Comments on: Corresponding labeled objects in two images http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/04/21/corresponding-labels/ Steve Eddins manages the Image & Geospatial development team at <a href="http://www.mathworks.com/">The MathWorks</a> and coauthored <a href="http://www.mathworks.com/support/books/book5291.html?category=-1&language=-1">Digital Image Processing Using MATLAB</a>. He writes here about image processing concepts, algorithm implementations, and MATLAB.<br><br><img> Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:44:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Steve http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/04/21/corresponding-labels/#comment-22077 Steve Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:16:53 +0000 http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/04/21/corresponding-labels/#comment-22077 Michael—If these labeled objects came from <tt>bwlabel</tt> or <tt>bwconncomp</tt>, then they are already apart. You can use <tt>imerode</tt> on the whole image at once to shrink all the objects further. If the labeled objects are actually touching, can you say more about how you computed them? Michael—If these labeled objects came from bwlabel or bwconncomp, then they are already apart. You can use imerode on the whole image at once to shrink all the objects further. If the labeled objects are actually touching, can you say more about how you computed them?

]]> By: Michael Habib http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/04/21/corresponding-labels/#comment-22065 Michael Habib Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:46:16 +0000 http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/04/21/corresponding-labels/#comment-22065 Hi, Is there a way to 'imeorde' merged labeled objects to set them apart. I found that 'imerode', and 'imdilate' treat the labeled image as a binary image. I know I can do it through a loop, but it gives poor performance, as I have tens of thousands of objects. thanks Michael Hi,
Is there a way to ‘imeorde’ merged labeled objects to set them apart. I found that ‘imerode’, and ‘imdilate’ treat the labeled image as a binary image. I know I can do it through a loop, but it gives poor performance, as I have tens of thousands of objects.

thanks

Michael

]]> By: Steve http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/04/21/corresponding-labels/#comment-21632 Steve Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:17:49 +0000 http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/04/21/corresponding-labels/#comment-21632 Shoeb—There's nothing in the Image Processing Toolbox that will do that for you automatically. You'll have to do some algorithm development on your own. I'd start my searches with something like "object tracking" and "blob analysis." Shoeb—There’s nothing in the Image Processing Toolbox that will do that for you automatically. You’ll have to do some algorithm development on your own. I’d start my searches with something like “object tracking” and “blob analysis.”

]]> By: Shoeb http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/04/21/corresponding-labels/#comment-21600 Shoeb Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:07:07 +0000 http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/04/21/corresponding-labels/#comment-21600 Great post Steve! I have one question. Is it possible to do the same thing with labeled objects that moves in the next image? For example, I have series of images where my region of interest is slowly moving with time. Sometimes one breaks into 2 and sometimes 2 merge into one. Other times that moves slowly from its starting point. Is there any way to identify a particular object in all the images? Thanks in advance! Great post Steve! I have one question. Is it possible to do the same thing with labeled objects that moves in the next image?

For example, I have series of images where my region of interest is slowly moving with time. Sometimes one breaks into 2 and sometimes 2 merge into one. Other times that moves slowly from its starting point. Is there any way to identify a particular object in all the images?

Thanks in advance!

]]> By: Steve http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/04/21/corresponding-labels/#comment-20646 Steve Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:31:12 +0000 http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/04/21/corresponding-labels/#comment-20646 Brett—Thanks. Brett—Thanks.

]]> By: Brett Shoelson http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/04/21/corresponding-labels/#comment-20645 Brett Shoelson Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:23:55 +0000 http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/2008/04/21/corresponding-labels/#comment-20645 Nice post, Steve. In fact, very nice series on labeling. For completeness on this entry, I thought I'd point out that if you don't specifically need the visual of the adjacency graph, you can easily get the same information (which image 1 objects were relabeled 6 in image 2?) directly from the calculation of pairs: >> pairs(pairs(:,2)==6) ans = 9 10 Also, one might not always be looking for how objects relabeled in image 2 correspond to original labels in image 1. Sometimes one might want to know how an object labeled 9 in image 1, for instance, was relabeled in image 2: >> find(S(9,:)) ans = 6 Or: >> pairs(pairs(:,1)==9,2) ans = 6 Nice post, Steve. In fact, very nice series on labeling.

For completeness on this entry, I thought I’d point out that if you don’t specifically need the visual of the adjacency graph, you can easily get the same information (which image 1 objects were relabeled 6 in image 2?) directly from the calculation of pairs:

>> pairs(pairs(:,2)==6)
ans =
9
10

Also, one might not always be looking for how objects relabeled in image 2 correspond to original labels in image 1. Sometimes one might want to know how an object labeled 9 in image 1, for instance, was relabeled in image 2:

>> find(S(9,:))
ans =
6

Or:

>> pairs(pairs(:,1)==9,2)
ans =
6

]]>