(a) Template image
(b) Target image
Target image
Target image
(c) Detection result of LLV (d) Detection result of Cognex DIP
Figure 6: Demo image and two detection results.
Figure 6 (c) (d) shows the detection results of the
image in Figure 6 (a) (b), where Figure 6 (c) is a
histogram representation of the detection results of
LLV, and Figure 6 (d) is a histogram representation
of the detection results of Cognex. Comparing these
two histogram representations, it can be seen that
both detect that the target image has more green and
less blue compared to the template image, which is
completely consistent with the test image. LLV
detected 46 out of tolerance tones, Cognex detected
46 out of tolerance tones, and the number of out of
tolerance tones was consistent.
2)Detect Offset Printing Images
Figure 7 shows the offset printing image, where
Figure 7 (a) is the template image, Figure 7 (b) is the
target image 1, which belongs to the same batch of
products as the template image, and Figure 7 (c) is
the target image 2, which is not the same batch of
products as the template image.
(a) Template image
(b) Target image 1
(c) Target image 2
Figure 7: Offset printing image.
(a) Detection result of LLV(Target image 1)
(b) Detection result of Cognex DIP(Target i mage 1)
目标图像
(c) Detection result of LLV(Target image 2) (d) Detection result of Cognex DIP(Target image 2)
Target image
Target image
Target image
Target image
Figure 8: Detection results of offset printing image.
Figures 8 show the detection results of the
images in Figures 7. For target image 1, LLV
detected 12 out of tolerance tones, while Cognex
detected 9 out of tolerance tones; For target image 2,
LLV detected 48 out of tolerance tones, while
Cognex detected 44 out of tolerance tones. The
number of out of tolerance tones is basically the
same, and the subtle differences are mainly caused
by different histogram filtering strategies, which do
not affect the detection results. For target image 1,
the detection results are all good; For target image 2,
the detection results are all defective products.
3)Efficiency Evaluation
Detection efficiency is also an important focus of
color detection tools. Test the efficiency of color
detection on the images in Figures 7, which image
format is 119×116.
The testing environment is a Pentium 4 CPU
with a main frequency of 2.8GHz, 1GB Byte of
memory, Windows XP operating system, and the
compilation environment is VC6.0 Release version.
Table 2 provides a list of the time required for color
detection by LLV and Cognex respectively. From it,
it can be seen that the time consumption of LLV is
equivalent to that of Cognex DIP.
Table 2: Time consumption for color space conversion
under different high-order byte
bits (ms).
Time consumption list LLV
Cognex
DIP
Sub item
time
consumption
Color Space Conversion 4.03
2.37
Histogram filtering 0.06
Histogram comparison and
out of tolerance detection
0.01
Total time consumption 4.10
6 CONCLUSION
From the aforementioned experiment, the following
basic conclusions can be drawn:
Capable of effective color detection of typical
demo images and offset images in Cognex
DIP;Under equivalent parameter settings, the
number of out of tolerance tones detected by LLV is
basically the same as the number of out of tolerance
tones detected by Cognex DIP. The time
consumption of LLV is equivalent to that of Cognex
DIP.
ANIT 2023 - The International Seminar on Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Information Technology