machin vision in agriculture (farsi)

8/14/2019 machin vision in agriculture (farsi)

1/40

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

1991 1.

:

2

).42004 3(

.

.

.

.

Novini

12

contrast3Cheng Jin Du4Da Wen Sun


2/40

5ET23MRI4CT 1CCD

).2004 (

- CCD

. .

CCD - CCD .

. .

7 6

8 .

.)1381 )

: CCD

CCD .

( CCD 2-2. 2004.(

1 Charge Coupled Device2 Ultrasound3 Magnetic Resonance Imaging4 Computed Tomography5

Electrical Tomography6Frame stone7Frame Grabber


3/40

).2004 ( CCD :2-2

Pontual et al.(1998) Jung and Fred (2002) Crassostrea

Zion et al.(1999)

Leemans et al. (1999)

Beyer et al. (2002)

Ruiz et al. (1996)

Pearson & Slaughter (1996)

Wan et al. (2002)

Utku and Koksel (1998)

LI et al. (1999)

Lu et al. (2000)

Park et al. (2002)

Ringey et al. (1992)

Coppenolle et al. (2002)

Wang & Sun (2001)

Hatcher & Symons (2000

nm620-400 1992 1. CCD

. 2 CCD

32002 .

CCD

).2004 ( nm840

1

Rigey2contrast3Li


4/40

. 1

. CCD4 CCD6

.180 .

.

.

2( )nm1400-380( NIRCCD

2005(.

CCD 3

. RGB

1-2. 256RGB .

.)2003 4(480640

)2003 ) :1-2

-

. CCD

:

. .

MRIETCT )

2004.( .

1Okayama2

Kondo3offline4Yasuo Saito


5/40

-1

A .

B

. .

MRI-2

.

MRI .

)22002 1(

MRI

MRI .

3-2.

).2004 )

).2004 ( MRI :3-2

Nott et al. (1999)

Clark et al. (1998)

Zion et al. (1995)

Evans et al. (2002)

Song and Litchfield (1994)

Takeuchi et al. (1997)

Song et al. (1998)

Davenel et al. (2000)

Duce et al. (1992)

Martens et al. (2002)

1Rafael C. Gonzalez2Richard E. Woods


6/40

CT-3

. CAT CT

( X CT

).

CT .

X

X

.

).2004 )

:

CT 4-2).2004 .) .

).2004 ( CT :4-2

Romvari et al. (2002

Rye (1991

Eien et al. (1998

Tollner et al. (1992)

Sonego et al. (1995

Barcelon et al. (1997)

Barcelon et al. (1999)

Brech et al. (1991)

Remignon et al. (1997)

Tao and Ibarra (2000)

Kolstad (2001)


7/40

ET-4

ET

EMT3.ERT1ECT2

. .

( EMTERTECT

2004.(

. ET MRICT CCD

.

.

.

.

.

(

2004.( .

.

. -

( .

1385(.

:

.1

1

Electrical Resistant Tomography2 Electrical Capacitance Tomography3 Electromagnetic Inductance Tomography


8/40

.2

.

.

.)1385 ) .

.)1385 )

.

.

)2001 1995 )HIS1

. L*a*b

. HIS

1995 3. RGB2

. HIS RGB

. HIS

. 90% *L L*a*b

. *b *a

RGB

2000 5 4.

RGB . a*

b* ) 2004.(

6

.

.

1 Hue, Saturation, and Intensity2 Red, Green, Blue3Tao4

Vizhanyo5Felfoldi6 Local pre- processing


9/40

(

2004.(

.

1

2

1998 . 3

.

.

33 33 1998

. 4

:

.

24

.)1385 )

6. 5 :

.

. . 700400

.9 87:

.

.

- . . .

.)1385 )

1Utka2Koksel3Nonlinear Filtering4Golden Delicious5full color processing6pseudo color processing7

Radiance8Luminance9Brightness


10/40

.

.

.

. .

. .

.

.

.

. 3-233 .

: .

R=W1Z1+W2Z2++W9Z9= i

9

1i

i ZW

1-2

W3W2W1

W6W5W4

W9W8W7

33 :3-2

.Wi Zi

.

.

. 4-2

.

45 4-2 .

. -45

-1 4-2 R4R1R2R3

. 2

ji j ji RR


11/40


12/40

- .1

. .

. ). ( ): ( :5-2

.

-

: ))x,y (f(x,y 2-2

1Gradient


13/40

y

f

x

f

G

Gf

y

x 2-2

f ))x,y

. f

:

f = max(f) = [Gx2 + Gy

2 ]1/2 3-2

.f (f(x,y

:

yx GGf 4-2

.

((x,y f ((x,y .

: 5-2 .

)G

G(tan)y,x(

x

y1 5-2

. x

3-22-2 x

f

y

f

. .

.

: 6-2 .

Gx= (z7 + 2z8 + z9) (z1 + 2z2 + z3) 6-2

Gy= (z3 + 2z6 + z9) (z1 + 2z4 + z7) 7-2

)(

)) ((

). (33 ): (6-2Gx

). (33 Gy


14/40

. z

. 3-43-3

.

