EMVA1288 Standard

The European Machine Vision Association Standard 1288 is designed for unification of description digital photocameras and photosensors' characteristics. This is an open standard that provides a framework for estimation of camera's characteristics. The EMVA1288 standard is build modularly and contains all necessary recommendations and comprehensive mathematical formulation of how to measure and estimate photosensor's characteristics.

Every module of EMVA1288 Standard consists of mathematical model, the experimental setup, calculation steps and recommendations of how to publish the results of measuring. Currently (version 2.01A) there are two modules for the EMVA1288 standard: Module 1 "Characterizing the Image Quality and Sensitivity" and Module 2 "Linearity and Linearity Error".

In the Module 1 "Characterizing the Image Quality and Sensitivity of Machine Vision Cameras and Sensors", the procedure of how to characterize the temporal and spatial noise of a camera and it's sensitivity to light is described.

In the Module 2 "Linearity and Linearity Error" is described the method of estimation of area and linescan sensors/cameras for which the output signal is expected to be directly proportional to the impinging photon flux (exposure). Although this module is optional, it may be useful for estimation of the real dynamic range of the photo sensor.

The EMVA1288 Standard was re-typesetted in LaTeX format as the more appropriate format for scientific use. The latest LaTeX version of the EMVA1288 Standard can be downloaded from these mirrors:

• mirror1
• mirror2

As for concluding remark, I can additionally say that EMVA1288 Standard is useful not only for machine-vision cameras but for consumer-grade cameras, too. RAW data from the consumer-grade cameras, after appropriate conversion by such software as dcraw, can be used for characterisation of consumer-grade camera as a measuring device.

Interesting facts about snakes' vision

The more I know about vision systems of animals, the more I think that it is advisable to read and study biology and biophysics for specialists in artificial imagery. So the main topic of this post are snakes that have an ability of thermal vision.

Not all of snakes have an ability of heat vision, but some groups of pythons and rattlesnakes can see both in visible and in far-IR band [1]. Snakes use infra-red radiation with wavelengths centred on 10 micrometers (wavelength corresponds to emitted from warmblooded animals). As it was written in [1],

certain groups of snakes do what no other animals or artificial devices can do. They form detailed images of extremely small heat signatures. What is most fascinating is that they do this with receptors that are microscopic in size, extraordinarily sensitive, uncooled, and are able to repair themselves. Snake infra-red imagers are at least 10 times more sensitive than the best artificial infra-red sensors...[1]

Several papers give us better understanding of how snakes can actually see and attack preys using only heat vision. A brief survey of articles devoted to snakes vision as well as some thoughts are given further.

How does the snake see?

The detection system, which consists of cavities located on each side of the head called pit organs, operates on a principle similar to that of a pinhole camera [2]. Pit vipers and boids, the two snake types that possess this ability, have heat-sensitive membranes that can detect the difference in temperature between a moving prey and its surroundings on the scale of mK. If the radiation intensity hitting the membrane at some point is larger than the emitted thermal radiation of the membrane itself, the membrane heats up at that location [2]. The picture of such cavities is presented in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Snake's heat vision: a) head of a pit viper with nostril, pit hole, and eye, left to right. Photograph courtesy of Guido Westhoff; b) A pit viper's infra-red-sensitive pit organ works like a pinhole camera. The image from the paper [2].

According to the Planck radiation law as an approximation of the emitted heat intensity, 99% of the radiation is emitted at wavelengths under 75 micrometers and the radiation intensity is maximal at 9.5micrometers [3], which is within the 8-12 micrometers IR atmospheric transmittance window [4].

Because the pit hole is very large compared to the membrane size, the radiation strikes many points. Optical quality of the infra-red vision is much too blurry to allow snakes to strike prey with the observed accuracy of about 5 degrees. The most fascinating is an amount of heat-sensitive sensors and their precision:

In pit vipers, which have only two pit holes (one in front of each eye), a block of about 1600 sensory cells lie on a membrane which has a field of view of about 100 degrees . This means the snake's brain would receive an image resolution of about 2.5 degrees for point-like objects, such as eyes, which are one of the hottest points on mammals... [2]

If the aperture was very small, the amount of energy per unit time (second) reaching the membrane would also be small. The need to gather a reasonable amount of thermal energy per second necessitates the ``pinhole'' of the pit organ to be very large, thus greatly reducing its optical performance. If on the other hand the aperture of the organ is large, the image of a point source of heat is disc-shaped rather than point-like. Since, however, the size of the disc-shaped image may be determined by the detectors on the membrane, it is still possible to tell from which direction the radiation comes, ensuring directional sensitivity of the system [3]. The aperture size was probably an evolutionary trade-off between image sharpness and radiant flux [2]. Although the image that is formed on the pit membrane has a very low quality, the information that is needed to reconstruct the original temperature distribution in space is still available [3].

