CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++opencvhsv
DaBrain
DaBrain

Reputation: 3185

Efficient InRange in HSV with cyclic hue range

I'm trying to use cv::InRange() with a HSV-image. Because the hue value is cyclic I need to process min/max values where the min hue might be bigger than the max hue value. So far I used the following code to calculate the range mask:

cv::Mat InRangeMask(const cv::Mat &hsv, cv::Scalar min, cv::Scalar max)
{
    cv::Mat rangeMask;
    if(min[0]<=max[0])
    {
        cv::inRange(hsv, min, max, rangeMask);
    } 
    else 
    {
        cv::Mat rangeMask2;
        cv::Scalar min1(0, min[1], min[2]);
        cv::Scalar max1(min[0], max[1], max[2]);
        cv::Scalar min2(max[0], min[1], min[2]);
        cv::Scalar max2(179, max[1], max[2]);

        cv::inRange(hsv, min1, max1, rangeMask);
        cv::inRange(hsv, min2, max2, rangeMask2);
        rangeMask |= rangeMask2;
    }
    return rangeMask;
}

But this solution requires twice the time in the else case (in release with optimization). I think there can be a more efficient code with inverting the ranges or inverting the image in some way. But since I'm using a full hsv range and not just the hue channel I have not found a better solution yet.

What would be a more efficient implementation for calculating pixels in a hsv range? I'm sure someone already has a good solution for this problem. Using openCV functions or rewrite the algorithm?

Upvotes: 1

Views: 881

Answers (1)

BConic
BConic

Reputation: 8980

You can always rewrite the algorithm, which isn't that complicated for function inRange.

Another solution could be to simply use inRange when min[0]<=max[0] and otherwise do the following:

  1. slit the channels {hchan,schan,vchan} of your image using cv::split

  2. apply inRange to the three channels and get maskH, maskS, maskV

    • inRange(hchan,max[0],min[0],maskH)
    • inRange(schan,min[1],max[1],maskS)
    • inRange(vchan,min[2],max[2],maskV)

  3. recombine the three masks like this

    • bitwise_and(maskS,maskV,rangeMask)
    • bitwise_not(maskH,maskH)
    • bitwise_and(maskH,rangeMask)

But I personnally think that is an overshoot (and also less efficient than to rewrite the algorithm).

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions