Witkin [21] to propose his theory ofscale space filtering is to combine visual information acrossdifferent scales. In particular, he studied the stability of thespatial locations of local maxima of Gaussian derivatives ofthe image data over scales.
See Fig.1 for an example. A 1D signal is taken froma slice of the image in Fig.1.a. Let’s denote this 1D sig-nal byu(x). Let Gσ(x) be a Gaussian kernel function (ordensity function) centered at 0 with standard deviationσ.Let uσ = u ∗ Gσ be the convolution ofu(x) with Gσ(x).Fig. 1.c displaysuσ(x) for a sample of scalesσ > 0. Foreachuσ(x), we can find the local maxima of its first deriva-tive ∂uσ(x)/∂x, or the zero-crossings of its second deriva-tive ∂2uσ(x)/∂x2. Fig.1.b plots the contours of these zero-crossings in the scale space. Clearly, the zero-crossings per-sist over a range of scales, until two zero-crossings mergeinto a singular point. The range of persistence or stabil-ity depends on the widths of the underlying intervals. As amatter of fact, one can recover these intervals based on the
Figure 1. (a) A 1D signal is obtained as a horizontal slice of thetoaster image. (b) The contour plot of the zero-crossings of thesecond derivatives in the joint spatial-scale domain. (c) The 1Dsignal at multiple resolutions, obtained by convolving the signalwith Gaussian kernels and sub-sampling the signal.
stability ranges.Lindeberg [8, 9] applied similar ideas to 2D images. But
the behavior of the maxima of Gaussian derivatives in 2D ismuch more complicated than 1D, so that tracing maxima in2D can be difficult.
2.2. Phase congruency function
In contrast to the scale space filtering based on localderivative operators, the phase congruency theory startedfrom global Fourier transform. Morrone et al. [14] observedthat for a signalu(x), the feature points correspond to thosepoints where the Fourier waves at different frequencies havecongruent phases. Specifically, let
u(x) =
∫A(ω) cos(ωx + φω)dω (1)
be the Fourier representation ofu(x). The phase of fre-quencyω at a pointx is ωx + φω mod2π. Thosex whereωx + φω are congruent acrossω are considered featurepoints. For instance, the top plot of Fig.2 shows a pe-riodic step function. The bottom plot displays several ofits Fourier componentsA(ω) cos(ωx + φω) (see eqn. (1)).Clearly, the edge points and the center points of the inter-vals correspond to those points where the Fourier waves ofdifferent frequencies are in phase.
A phase congruency function is defined as follows:
ϕ(x) = maxφ∈[0,2π]
∫A(ω) cos(ωx + φω − φ)G(ω)dω∫
A(ω)G(ω)dω, (2)
whereG(ω) is a window function in the frequency domain,e.g., a Gaussian kernel around a certain central frequency.Suppose the maximum is achieved atφ = φ(x). φ(x) maybe interpreted as the average phase across the frequencies
2
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
Figure 2. A periodic step function and its several Fourier com-ponents. The waves at different frequencies are in phase at edgepoints and the center points of the intervals.
covered by the windowG(ω), andϕ(x) measures the vari-ation of phases within this window.
The phase congruency function (2) has an elegant con-nection with the local energy [19]. Specifically, let
G ∗ u(x) =
∫G(ω)A(ω) expi(ωx + φω)dω,
where G is the complex filter, which consists of a pairof filters of quadrature phase, whose Fourier transform isG(ω). Thenϕ(x) = |G ∗ u(x)| is the local energy, andφ(x) = arg[G ∗ u(x)] is the local phase. So the points ofmaximum phase congruency correspond to points of maxi-mum local energy.
Kevosi [6] defines a phase congruency function by pool-ing the information from a bank of log-Gabor filters at dif-ferent scales and orientations, in the same spirit as function(2). Unlike scale space filtering, the phase congruency func-tion is defined for each pixel without tracing local maxima.