So how a snake could possibly use such poorly focused IR input to find its prey in darkness with a surprising angular precision of 5 degrees? How the snake may be able to extract information on the location of the prey from the blurred image that is formed on the pit-membrane?

What does the snake see?

Without the ability of real-time imaging the IR organ would be of little use for the snake. So Dr. van Hemmen proved that it is possible to reconstruct the original heat distribution using the blurred image on the membrane [3].

The image on the membrane resulting from the total heat distribution in space will be some complicated shape that consists of the superposition of the contributions of all heat sources [3]. A superposition of edge detectors in the brain can now reconstruct the heat distribution by using the whole image on the membrane for each point in space to be reconstructed. So reconstruction is possible because the information is still available in the blurred image on the pit membrane, where the receptors are [2]. As a demonstration of the model, sample image (see Fig. 2) was used.

Figure 2: The famous hare by Durer (left) was converted into 8- bit gray levels at a resolution of 32x32 (right). The image from the paper [2].

Since a snake has limited computational resources (all ``calculations'' must be realizable in neuronal ``hardware'') the reconstruction model must be simple. Our model [5] thus uses only one computational step (it is noniterative) to estimate the input image from the measured response on the pit membrane. It resembles a Wiener filter and is akin to, but different from, some of the algorithms used in image reconstruction [6].

So it is highly remarkable that snakes can perform some kind of an image processing, like our artificial devices based on ``wavefront coding''[7,8] and ``pupil engineering''[9,10] techniques.

Image processing in nature

There was developed a neuronal algorithm [11] that accurately reconstructed the heat image from the membrane. The most vital requirements is accurate detectors and the ability to detect edges in the images produced on the pit membrane [2]. That is similar to the situation with ``wavefront coding'' devices: the dynamic range and accuracy of the ADC is much more important than it is much more important than an amount of elements.

I would like to introduce an analogy here: such imaging is like drawing a picture on a sand. The more fine the sand, the more accurate and delicate pictures one can draw. That is the case of high dynamic range of the detector. And vice versa: on a coarse and stony sand it is difficult to draw a fine tracery that is the case of low dynamic range's detector [12,13].

But let us get back to the model of snakes vision:

The model has a fairly high noise tolerance. For input noise levels up to 50%, the hare is recognizable. Sensitivity to measurement errors is larger. In our calculations, one pixel of the reconstructed image corresponds to about 3 degrees . For detector noise levels up to about 1% of the membrane heat intensity, a good reconstruction is possible, meaning that the edge of the hare may be determined with about one pixel accuracy. At detector noise levels beyond about 1%, the image is not so easily recognizable, but the presence of an object is still evident...[5]

The assumptions that went into the calculations are a ``worst case scenario''. For instance, we assumed [3] that the input to the pit organ is totally uncorrelated, meaning that the snake has no idea what heat distribution to expect. In reality, important information about the environment is always available. For example, typical temperature and size of a prey animal may be encoded in the neuronal processing structure. If the snake ``knows'' what kind of images to expect, the reconstruction process can be enhanced considerably [3].

How does the reconstruction matrix become imprinted on the snake's neural circuitry in the first place? ``It can't be genetic coding,'' says van Hemmen. ``The snake would need a suitcase full of genes to encode such detail. Besides we know that snakes ...need a season of actual learning, not just anatomical maturation, to acquire their extraordinary skills.''... [11]

On the Fig. 3 it is shown a deconvolution results that give us a concept of the snakes vision capabilities.

