Home/ Questions/Q 8836057
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-06-14T09:24:15+00:00

Here with i have attached two consecutive frames captured by a cmos camera with

  • 0

Here with i have attached two consecutive frames captured by a cmos camera with IR Filter.The object checker board was stationary at the time of capturing images.But the difference between two images are nearly 31000 pixels.This could be affect my result.can u tell me What kind of noise is this?How can i remove it.please suggest me any algorithms or any function possible to remove those noises.
Thank you.Sorry for my poor English.

Image1 : [1]: http://i45.tinypic.com/2wptqxl.jpg

Image2: [2]: http://i45.tinypic.com/v8knjn.jpg

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    That noise appears to result from camera sensor (Bayer to RGB conversion). There’s the checkerboard pattern still left.

    Also lossy jpg contributes a lot to the process. You should first have an access to raw images.

    From those particular images I’d first try to use edge detection filters (Sobel Horizontal and Vertical) to make a mask that selects between some median/local histogram equalization for the flat areas and to apply some checker board reducing filter to the edges. The point is that probably no single filter is able to do good for both jpeg ringing artifacts and to the jagged edges. Then the real question is: what other kind of images should be processed?

    From the comments: if corner points are to be made exact, then the solution more likely is to search for features (corner points with subpixel resolution) and make a mapping from one set of points to the other images set of corners, and search for the best affine transformation matrix that converts these sets to each other. With this matrix one can then perform resampling of the other image.

    One can fortunately estimate motion vectors with subpixel resolution without brute force searching all possible subpixel locations: when calculating a matched filter, one gets local maximums for potential candidates of exact matches. But this is not all there is. One can try to calculate a more precise approximation of the peak location by studying the matched filter outputs in the nearby pixels. For exact match the output should be symmetric. Otherwise the ‘energies’ of the matched filter are biased towards the second best location. (A 2nd degree polynomial fit + finding maximum can work.)

    • 0