2.3. Gabor filters and edge detection
A biologically motivated class of image elements are Ga-bor wavelets [2], which are rotated, dilated, and translatedcopies of the following Gaussian modulated sine and cosinewaves [7]
G(x) ∝ exp−1
8(4x2
1 + x22)(e
iκx1 − eκ2/2), (3)
wherex = (x1, x2). Let’s denote a rotated, dilated, andtranslated copy of (3) by Gx,ω,θ, wherex is the center,ωis the frequency of the sine and cosine waves, andθ is theorientation. We normalize the Gabor wavelets over scale sothatGx,sω,θ = sGx,ω,θ, in order to maintain
〈f,Gx,ω,θ〉 = 〈fs, Gx,sω,θ〉, (4)
wherefs(x) = f(sx) is the scaled version off . The Gaborfilters can be replaced by other zero-mean filter pairs thatform Hilbert transforms of each other.
The Gabor filters can be used as edge detectors [20].For the dictionary of Gabor elementsGx,ω,θ, at each fre-quencyω, and at each pixelx, we find the optimal orienta-tion θ = arg maxθ |〈u,Gx,ω,θ〉|
2, where|〈u,Gx,ω,θ〉|2 =
〈u,G(0)x,ω,θ〉
2 + 〈u,G(1)x,ω,θ〉
2, with G(0)x,ω,θ and G
(1)x,ω,θ be-
ing cosine and sine components ofGx,ω,θ respectively,and 〈〉 denoting inner product. LetA = |〈u,Gx,ω,θ〉|,
φ = arctan[〈u,G(0)
x,ω,θ〉/〈u,G
(1)
x,ω,θ〉] be the magnitude (or
energy) and phase at the maximal orientation respectively.We can write
[∇ωu](x) = (Aω(x), θω(x), φω(x)) = (A, θ, φ) (5)
as a generalized version of the ubiquitous gradient operator∇u.
A point (x, ω) is an edge-ridge point if
Aω(x) ≥ Aω(x + t(sin θω(x), cos θω(x))), |t| < d, (6)
i.e., Aω(x) is maximal along the normal direction of theorientationθω(x) within a neighborhood of length2d [1].Edges and ridges can be discriminated by the correspondingphases [20].
3. Witkin range of phase congruency
In this section, we explain the basic idea of the Witkinrange. We also explain that it can be translated into anedged-region representation of the image. After that, wegive a precise definition of the Witkin range, and illustratethe edged-region representation by some examples.
3.1. Edged-region representation
Fig. 3 illustrates a fundamental observation. The ploton top shows a horizontal slice of an image of vertical baru(x). The second and the third plots display the magni-tude and phase of∇ωu(x) on this slice, where each curvecorresponds to a frequencyω. It is evident that an edge-ridge pointx (i.e., a local maximum in magnitude curves)can exist over a range of frequencies(ω0(x), ω1(x)), andwithin this range, the phase and orientation of∇ωu(x) re-mains constant forω ∈ (ω0(x), ω1(x)). For edge points, themagnitude of∇ωu(x) also remains constant (subject to dis-cretization error). In the bottom plot of Fig.3, we trace thetwo edge points over scales ∝ 1/ω. At a certain frequencyor scale, the two edge points merge into a ridge point.
Here comes the foundation of this paper: for an edgepointx, the rangeω ∈ (ω0(x), ω1(x)) in frequency domaincan be translated into spatial domain parameters about thecross-section profile of the edge. Specifically, the profile ofan edge is along the direction that is perpendicular to theedge elongation, and it can be modeled by a step functionblurred by a Gaussian kernel [3], whose bandwidth reflects
3
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 1600
100
200
300
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 1600
20
40
60
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 1600
1
2
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 1600
5
10
15
Orig
inal
Sig
nal
Ene
rgy
Pha
seM
axim
um T
race
Figure 3. Constancy of positions and phases of local energy max-ima across frequencies. The top plot depicts a horizontal slice ofan image of a vertical bar. The next two plots show local energyand phase, where each curve corresponds to a frequency. The bot-tom plot shows that the maxima corresponding to two edge pointsmerge into one ridge point over frequencies or scales.
(a) input image (b) edged-regions (c) ridged-region
Figure 4. Image interpretation by edged- and ridged- regions.
(a) input image (b) edged-regions
Figure 5. Edged-region representation.
the sharpness of the edge. For the Witkin range, the highfrequency endω1(x) tells us how sharp the intensity transi-tion is across the edge. The low frequency endω0(x) tellsus how wide the two flat pieces of the step function canextend. Asx runs on the one dimensional edge curve, theresulting cross-section profile sweeps an edged-region withthe edge curve being the mid-axis.
