yeah that’s right. one additional important thing is to do a second pass and collect patches shifted by 1/2 patch size. you want to do this to counter act any boundary effects that are occurring from the patching.
the center cropping of the original and this second pass both drop some of the outer boundary but it’s probably ok to ignore.
sorry, you can’t squash the original image, that’s the same as resizing and would loss almost all the information in the image. i meant what @mmarcial mentioned here ( Find au crop 22x22 in a scan 2500x3500 - #20 by MMarcial ) with respect to cropping out patches
As said before, I made 100 nappies with a number of true varroa varying from 1 to 50 that I sent very easily in edge impulse with the TXT in Yolo.txt format.
I got acceptable test results (42%) and I just published it:
2 Today, 11:23:44 Berny version 100 langes varroas seuls 66% 42% 93 items
this seems to work quite well and i am thinking of trying a version with 500 nappies to see if the performance improves
I will have to study your comments, thank you again
…
If I understand correctly, I have to cut a basic 2500x3500 image into 315 pieces de 160x160 and on each I have to apply the search create with 160x160 “images”, then eliminate the duplicates.
and to reduce the error due to the slicing interfaces I can also do a second slicing shifted from the first by 80.80, which will give me about 13 x 19 new crops to study. 315 + 247 = 562 explorations!!!
…/…
I even believe that to be perfect you have to immerse the 2500x3500 image in a 2560x3520 image that we cut into 352 (i.e.16x22)images of 160 at first then a second time an offset cutout of 315 (i.e.15x21) images, so a total of 667 images of 160x160 largely covering the base image and the interfaces , then apply the create search for 160x160 images and finally remove duplicates.
“Au boulot !!!”
…/…
What I don’t understand is why when I create the pulse, and test it on 2500x3500 images does it work perfectly?? (Model testing)
(I mean without cutting into sub-images of 160x160)
…/…
YES !
I test job passed on a crop of 160x160 !!!
ubuntu@vps-16be9656:~/essai_edge$ python3 edge_exemple_2.py
Loaded runner for “Berny / Langes complets avec varroas et non varroas”
Original Dimensions : (2106, 1530, 3)
Original Dimensions du crop: 1 (160, 160, 3)
Original Dimensions du crop: 3 (160, 160)
Original Dimensions du crop: 2 (160, 160, 3)
Found 12 bounding boxes (71 ms.)
varroa (1.00): x=120 y=0 w=40 h=32
varroa (1.00): x=64 y=40 w=8 h=16
varroa (0.80): x=104 y=48 w=8 h=8
varroa (0.62): x=120 y=56 w=8 h=8
varroa (0.80): x=112 y=88 w=8 h=8
varroa (0.59): x=24 y=96 w=8 h=8
varroa (1.00): x=80 y=104 w=24 h=16
varroa (0.94): x=8 y=112 w=8 h=16
varroa (0.89): x=56 y=120 w=8 h=8
varroa (0.96): x=24 y=128 w=8 h=8
varroa (0.88): x=120 y=136 w=8 h=16
varroa (0.89): x=144 y=136 w=16 h=16
ubuntu@vps-16be9656:~/essai_edge$ ^C
“Thank God, it’s Friday”
Merci beaucoup pour vos explications et votre persévérance
As Mr. Matkelcey stated “…FOMO runs fully convolutionally so can be trained at a resolution that is different to inference time, you just need to make sure that the pixel scale doesn’t change.” (I’m still trying to figure out intuitively what this means.)
Therefore it is not nessesary to train on 160x160 pixel images if the detection size of interest is not 20x20 pixels.
You basically understand how to chop up the original large image into smaller images for training.
There are many ways to chop up the image and handle the borders. For example, consider row 1 of an image that can handle 4.3 sub-samples. Of course we cannot have a 0.3 sample so we need to decide if we want 4 or 5 sub-samples per row. It comes down to what procedure we will use to place the Varroa in the image. Perhaps it is very expensive to collect this data so we choose to keep all data so we decide on 5 samples per row.
Note sub-samples 1,4 and 1,5 overlap. This is ok.
I also do not think you need to delete duplicate bounding boxes that may appear in multiple sub-samples. The same Varroa is in 2 different sub-samples but in different locations so I do not think over-fitting will be an issue. This would make a nice side project to study keeping duplicates versus deleting duplicates.
@matkelcey I fully appreciate the offset-shift to handle errors that might occur when creating sub-samples. In a previous life in another field we called this Grid Registration Error. Perhaps in this case we could call it Boundary Sampling Error (BSE) and the statment would be like, “To counteract BSE we create a second dataset by shifting the original Sample locations by 1/2 in the x and y dimensions”.
and, in very particular cases, shifting by 1/2 the patch size can still cause problems. the absolute best way, least biased, is to random sample patches, but it’s just a tad tricker to orchestrate.
we are looking for a square, whose side is less than 1024, which covers a maximum area and which causes the overlap to be greater than the size of the object sought
2500/3 = 835
3500/4 = 875
object of 22 => 875 + 22 = 897.
I therefore propose 900 to make it simple.
starting at the top left corner flush with the sides of the sheet, ending at the bottom flush with the side of the sheet.
in fact, the minimum seems to me 858.5 or 859 + 22 = 881 maybe less by scratching a little.
900 seems like a good number
…/…
Damn, I put 900 and that’s a bit much for the free version of Edge Impulse:
ERR: Estimated training time (6h 11m 5s) is larger than compute time limit (20m 0s).
Damn, I put 500 :
ERR: Estimated training time (2h 1m 20s) is larger than compute time limit (20m 0s).
Given the constraints of free access, I’m going to make a 272x272 tiling which gives an overlap of 22 10x14 patches to cover a scan of 2500x3500. The other limit is the number of iterations which is aloyrs of 35 max.
What I don’t understand is why when I create the pulse, and test it on 2500x3500 images does it work perfectly?? (Model testing)
(I mean without cutting into sub-images of 160x160 or other)
Here I did it with 272x272 patch.
you can see the trace of the 272x272 patch on the scan of 2500x3500
I find my Varroas well on a sheet used for the creation of the AI,
but the result is for the moment a little imprecise on an original sheet with varroas and traces (bee crots, pollen grains, etc.)
I hesitate:
So here it is, I tried the entire A4 sheet and the results are disappointing.
Still, I don’t understand, that’s why when I create the pulse and test it on 2500x3500 footage, does it work perfectly?? (Model test)
On the other hand, the way of focusing on the patches and then applying the patch to the entire surface is more promising. To calculate the size of the patch, I propose to take a value that makes it possible to divide the surface easily and to add to it the size of the object to be searched for in my case I homogenized the size of the A4 scans in 300dpi at 2500x3500 pixels in doing a resize, so I’m going with a patch of 250x250 (I could have taken 250x350) plus the size of the object (here 22x22 pixels) so a patch of 272x272 that I apply 10 times in width and 14 times in length to cover the 2500x3500 pixels with an overlap of 22 in both directions.
So I created 700 images of 272x272 with a 22x22 varroa placed at random and made the impulse whose result is satisfactory: 96% despite the limitation of the processing time to 20 minutes which also limits the number of iterations to 25 d:((
So it is towards a POC that I can orient myself: to prove that it is the right path without being able to reach it.
Frustrating!
Sutrout that as I am not an employee of a company, I cannot even ask for a pricing !