Figure 3: On the left, this figure displays the membrane heat intensity as captured by the ``pithole camera''. On the right are reconstructions for four different membrane noise levels. The pit membrane was taken as a flat square containing 41x41 receptors. The model works equally well if applied to other membrane shapes. The membrane noise term was taken to be Gaussian with SIGMA= 25, 100, 200, and 500 from left to right and top to bottom, corresponding to 0.25%, 1%, 2%, and 5% of the maximal membrane intensity. The image from the paper [2]

Ultimately, a snake's ability to utilize information from the pit organs depends on its capability to detect edges in the image produced on the pit membrane. If the snake performed no reconstruction, but instead simply targeted bloblike ``hot spots'' on the membrane, it would still have to be able to discern the edge of the blob. The present model performs edge detection for all spatial positions and hence automatically creates a full reconstruction. A level of neuronal processing beyond what is represented in our model is unlikely to be beneficial since the quality of the system is fundamentally limited by the relatively small number of heat receptors.[5]

Conclusion

Snakes' heat vision presents such a clear image when reconstructed that it surpasses even many human devices - it is far better than any technical uncooled infra-red camera with a similar number of detector cells [2].

Bibliography

1

Liz Tottenham.
Infrared imaging research targets 'snake vision'.
web publication - Discovery: Florida Tech, DE-402-901:4-5, 2002.

2

Lisa Zyga.
Snakes' heat vision enables accurate attacks on prey.
PhysOrg.com, www.physorg.com/news76249412.html, page 2, 2006.

3

Andreas B. Sichert, Paul Friedel, and J. Leo van Hemmen.
Modelling imaging performance of snake infrared sense.
In Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica. pp. 219-223; M. Vences, J. Kohler, T. Ziegler, W. Bohme (eds): Herpetologia Bonnensis II., 2006.

4

David A. Allen.
Infrared: The New Astronomy.
Infrared: The New Astronomy, 1975.

5

Andreas B. Sichert, Paul Friedel, and J. Leo van Hemmen.
Snake's perspective on heat: Reconstruction of input using an imperfect detection system.
PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, PRL 97:068105, 2006.

6

R. C. Puetter, T. R. Gosnell, and Amos Yahil.
Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys, 43:139, 2005.

7

J. van der Gracht, E.R. Dowski, M. Taylor, and D. Deaver.
New paradigm for imaging systems.
Optics Letters, Vol. 21, No 13:919-921, July 1, 1996.

8

Jr. Edward R. Dowski and Gregory E. Johnson.
Wavefront coding: a modern method of achieving high-performance and/or low-cost imaging systems.
In Proc. SPIE, Current Developments in Optical Design and Optical Engineering VIII, volume 3779, pages 137-145, 1999.

9

R. J. Plemmons, M. Horvath, E. Leonhardt, V. P. Pauca, S. Prasad, S. B. Robinson, H. Setty, T. C. Torgersen, J. van der Gracht, E. Dowski, R. Narayanswamy, and P. E. X. Silveira.
Computational imaging systems for iris recognition.
In Proc. SPIE, Advanced Signal Processing Algorithms, Architectures, and Implementations XIV, volume 5559, pages 346-357, 2004.

10

Sudhakar Prasad, Todd C. Torgersen, Victor P. Pauca, Robert J. Plemmons, and Joseph van der Gracht.
Engineering the pupil phase to improve image quality.
In Proc. SPIE, Visual Information Processing XII, volume 5108, pages 1-12, 2003.

11

Bertram Schwarzschild.
Neural-network model may explain the surprisingly good infrared vision of snakes.
Physics Today, IX:18-20, September 2006 Physics Today.

12

Konnik M.V.
Image's linearization from commercial cameras used in optical-digital systems with optical coding.
In Proceedings of 5th International Conference of young scientists ``Optics-2007'', Saint-Petersburg, pages 354-355, 2007.

13

M.V. Konnik, E.A. Manykin, and S.N. Starikov.
Increasing linear dynamic range of commercial digital photocamera used in imaging systems with optical coding.
In OSAV'2008 Topical meeting, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, 2008.

Discriminative sensing

Recently I have red a very interesting paper [1] written by Keith Lewis about discriminative sensing. In this post I have selected most interesting ideas (from my point of view) as well as to share my thoughts.