See Fig.4 and Fig.5 for illustrations of edged-region
representation. An edged-region is composed of two seg-ments of smooth sub-regions, colored by grey and greenrespectively in the above two figures. The two sub-regionsare separated by an edge curve. The widths or breadths ofthe two sub-regions are decided by the low frequency endω0(x) of the Witkin range. The sharpness of the segmenta-tion is decided by the high frequency endω1(x). That is, bycombining the Gabor edge information across frequencies,we essentially perform a local image segmentation, wherethe Gabor filters at different frequencies explore the twosub-regions being segmented by the edge. This enables usto not only detect the edge, but also recognize the edged-region. The edged-region representation combines both theedge concept and the region concept, which are two mostprominent representations in low- and mid- level vision.
Viewed in frequency domain, an edged-region is a com-position of Gabor wavelets across the Witkin range of fre-quencies, or an edged-region spans a range of frequencies.
The Witkin range transforms in a simple way during thescaling process. When we zoom out the image by a factor ofs, the Witkin range(ω0, ω1) will be scaled to(sω0, sω1). Sothe edged-region becomes thinner and sharper by a factor ofs.
An interesting observation is that, due to finite resolutionof the image, the Witkin range(sω0, sω1) will eventually gobeyond the frequency limit of the camera resolution ass in-creases, and the edged-region will be shredded and leakedout. This can explain the transition from geometric struc-tures to stochastic textures, as we will study later.
3.2. Definition of Witkin range of phase congruency
In 2D images, tracing the edge points can be difficult.Recall that the phase congruency function (2) is defined foreach pixel without tracing. Similarly, we can also define theWitkin range of phase congruency without tracing the edgepoint. The following is our version of definition.
The Witkin range is defined on scale-maximum edgepoints. An edge point(x, ω) is a scale-maximum edge pointif 1) (x, ω) is an edge point at frequencyω in the sense ofinequality (6); 2) it is also a local maxima in scale or fre-quency domain:
Aω(x) ≥ Aω(x), ∀ω ∈ (ω − δ, ω + δ), (7)
i.e., a small neighborhood ofω. 3) Its phaseφω(x) is dom-inated by sine component of the Gabor filter. The scale-maximum edge points transform in a simple way duringimage scaling.
For a scale-maximum edge point(x, ω), we define itsWitkin range(ω0, ω1) as a continuous range of frequenciesω aroundω so that∇ωu(x) has almost constant magnitude,phase and orientation. Specifically, let
Ω = ω : ∇ωu(x) ∈ ∂(∇ωu(x)), (8)
4
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
where∂(∇ωu(x)) is a small neighborhood of∇ωu(x). Re-call that∇ωu(x) = [Aω(x), θω(x), φω(x)], i.e., magnitude(energy), orientation, and phase, see eqn. (5). In our imple-mentation,∇ωu(x) ∈ ∂(∇ωu(x)) if
Aω(x)/Aω(x) ≥ fA,
|θω(x) − θω(x)| ≤ ǫθ,
|φω(x) − φω(x)| ≤ ǫφ, (9)
that is, the magnitudeAω(x) should be within a factor (e.g.,fA = .8) of Aω(x), the orientation and phase should beclose to those of(ω, x) (e.g.,ǫθ = π/12, andǫφ = π/6).Then
ω0 = maxω ≤ ω, ω /∈ Ω,
ω1 = minω ≥ ω, ω /∈ Ω. (10)
We can translate(ω0, ω1) to Witkin width s0 ∝ 1/ω0, andWitkin sharpnesss1 ∝ 1/ω1. The proportion factor canbe chosen so that when applied to a bar structure with twoparallel edges (see Fig.3), the Witkin width should agreewith the half-width of the bar. It is clear that this proportionfactor depends onfA, ǫθ, andǫφ in (9).
Our definition of Witkin width generalizes the traditionaldefinition of width for bar structures to any geometric struc-tures. For instance, Fig.6 shows the edged-region plots ofa triangle and a circle. Here we only plot the darker sub-region of the edged-region. Specifically, at each edge pointx, we plot a black bar (1 pixel wide) of lengths0, i.e., theWitkin width of this edge point. The bar is perpendicularto the edge elongation, and extends to the darker segmentof the edged-region. Then the bars for all the edge pointsmake up the darker sub-region of the edged-region.