. .

-

: (f(x,y

2

2

2

22

y

f

x

ff

8-2

. 8-2 .

: 33 2f = 4z5 (z2 + z4 + z6 + z8 ) 9-2

9-2z . z

. z5

. .

7-2.

. 9-2

:7-2

. . .

7-2.

.

)2

yxexp()y,x(h

2

22

10-2


15/40

r2 . = x2 + y2 10-2 h r

:

)r

(h4

222

11-2

:

.

.

. 2h

.

.

.

: . .

.

.((x,y

.

:

.1

.2

))y,x . 2-43-2

: ( (x,y ((x,y

T)y,x(f)y,x(f 12-2

. T

))y,x . 5-2

: ( (x,y ((x,y

A)y,x()y,x( 13-2


16/40

. ((x,y . A

((x,y ((x,y

- . .

. .

:

.1

.2

.3

.4

.

.

1

. .

2

. .

.

.Z2 .

(x,y) . Z3 .

.

.

. 5-2

1Morphology2Pruning


17/40

:5-2

A z .

B

.

.A

A

. B

. A. A

.

-

.

HOM

-Ac B1

.

.A

A .

YA .

AC(A)

Conv

Xik=Xik-1

.


18/40

. A

.

-

.

.

. A

AS(A) .

-

A Sk(A)

K .

A

.

K

AB. X4

A.

X1

.

1

. .

:

2

3

1

Image Segmentation2 Thresholding-based Segmentation3 Region-based Segmentation


19/40

1

2

-

( . ).2004

.

.

3.

MRI 1995

.

.

54 . 1999

.

.

. NRFI

.

.

).2004 ( 2002

)GM( :

GM).)SM

1 Gradient-based Segmentation2 Classification-based Segmentation3

Zoin4Li5Wang


20/40

SM.

-.

.

).2004 (

2 11994

3 .

.

.

X 42001

6 5

. %3/99 .

.

.

7

. 9 8

( 10

1999(.

1Yang2 Flooding Algorithm3 Topographic4Casasent5 Blob-colouring6 Binary Watershed Algorithm7 Statistical8

Fuzzy logic9Neural networks10Leemans


21/40

. .

4-2.

.

).2004 (

:a: :8-2

) :b.

1999(

.

.

.

.

:

)1

)2

)3

)4

)5

)6

- .

.

.)2004 (


22/40

. . :

1 1997 .

. ) (

.

. ..

21992 .

1998 3 .

. .

41999 .

5

. 6

.

. .

.

).2004 )

6-2.

. 72001

.

.

1Cober2Vandevooren3Van Eck4Sapirstien5

Kohler6 Canada Western Red Spring7Miller


23/40

1997 1.

.

22001 .

1 6-2 4 3 2

. .

3 2 1 .

.)52001 43( 4

).2004 )

).2004 ( :6-2

rMinDiameteraxDiamete

AreaAreaRatio

.

rinDiamete

rMaxDiameteoAspectRati

Area

PerimeteryCircularit

2

2.4

PerimeterAreasCompactnes

rMinDiameterMaxDiametengeDiameterRa

2

2

1SemiMajor

SemiMinortyEccentrici

2

.4

Perimeter

AreaRoundness

2

.41

Perimeter

ArearShapeFacto

1

ArearMaxDiameterShapeFacto 2 2

33

raxDiamete

ArearShapeFacto 3

rinDiameteraxDiamete

ArearShapeFacto

..

.44

4

1Cober2Shouche3

Jahns4Nielsen5Paul


24/40

. 1

2

. .

.

).2004 )

31996 .

.

33

.

19981997

.

5 4 1999

.

.

. . ( . 1999

. )

2001 7).2000 6(

.

.

1 Fourier Descriptor2 Invariant Moment3Han4Paulus5

Schrevens6Currie7Shouche


25/40

. .

. . 1989

1

2

.

.

1998 .

. .

-

.

).1995 3(

4 1992 . .

8 71994 .6 5 :

.

1999 .

RGB

88% . RGB

2001 9.

.

11 101990 .

.

. RGB

1Miller2Delwiche3Choi4Casady5 Colour Choromaticity Coordinates6 Seed Sphericity7White8Sellers9

Ruan10Sheare11Payne


26/40

.

. 96%

.

.

2 .1

. 3

. .

.)2000 4(

12 10 25 .

. 3

.

.

- .

.

. . .

- ).2004 )

.

1 Co-occurrence matrix method2

Fourier Spectrum3 Fractal dimension : . 4Majumdar


27/40

1 2

.

. X

i G1,G2,,Gn

:

ji,n,...,2,1i),XG(P)XG(P ji 17-2

. X

:

.

: 4 3 1999

K . 79%

.

. .

:

f(x) = )1 ()2 (

(f(x 1 9-2

. 2

1 Statistical Classification2

Explicit Underlying Probability model3Red Delicious4Bisian


28/40

:9-2

:

o 18-2 .

