> >>> There are a number of free tools for image matching but it's not very > >>> easy to decipher the actual algorithm from the code that includes db > >>> management, GUI, etc, etc. I have my own image database and GUI so all > >>> I need is the actual algorithm preferably in pseudo code and not in > >>> the form of a research paper (from which I also found a lot but since > >>> I'm not that much interested in the actual science of image > >>> recognition this seems like an over kill). > >>> > >> I'd recommend SIFT. There's quite a bit of information on SIFT. In most > >> cases, they don't cover the background science too much, but are still > >> heavy on the math. Pseudo code is hard to come by since it will take > >> many lines of pseudo code just to express one concise mathematical > >> equation. There are however many links to implementations in various > >> languages on the Wikipedia page. > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-invariant_feature_transform > >> > >> I have had good experiences with SIFT for feature extraction from images > >> (I have used it for panorama stitching and robot mapping). It's > >> insensitive to scale and rotation. Note that it is a patented algorithm > >> and this may (or may not) pose a problem for you. > >> > > > > Thanks for the info! SIFT really looks like a heavy weight solution, > > but do you think the whole concept can be simplified if all I needed > > was: given a photo, find similar ones? I mean SIFT first detects > > objects on the image and find similarities, but I don't need the > > detection part at all, all I care about is similarity for the whole > > photo. I surely don't understand the big picture fully but just have > > the general feeling that SIFT and other expert tools are an overkill > > for me and a simplified version would be just as good with a much more > > easily comprehensible core algorithm. > > > > Or am I being too optimistic and there is no way out of going into the > details? > > > > > Using the histogram of the picture may be good enough for your > application. Here's something I put together for comparing images (for > purposes of detecting motion) taken by the built-in web cam in my > Macbook Pro. This might be good enough if you play with the threshold. > > > """ > I'm writing a simple little app for doing motion detection with data > output from wacaw, a package for MacOSX. You could easily modify this > script to get data output from some other source.
Thanks Shane, this is simple enough indeed, which is great. I'll give this a try and maybe it'll be good enough for me. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