50 100 150 200 250
50
100
150
200
250
50 100 150 200 250
50
100
150
200
250
Figure 6. Edged-region representations of triangle and circle. Onlythe dark sides of the edges are plotted.
Fig. 7, Fig. 8, and Fig.9 show the edge-region repre-sentations of three natural scene images. Note that in our
implementation, there is an upper bound on the scale ofthe Gabor filters (or equivalently, a lower bound on the fre-quency), so there is an upper bound on Witkin width. That iswhy at some points, the Witkin edges are not wide enough.
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Figure 7. A natural scene image and its edged-region representa-tion.
The above definition of Witkin range is clearly scalemanifestative. If we scale the image by a factor, then theWitkin width and sharpness should scale in the same way,as long as they are above the camera resolution.
50 100 150 200 250 300
0
50
100
150
200
250
Figure 8. A natural scene image and its edged-region representa-tion.
3.3. Ridged-region representation
The top plot of Fig.3 displays the cross-section profileof a bar structure. A key point is that a bar structure isnot only described by the width of the central flat interval,but also the widths of two flat wings on the two sides ofthe central interval. So a ridged-region should have threesegments, corresponding to the central piece and the two
5
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
Figure 9. A natural scene image and its edged-region representa-tion.
wings respectively. For an ridge point, we can also definea Witkin range that can be translated to the width of thecentral piece and the width of the two flat wings. Due tospace limit, we shall not elaborate on this. We just wantto point out that the width of the central piece is intimatelyrelated to the Witkin width of the two parallel edges of thebar structure. But the Witkin width of an edge is a far moregeneral definition, because many edges are not edges of abar structure. For instance, the base line of the triangle inFig. 4, or the edge on the circle in Fig6, or the shorter sideof a rectangle.
The width of the edge structure and the width of the twoflat wings of the bar structure go beyond the important workof Lindeberg on scale selection for edges and bars [10]. Itappears that Lindeberg’s scales correspond to the sharpnessof the edge and the width of the central piece of the bar.
4. Unifying structures and textures
Geometric structures and stochastic textures are oftentreated separately in computer vision. Structures are usu-ally obtained by edge detection and image segmentation,while textures are mostly characterized by feature statisticssuch as histograms of filter responses [4]. However, struc-tures and textures are intrinsically connected by image scal-ing. Fig.10displays a sequence of images of an ivy wall of
leaves taken at increasingly far distances. At near distance,the geometric shapes of individual leaves are perceptible.But as the viewing distance increases, the image becomesmore complex and the individual shapes become impercep-tible, and the image can only be described by a collectivetexture summary.
Figure 10. A sequence of ivy wall images taken at increasingly fardistances.
0 5 100
5
10
15
20 starting scaleending scalescale range
0 5 100
5
10
15 starting scaleending scalescale range
0 5 100
2
4
6
8
10 starting scaleending scalescale range
Figure 11. Conditional expectations of Witkin width, sharpness,and range over scale. Plain curve shows starting scale or Witkinsharpness, circled curve shows ending scale or Witkin width, andcrossed curve shows the difference between starting and endingscales, or the size of Witkin range. Each plot is conditioned on aninterval of magnitudes of scale-maximum edge points. The mag-nitudes of the plots are in increasing order from left to right.
This suggests that geometric structures and stochastictextures should be treated in a unified framework. The dis-tinction between structures and textures is an artificial one,because the transition from structures to textures is a con-tinuous process caused by the continuous image scaling orzooming. It is therefore desirable to have a scale manifesta-tive quantity to trace this transition.
It has been a mystery how human being perceives thewide variety of texture patterns. Julesz [5], in his study ofhuman texture perception over nearly three decades, pro-posed two famous conjectures. The first conjecture is abouttexture statistics, and Julesz proposed co-occurrence statis-tics of image intensities. The second conjecture is abouttextons, which are considered as basic elements for texture
6
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
perception. We believe that image scaling holds the secretto this puzzle, and scale manifestative quantities must be acrucial ingredient in texture perception.
This can be seen even more evidently in Fig.12, wherethe texture surfaces of flower leaves and pebbles are slantsurfaces that appear in perspective. Clearly, our perceptionof the texture surfaces is not homogenous and we perceivea gradual change over distance.
