Extracting Information from Video Nichole Burgett Emily Ericson - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

extracting information from video
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Extracting Information from Video Nichole Burgett Emily Ericson - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Extracting Information from Video Nichole Burgett Emily Ericson Background No way to get information out of videos currently Research is being done on algorithms for scene change detection Parallel algorithms written to process


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Extracting Information from Video

Nichole Burgett Emily Ericson

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Background

No way to get information out of videos

currently

Research is being done on algorithms for

scene change detection

Parallel algorithms written to process

videos

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Frames in Videos

Intra-coded (I) frames Predicative-coded (P) frames Bidirectionally-coded (B) frames DC-coded (D) frames

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Scene Changes

Gradual scene changes Abrupt scene changes

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Detection Algorithms

Nagasaka and Tanaka Algorithm

Compares difference between windows in frames 90% success rate with abrupt changes

Other Abrupt Detection Algorithms

Otsuji – changes in brightness within pixels Akutusu – velocity of images in frames Hsu – Gaussian and mean curve of various surfaces

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Detection Algorithms

Gradual scene change algorithms

Tonomura

Detects both types of changes Uses frames before and after current frame

Zhang

Template matching Likelihood ratio between two images Histogram comparison x squared histogram comparison

2

x 2 x

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Detection Algorithms

Gradual scene changes

Shahraray

Motion-controlled temporal filtering More consistant with human judgement

Zabih

Edge-changing fraction Deals with fades, dissolves, and wipes

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Scene Changes in Compressed Video

MPEG Algorithm

Yeo and Liu Template matching and color histogram Gradual and abrupt

JPEG Algorithm

Arman DC coefficients

Problems with Compressed Video

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Top Down Approach

Use models of a system to create

algorithm

Hampapur’s production model

88% success rate

Aigrain and Joly’s motion difference model

94-100% for abrupt 80% for gradual

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Determining Algorithm’s Success

No set criteria Authors propose criteria including:

CPU time Success in finding changes Avoiding false detections Types of scene changes Applications algorithm runs on Types of video algorithm can run on

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Two Approaches

Approach One

DC frames Y,U, and V components

Drastic lighting differences in consecutive frames

Motion Vectors

Used to detect Pans and Zooms

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Two Approaches

Approach Two

DC image strips

Horizontal, Vertical and Diagonal strips are

extracted from each frame

The strips are pieced together to form three 2-D

images

Both gradual and abrupt scene changes are

computed based on the shape of the boundaries between images

Motion not detected

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Parallel Processing of Videos

Authors took two approaches in designing

algorithms

Tested each approach for three levels:

GOP – Group of Pictures Frame Slice

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Evaluation of Algorithms

First determined analytically Second did actual tests

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Experimental Results

Similar to our homework testing Compiled the algorithms and tested with

various test cases

Results showed that algorithms ran best

the GOP level

Frame and slice were similar

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Approach 1 GOP Level

Done on task queue size of 32 and 48 Similar results

Maximum number of processors is 32 Entering item into queue takes more time than

processing frame

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Speedup graph

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Approach 2 GOP Level

Similar to Approach 1 GOP level Synchronization overhead increases as

the number of processes increase

Again because of time to process frame

versus time to insert work into the queue

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Speedup and synchronization

  • verhead
slide-20
SLIDE 20

Approach 1 Frame Level

Tested on 32 frames and 48 frames Results were suboptimal due to overhead

in parallelization

Speedup stops after 12 processes

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Speedup

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Approach 2 Frame Level

Similar to Approach 1, no significant

speedup after 12 processes

Again due to synchronization overhead

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Speedup and overhead

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Approach 1 Slice Level

4 frame resolutions

32 64 96 128

2 task queue sizes

32 48

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Approach 1 Slice Level

Performs worse than GOP, better than

frame

Has synchronization overhead

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Speedup

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Approach 2 Slice Level

Performance declines after 12 processes Similar to Approach 1 for Slice Level

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Speedup and overhead

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Future Work

Implementing criteria to judge algorithms Algorithms for different formats Commercial products like TiVo

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Questions?