1 / 12

mage registration by model criteria

mage registration by model criteria. R. S. Schestowitz, C. J. Twining, T. F. Cootes and C. J. Taylor. Overview. Non-rigid registration (NRR) Registration and models Experiments Models as a similarity measure Toward automatic appearance model construction Results Conclusions.

armani
Download Presentation

mage registration by model criteria

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. mage registration by model criteria R. S. Schestowitz, C. J. Twining, T. F. Cootes and C. J. Taylor

  2. Overview • Non-rigid registration (NRR) • Registration and models • Experiments • Models as a similarity measure • Toward automatic appearance model construction • Results • Conclusions

  3. Non-rigid Image Registration • Results in overlap of analogous structures. • Transforming (warping) images. • Evaluation using similarity measures.

  4. NRR - Problems • Results are arbitrary (not unique). • Objective function defines ‘goodness’ of a solution. • Many sets of warps provide equally good solutions. • The search method chosen affects the results. • Suffers from limitations in certain cases: • Inter-subject registration with structural difference. • Registration of sets of images.

  5. Registration and Models • Models of shape and appearance capture variation. • NRR closely-related to building combined models. • Given a registered image set: • Correspondences are known. • A combined model can be built. • Method for finding unique dense correspondence: • Find set of warps that lead to best model. • Best model defined by Minimum Description Length. • MDL approach developed for shapes. • Can be extended for combined models.

  6. Model Complexity • We approximate MDL to gain speed. • Infer from covariance matrix of model. • We obtain . • This approximates the determinant . • avoids multiplication by 0. • are the n Eigen-values of the covariance matrix whose magnitude is greatest. • Log simplifies calculation.

  7. Experiments - Data • To demonstrate feasibility, we registered 1-D data. • No difference in principle between 1- 2-, and 3-D. • We Investigated bumps (half-ellipses) that vary in: • Horizontal orientation • Width • Height • The correct solution is known. • Validation w.r.t. the correct solution.

  8. Experiments - Optimisation • Optimisation of the model-based objective function: • Carried out by applying clamped-plate splines. • Localised, random warps are applied • One image is transformed at a time. • Objective function is optimised w.r.t. warp magnitude.

  9. Results of Registration Before registration After registration Objective function • Result approaches the solution defined by the model.

  10. Resulting Models • The combined model captures variability. • Decomposes into 3 dimensions of variation. Before registration At correspondence After registration

  11. A Subset Approach • By stochastically choosing subsets: • Optimisation becomes more robust. • Solution is reached more quickly.

  12. Conclusions • Modelling need not be independent of registration. • Registration by models provides unique solutions. • Correspondence in sets is identified in the process. • Combined models are refined autonomously. • The process benefits from treating subsets.

More Related