The Witkin range of phase congruency can be used totrace the transition from structure to texture, as well as thechange of texture information over distance.
We pool the following scale manifestative texture statis-tics. Let (x, ω) be a randomly selected scale-maximumedge point. LetA be the magnitude of∇ωu(x). Let (s1, s0)be its Witkin sharpness and width defined in previous sec-tion. We experiment with the following three statisticalproperties.E[s0|A], E[s1|A], andE[s0 − s1|A], that is, theconditional expectations of Witkin sharpness, width, andrange. These three statistics can be estimated as follows.We divide the range ofA into several intervals. We collectthe scale-maximum edge points whose magnitudes fall intoeach interval, and then estimate the conditional expectationsfor this interval by corresponding averages.
Fig. 11 shows the change of conditional expectationsover the scaling process. We choose 8 images of the ivywall taken at increasingly far distances. We divide the mag-nitudes of scale-maximum edge points into three intervals.In Fig. 11, the three plots correspond to the three intervalsof magnitudes in increasing order, from left to right. We cansee that as the viewing distance increases, the Witkin width,sharpness and range decrease in general.
These plots also trace the transition from structures totextons and texture statistics. At near distance, we see rel-atively large edged-regions. As the distance increases, theedged-regions become smaller. This roughly correspond tothe texton regime in Julesz’s second conjecture. If the view-ing distance increases still further, the edged-regions willbe smaller than the pixel resolution, and they will be shred-ded and leaked out. Then there are no significant align-ments among filter responses, and we may just pool somemarginal statistics from the filter responses [4], since thejoint patterns have been largely destroyed by image scaling.This roughly corresponds to the regime of texture statisticsin Julesz’s first conjecture.
The Witkin width also indicates the size of the neighbor-hood that we should use to pool the texture statistics. Thelarger the Witkin width, the larger the local window shouldbe for spatial pooling.
The above statistics are also crucial for perceiving slantsurfaces such as those in Fig.12. Fig. 13 show the changeof conditional expectations of Witkin width, sharpness, andrange over vertical axis of the two images. It is possible thatsuch statistics can be used for re-constructing 3D informa-
Figure 12. Slant texture surfaces of flower leaves and stones.
0 2 4 60
2
4
6
8 starting scaleending scalescale range
0 2 4 61
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5 starting scaleending scalescale range
0 2 4 61
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8 starting scaleending scalescale range
0 2 4 60
5
10
15 starting scaleending scalescale range
0 2 4 60
2
4
6
8
10 starting scaleending scalescale range
0 2 4 60
2
4
6
8 starting scaleending scalescale range
Figure 13. Conditional expectations of Witkin width, sharpnessand range over the vertical axis in the two images in Fig12.
tion of slant texture surfaces.
5. Discussion
5.1. Contributions and open ends
The following are contributions of this article.1) Identify and define the Witkin range for phase con-
gruency, as a substitute for scale space tracing and phasecongruency function.
2) Define the Witkin width of edge point, and proposethe edged-region (as well as ridged-region) representationthat combines both edge concept and region concept.
3) Study geometric structures and stochastic textures ina unified scale manifestative framework, and define a set ofscale manifestative texture statistics.
The following are two major open ends of our work.1) The current version of Witkin range may not be the-
oretically or empirically superior to other possible alterna-tives. We hope this work will stimulate more researchers to
7
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
experiment with this concept and search for better versions.2) There are other image structures such as roofs, ramps,
as well as topological structures such as corners and junc-tions. The geometric scale parameters of these structuresshould also be estimated based on similar ideas.
5.2. Potential applications
1) Edge feature. Our method is not in competition withCanny [1] or other edge detection methods. Instead, itequips each edge point with two important scale parame-ters, namely, sharpness and width.
2) Edge-based object recognition. For instance, for anobject like a tree, the Witkin width is useful for identifyingtree trunk, branches and twigs, without resorting to sophis-ticated region-based analysis.
3) Tracking and matching. In real life, objects canchange distances from the viewer rapidly, e.g., a ball is com-ing, a dog is running away, or the scene outside the windowof a moving train. The changes of Witkin ranges help usperceive the change of viewing distances.
4) Texture recognition and shape from texture.
