checkbox detect fails with sloppy crosses

[karolzak]

checkbox detect fails with sloppy crosses

[karolzak]

@FUF1 can you send it via email? Send it over to: karol.zak at hotmail.com

[FUF1]

karol.zak at hotmail.com

Yes, I sent it. 👍

[FUF1]

Tweaking the values with the suggestions of Karol resulted in a much higher success rate. Thanks again.

[karolzak]

Hi @FUF1,
Glad you found my package useful :)
BoxDetect should be perfect for your type of input. Try the following:

# 2nd step would be to try making sure this width and height ranges are correct for your size of boxes
# it's best to open something like paint or so and just manually validate that your boxes are in fact within this pixel range
cfg.width_range = (25,42)
cfg.height_range = (25,42)
# 1st step would be to change scaling_factors to something like [0.8] or [0.7]
cfg.scaling_factors = [0.75]
# you know you're looking just for squares so you can limit wh_ratio_range to something like: (0.8, 1.2)
cfg.wh_ratio_range = (0.8, 1.2)
cfg.dilation_iterations = 0

Do let me know how it went! Good luck!

[FUF1]

Hi @FUF1, Glad you found my package useful :) BoxDetect should be perfect for your type of input. Try the following:

# 2nd step would be to try making sure this width and height ranges are correct for your size of boxes
# it's best to open something like paint or so and just manually validate that your boxes are in fact within this pixel range
cfg.width_range = (25,42)
cfg.height_range = (25,42)
# 1st step would be to change scaling_factors to something like [0.8] or [0.7]
cfg.scaling_factors = [0.75]
# you know you're looking just for squares so you can limit wh_ratio_range to something like: (0.8, 1.2)
cfg.wh_ratio_range = (0.8, 1.2)
cfg.dilation_iterations = 0

Do let me know how it went! Good luck!

Hi @karolzak

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I had very limited time and tried your suggestion but didn't succeed. The program detected less checkboxes when i changed the scaling factor to something else than 0.5. I checked the size of the checkboxes and it was fine. So I had to write a test first, that checked through all sensible possibilities. My initial values seemed to be pretty close. scaling_factor = 0.5 and the selected width & height_range gave me the most detections for the testfile (but many other combinations did equivalent as well). Is there anything else to consider that it might work better? Thanks a lot!

[karolzak]

@FUF1 could you send me an example of one of your images? I'll try to run it with my code and see if I can crack it

[FUF1]

@karolzak Thank you for the generous offer! Is there a way to send it to you non publicly since the tests should not be distributed unnecessarily? I tried to erase the content, but then the program seems to detect different things.