Both natural and artificial vision systems have many points in common; for example, three different photo receptors for red, green, and blue bands of visible light or ability to process multi element scenes. But natural vision systems have significant advantage of pre-processing of images before processing and understanding by a visual cortex in a brain:

In general the biological imaging sensor takes a minimalist approach to sensing its environment, whereas current optical engineering approaches follow a ``brute'' force solution...[1]

This is a very serious problem: in case of in-vehicle systems, which requires real-time image processing, such ``brute'' force solutions are inefficient. Once you need to process images fast, you have to use powerful computers, parallel image processing algorithms, and symmetric multiprocessor methods. All of such ``brute force'' solutions led to increase of energy consumption of in-vehicle systems, requires more batteries, and eventually increasing size and weight of such dinosaurs-alike devices.

Further, the only one sensor is used in many cases of unmanned systems construction. Images produced by such sensor are tend to be redundant, excessively vast, and hence it is difficult to process them fast.

In the biological world, most organisms have an abundant and diverse assortment of peripheral sensors, both across and within sensory modalities.iMultiple sensors offer many functional advantages in relation to the perception and response to environmental signals....[1]

So I convinced that the next generation of imaging techniques and devices should use ideas and methods from natural vision systems. Indeed, it is sometimes useful to take lessons from the Nature as from an engineer with multi-billion years of experience.

Bio-inspiration

I have always been fascinating with insects - such small creatures that can distinguish and understand clogs and make decisions in complicated situations - more or less intellectually. For example,

...the fly has compound eyes, ...as well as the requisite neural processing cortex, all within an extremely small host organism. Its compound eyes provide the basis for sensing rapid movements across a wide field of view, and as such provide the basis of a very effective threat detection system...[1]

That's the main idea, I presume: only relevant objects are registered by small compound eyes and then understood by neural processing cortex of the fly. Interesting enough that there are much more complex vision systems exists even than human vision:

...a more complex vision architecture is found in the mantis shrimp[2]. Receptors in different regions of its eye are anatomically diverse and incorporate unusual structural features, not seen in other compound eyes. Structures are provided for analysis of the spectral and polarisation properties of light, and include more photoreceptor classes for analysis of ultraviolet light, color, and polarization than occur in any other known visual system...This implies that the visual cortex must be associated with some significant processing capability if the objective is to generate an image of its environment...[1]

In contrast, artificial systems are far less intelligent than ants or flies. For our unmanned systems, it is required to register all the scene at once, without understanding or even preprocessing it. Then using on-board computer systems, unmanned devices process such a huge stream of images by pixel-by-pixel strategy, without understanding of what kind of signals are relevant.

Although both natural and artificial vision systems use the same idea of tri-chromatic photoreceptor, the result differs dramatically. While animals are very good in recognition of preys or threats, artificial systems such as correlators and expert systems are relatively bad in making decisions. Primitive artificial YES-NO logic is not so flexible as natural neural networks based fuzzy sets of rules and growing experience of dealing with threats.

Such situation is very like a history of human's attempts of flight: for a long time people tried to get off the ground like birds. The success have came only after understanding the idea of flight.

Beyond a Nyquist's limit

As an example of non-trivial yet elegant approach, coded aperture systems are remarkable. Such idea can be applied both for visible [3] and IR [4] band. As it has been truly stated that such technique

...provides significant advantage in improving signal-to-noise ratio at the detector, without compromising the other benefits of the coded aperture technique. Radiation from any point in the scene is still spread across several hundred elements, but this is also sufficient to simplify the signal processing required to decode the image...[1]

It is noteworthy that analogous techniques such as ``wavefront coding''[5,6] and ``pupil engineering''[7,8] are applied in various optical systems, too. Application of such paradigms allows creating unique devices that combine both high optical parallelism and flexibility of digital algorithms of images processing.

It is clear that there is a little way to go yet before such computational imaging systems can be fielded on a practical basis...[1]

Moreover, such computational imaging systems are already here, in practical applications! Devices that are based on such techniques are used in security systems [9], tomography [10], aberrations correction [11,12] in optical systems, in depth of field improving [13], an so on.

It is curious that coded aperture approach can be found even in natural vision systems such as snakes vision [14]. These sensory organs enable the snake to successfully strike prey items even in total darkness or following the disruption of other sensory systems. Although the image that is formed on the pit membrane has a very low quality, the information that is needed to reconstruct the original temperature distribution in space is still available. Mathematical model that allows the original heat distribution to be reconstructed from the low-quality image on the membrane is reported in [15].