)yx(H ii 18-2.(,Y = (y1,y2(,X = (x1,x2 yixi

o 19-2 .

n

1i

2

iieuc )YX()y,x(d 19-2

. n o 20-2 .

n

jjcb YXD 20-2

o 21-2 .

iisq YXMaxD 21-2

K2 1999 1

13 15 - .

0/99%2/98%2/96%0/99%2/98%

. 3

1

Luo2 K-nearest Neighbour3 Canadian Western Amber Durum


29/40

.

. .

12001

- .

-

.

.

.

.

-

.

.

.

BP

. .

:

.

.

2

. .

.

1Jahns2

Back Propagation


30/40

.

1986 3 21 .

.

4

. .

.

.

.

.

.

:

.

NET .

NET . F OUT .

:

)1(

1NETe

OUT

22-2

:

)1( OUTOUTET

OUT

23-2

. NET OUT .

. .

.

1

Rumelhart2

Hinton3Williams

4Parker


31/40

. .

NETOUT - ) NET(

.

. ) (

.

.

.

. .

.

.

A . A

.

A .

.

26 . .

-10-3

- .

.

.

:

) ( .1

.

. .2. .3


32/40


33/40

:

Q q

qkqk OUTtQ

E 2)(1

25-2

Q: .

q: .

tqk: q k.

E: .

5/0(

):

q

qkqk OUTtE2)(5.0 26-2

: Wpq.k

pjqkqkqk

qkpqqk

kpqqkpqqkqkqk

q

kpqqk

kpq

qkqk

qk

kpq

qkqk

q

qkqk

kpqkpq

OUTNETFOUTt

WOUTWWOUTFOUTt

WOUTFW

OUTt

OUTW

OUTt

OUTtWW

E

)()(

)()()(

)()(

1)(25.0

)(5.0

..

.

.

.

.

2

..

27-2

: qk

)()( qkqkqkqk NETFOUTt 28-2

:

pjqkqkqk OUTOUTtNETF )()( 29-2

)1()( qkqkqkqkqk OUTOUTOUTt 30-2

pjqk

kpq

OUTW

E

.

31-2

:

kpq

kpqW

EW

.

.

32-2


34/40

pjqkkpq OUTW . 33-2

. j p I o op

: j p

)()( .

.

o

jopoipjpj

o

jopoipj

OUTFNETFOUT

OUTNET

34-2

NETpj: p j.

OUToi: p j.

OUTpj: p j.p: j.

F(): .

: jop.

q

kpqqkpjoi

q

qkqkkpqqkpj

jop

q

qkqkkpq

p

pjkpq

p

pj

jop

q

qkqkkpq

p

pj

jop

q

qkqkqk

jopjop

q

qkqk

WNETFOUT

OUTtWNETFOUT

OUTtWOUTFWOUT

OUTtWOUTF

OUTtOUTE

OUTtE

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

..

2

)(

....

)()(

)()()(

)()(

)(

)(5.0

35-2

: pj

q

kpqqkpjpj WNETF .)( 36-2

:

q

kpqqkpjpjpj WOUTOUT .)1( 37-2

:

pjpj

jop

OUTE

.

38-2


35/40

:

ojpjjop

jop

jop OUTE

.

.

. 39-2

.

.

).2004 (

9 .

1 : : .)2001 )

97% .

2 .88%

1999

. . 3

1992

10 27 .

. 3

1997 .

.95% .

.

2000 54.

. X

. 8%-5%

1 Hard Red Spring2 Multilayer neural network3

Naneko4Kim5Schatzki


36/40

2002123 4

.

- .

100%8/93% .100%2/89% 1996 .4/94%7/89%

5

6 .

.

9/95% 9/8% .

19987 X

. .

.

.2% - 1%

1994 8.

.

.)1994 ) 6

1990 .

. 9

250 80

2002 .5/11%

.X

. 90%

.

1Kavdir2Guyer3Empire4 Backpropagation neural network5 Multi-structure neural network6 Feed-forward neural network7

Casasent8Arena9Brandon


37/40


38/40

. 6-2

).2004 (

).2004 ( :7-2

* *

*

*

* * *

*

*

*

* * *

* * * *

*

*

* *

*

* * * *

*

. 7-2

).2004 ( :8-2

Hu et al., 199889

Shahin et al., 199979

Kim & Shatzki, 200092

Ghazanfari et al., 19969/95


39/40

Luo et al., 199999

Paliwal et al., 200188

Luo et al., 1999

2/98


Luo et al., 199999


Luo et al., 19999/96


Tao et al., 200092

Park & Chen, 2000 1/91

Brandon et al., 19905/88

Jahns et al., 2001 -----

Shahin et al., 200290

Abdullah et al., 200479

Sun & Brosnan, 200392

:

.

CCDMRI.

CTET .

CCD MRI

CTET .

.

.

.

.


40/40

))GM .

. ))SM

. . .

.

.

.-

.

.

machin vision in agriculture (farsi)

Documents