5.3. Connections to other vision theories
1) Sparse coding. Olshausen and Field [15] proposedsparse coding as a strategy for V1. Our work suggeststhat the sparse coding elements are compositions of phase-congruent Gabor wavelets or edged-regions.
2) Meaningful alignment. Moisan, Desolneux, andMorel [13] proposed meaningful alignment as a statisticalprinciple for perceptual grouping. Our work can be consid-ered as identifying meaningful alignment over scales or infrequency domain.
3) Natural image statistics. Portilla and Simoncelli [17]proposed a class of joint statistics of filter responses to char-acterize texture patterns. The Witkin range can be consid-ered a scale explicit characterization of the joint distribu-tion. Ruderman and Bialek [18] studied the scaling of im-age statistics of natural scenes. The Witkin range statisticsare worth of being investigated.
References
[1] J. Canny. “A computational approach to edge detection”,IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,8:679–698, 1986.3, 8
[2] J. Daugman, “Uncertainty relation for resolution in space,spatial frequency, and orientation optimized by two-dimensional visual cortical filters”,Journal of Optical Societyof America, 2, 1160-1169, 1985.3
[3] J.H. Elder and S. W. Zucker, “Local scale control for edgedetection and blur estimation”,IEEE Trans. PAMI, vol. 20,no. 7, 699-716, 1998.3
[4] D. J. Heeger and J. R. Bergen, “Pyramid Based TextureAnalysis/Synthesis”,Computer Graphics Proc., pp. 229-238,1995.6, 7
[5] B. Julesz, “Textons, the elements of texture perception andtheir interactions”,Nature, Vol. 290, pp. 91-97, 1981.6
[6] P. Kovesi, “Image Features from Phase Congruency”,Videre:Journal of Computer Vision Research, Vol 1, 1999.1, 3
[7] T. S. Lee, “Image Representation Using 2D Gabor Wavelets”,IEEE Trans. PAMI, 10, 959-971, 1996.3
[8] T. Lindberg, “Effective Scale: A Natural Unit for MeasuringScale-Space Lifetime,”IEEE-PAMI, v.15 n.10, p.1068-1074,1993.1, 2
[9] Lindeberg, “Detecting salient blob-like image structures andtheir scales with a scale-space primal sketch: A method forfocus-of-attention”,International Journal of Computer Vi-sion, vol. 11, pp. 283–318, 1993.1, 2
[10] Lindeberg, “Feature detection with automatic scale selec-tion”. International Journal of Computer Vision, vol 30, num-ber 2, pp. 77–116, 1998.6
[11] S. Mallat, “A Theory of Multiresolution Signal Decom-position: the Wavelet Representation”,IEEE Trans. PAMI,11(7):674-693, 1989.1
[12] D. Marr,Vision,W. H. Freeman and Company, 1982.1
[13] L. Moisan, A. Desolneux, and J.-M. Morel, “MeaningfulAlignments”, Int’l J. Computer Vision, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 7-23, 2000.8
[14] M. C. Morrone, J. Ross, D. C. Burr and R. A. Owens.Mach bands are phase dependent. Nature, 324(6094):250-253, 1986.1, 2
[15] B. A. Olshausen and D. J. Field, “Emergence of Simple-cell Receptive Field Properties by Learning a Sparse Codefor Natural Images,”Nature, Vol. 381, pp. 607-609, 1996.8
[16] P. Perona and J. Malik. Detecting and localizing compositeedges in images. Procs. ICCV, Osaka, 1991.1
[17] J. Portilla and E.P. Simoncelli, “A parametric texture modelbased on joint statistics of complex wavelet coefficients”.Int’lJournal of Computer Vision, 40(1):49-71, October, 2000.8
[18] D.L. Ruderman and W. Bialek, “Statistics of Natural images:Scaling in the Woods”,Phy. Rev. Lett, 73, 1994.8
[19] S. Venkatesh and R. Owens, “An energy feature detec-tion scheme,”International Conference on Image Processing,553-557, 1989.1, 3
[20] Z. Wang and M. Jenkin, “Using complex Gabor filters to de-tect and localize edges and bars,” inAdvances in MachineVision, 32, 151-170, 1992.3
[21] A. Witkin, “Scale-space filtering”, In Proc. InternationalJoint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Karlsruhe, 1983.1, 2
8