Instead of conclusion

There are no doubts that more and more approaches from natural vision systems will be used in artificial imaging systems. Hence the more we know about animals' eyes, the better we can design our artificial vision systems. I presume that in the near future, many of us are going to be constant readers of biological scientific journals...

Bibliography

1

Keith Lewis.
Discriminative sensing techniques.
Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 7113:71130C-10, 2008.

2

Cronin, T. W. and Marshall, J.
Parallel processing and image analysis in the eyes of mantis shrimps.
Biol. Bulletin, 200:177, 2001.

3

Slinger, C., Eismann, M., Gordon, N., Lewis, K., McDonald, G., McNie, M., Payne, D., Ridley, K., Strens, M., de Villiers G., and Wilson R.
An investigation of the potential for the use of a high resolution adaptive coded aperture system in the mid-wave infrared.
In Proc. SPIE 6714, 671408, 2007.

4

Slinger, C., Dyer, G., Gordon, N., McNie, M., Payne, D., Ridley, K., Todd, M., de Villiers, G., Watson, P., Wilson, R., Clark, T., Jaska, E., Eismann, M., Meola, J., and Rogers, S.
Adaptive coded aperture imaging in the infrared: towards a practical implementation.
In Proc. SPIE Annual Meeting, 2008.

5

J. van der Gracht, E.R. Dowski, M. Taylor, and D. Deaver.
New paradigm for imaging systems.
Optics Letters, Vol. 21, No 13:919-921, July 1, 1996.

6

Jr. Edward R. Dowski and Gregory E. Johnson.
Wavefront coding: a modern method of achieving high-performance and/or low-cost imaging systems.
In Proc. SPIE, Current Developments in Optical Design and Optical Engineering VIII, volume 3779, pages 137-145, 1999.

7

R. J. Plemmons, M. Horvath, E. Leonhardt, V. P. Pauca, S. Prasad, S. B. Robinson, H. Setty, T. C. Torgersen, J. van der Gracht, E. Dowski, R. Narayanswamy, and P. E. X. Silveira.
Computational imaging systems for iris recognition.
In Proc. SPIE, Advanced Signal Processing Algorithms, Architectures, and Implementations XIV, volume 5559, pages 346-357, 2004.

8

Sudhakar Prasad, Todd C. Torgersen, Victor P. Pauca, Robert J. Plemmons, and Joseph van der Gracht.
Engineering the pupil phase to improve image quality.
In Proc. SPIE, Visual Information Processing XII, volume 5108, pages 1-12, 2003.

9

Songcan Lai and Mark A. Neifeld.
Digital wavefront reconstruction and its application to image encryption.
Optics Communications, 178:283-289, 2000.

10

David J. Brady Daniel L. Marks, Ronald A. Stack.
Three-dimensional tomography using a cubic-phase plate extended depth-of-field system.
Opt. Letters No 4, 24:253-255, 1999.

11

H. Wans, E.R. Dowski, and W.T. Cathey.
Aberration invariant optical/digital incoherent systems.
Applied Optics, Vol. 37, No. 23:5359-5367, August 10, 1998.

12

Sara C. Tucker, W. Thomas Cathey, and Edward R. Dowski, Jr.
Extended depth of field and aberration control for inexpensive digital microscope systems.
Optics Express, Vol. 4, No. 11:467-474, 24 May 1999.

13

Daniel L. Barton, Jeremy A. Walraven, Edward R. Dowski Jr., Rainer Danz, Andreas Faulstich, and Bernd Faltermeier.
Wavefront coded imaging systems for MEMS analysis.
Proc. of ISTFA, pages 295-303, 2002.

14

Andreas B. Sichert, Paul Friedel, and J. Leo van Hemmen.
Snake's perspective on heat: Reconstruction of input using an imperfect detection system.
PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, PRL 97:068105-1-4, 2006.

15

Andreas B. Sichert, Paul Friedel, and J. Leo van Hemmen.
Modelling imaging performance of snake infrared sense.
In Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica. pp. 219-223; M. Vences, J. Kohler, T. Ziegler, W. Bohme (eds): Herpetologia Bonnensis II., 2006.