Doctoral Thesis Image-Based Seabed Monitoring For Fishery Resource Estimation

2013 12 16
Doctoral Thesis
Image-based Seabed Monitoring for Fishery Resource Estimation

by
Koichiro Enomoto
Graduate School of System Information Science

Future University Hakodate
December 16, 2013
Abstract Recently, investigation methods have been developed to measure fishes using still images or
video from an underwater camera. However, these methods do not use automatic measurements from an
underwater camera. My research aim was to develop an automatic counting system for fishery investiga-
tion using underwater image.
The results of fishery investigations are used to estimate the catch size, times fish are caught, and
future stocks in the fish culture industry. In Tokoro, Japan, scallop farms are located on gravel and
sand seabed. Seabed images are necessary to visually estimate the number of scallops of a particular
farm. However, there is no automatic technology for measuring resources quantities and so the current
investigation technique is the manual measurement by experts. Automatic methods must be developed to
measure fishes or shells more quickly and investigate fisheries more accurately.
In this paper, I propose an automatic counting system to investigate scallop using seabed image and
seabed video. The scallop habitat is gravel and sand seabed. In gravel field, the scallop features are fluted
patterns, colored shells, and fan-like shapes. However, in the sand field, we can see only the shelly rim
because the scallop is covered with sand and opens and closes its shell while it is alive and breathing.
Therefore, I propose a method to detect the scallop for each fields. Additionally, I develop the software
to count scallop using seabed video and show an example of application such as fishery map or panorama
image.
On the basis of these discussions, I describe the proposed systems eectiveness.
Keywords: Scallop, Seabed image, Fishery resource investigation, Underwater technology, Image pro-
cessing
: DV
2007 62.5 km2 625 m2
95 % 91.4 %
GPS
:
1 7
1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2 11
2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3 21
3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4.2 . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.4.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.4.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4 37
4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4
Doctoral Thesis at Future University Hakodate, 2014
4.1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5 61
5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.2.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.4 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5.5 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.6.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.6.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.6.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6 94
6.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
97
5
A 106
6
1.1

[1] [24]
underwater technology
[510] 1,10,12,22,38,54,57
Dawkins HabCamII
HoG SIFT Real
AdaBoost [9, 10]
AdaBoost 38,54
GPS
1.2

7
1.1
1.1
8
1.1:
Proposed system for fishery investigation.
1.3

DV
9
10
2.1

2.1.1

Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO

52 %
32 %
[11]
[12]
[1315]
[15]
[13]
1996 TAC
[12]
11
2.1.2

TAC
100 % [4]

TAC
[1618]
[19]
12
2.1.3
DV
[24]
[2]
DV
[3]Bassett
[8]

DV
57Aguzzi
[7]
2.1.4
2008
147 27 % 2958 19 % 1
[20]2011 38.6
30.9 % 1 23.2 % 638 1
[21] 2003 1 kg
[22]
1 m2 34
[23]

[22] 4 4 1 1
[25]
13
2.1
[26]
[27,28]
47,58

[1]2013 62.5 km2 1

125 0.5 km2 1
5 625 m2 625 2
10
1
2.2
2.3 2.2
[1]
2.3
14
2.1:
Growth process of the scallop and the process of culture fishery.
2.2:
Illustration of discrete sample data using the seabed images.
15
2.3:
Illustration of non-discrete sample data using the seabed videos.
2.2
2.2.1

[2931]Preston
k-means [29] Laanaya

SSS
SVMSupport Vector Machine [31]

Treibits
[32]
16

[3335]Mehta SVM
[33]Gleason
[34]
Gesu
5
Aguzzi SIFT
[7]

DV
38,54
DV GPS
54Dawkins Habitat Mapping Camera System (HabCam) II

[9, 10]

2.2.2

Bernhardt
[35]
Gleason
[34]
DV
38,54

17
57 30200 m
80120 m
2.2.3

SIFT HoG
Hough [38]Zhao Sidla

[39, 40] D
47 D
Hough [41, 42]Hough
Hough
[43] Kitamoto Hough
Hough
Hough
[37, 45, 46]
2.2.4

[47, 48] [49]
18
GLCM:Gley Level Co-occurrence MatrixM. Robert

[50]
X
[51]
[52]
2.2.5

Kitamoto
[44]
X
[51]
DV
38
[5]
Dawkins Habitat Mapping Camera System (HabCam) II

[9, 10]
Real AdaBoost
90 %
AdaBoost
19
20
3.1
(Patinopecten yessoensis)
[53] 3.1
3.2 3.3 18 cm
[54]
3.3 2026
1030 m
[23,24]
/m2 6 3
5 2 [23]
shelly
rim 3.2
1030 m
21
3.1: [53]
Patinopecten yessoensis: Left image is the shell of right and right image is the shell of left.
3.2: [53]
Name of regions about clam.
22
3.3: [53]
Scallop is covered with sand in sand field.
3.2
3.2.1

3.4 3.5
3.6 1 m 1 m
3.5
3.4(b)

3.4(a)
3.6(a)
3.6(b)
23
(a) (b)
3.4: (a) (b)
Shooting state of seabed image on the ship.
3.5:
Simplified schematic of camera apparatus.
24
(a)
(b)
3.6: (a) (b)
Shooting process. Initial state: (a) metallic frame is sunk at investigation point. Shooting state:
(b) automatic shooting when metallic frame reaches seabed.
3.2.2
[55, 56]
3.7
3.8 1536 1024 24bit
1 m 1 m
3.5
25
4
3 2.1.4
[22, 24, 25]
3.7
3.8
26
The seabed image in gravel field

3.7:
27
3.8:
The seabed image in sand field.
28
3.3
3.3.1

3.9 3.10
DV 3.9
3.10

2 kn 3.7 km/h
3.2.1 1

3.2.1
GPS
3.9:
Simplified schematic of video apparatus for the seabed video.
29
3.10:
Seabed video apparatus.
3.3.2
3.11
1920 1024 30 fps 24bit
[57] [58]
3.2
30
31
3.11: 1 2
Sample of seabed video. In this image, there are a white asteroid on the left and a blue asteroid on the center.
3.4
3.4.1
3.1 3.2
3.12
3.1
4
5
8,10 1.2

3.13
2.1.4 GPS
3.3.1
GPS
5.5
5.6
12
32
3.12:
Proposed method to detect the scallop using the seabed image.
3.13:
Proposed system to count the scallop using the seabed video.
33
3.4.2

1
125
[1] 100 %
20 % 3 %
5 % 1 %

62.5 km2 1
125 0.5 km2
625 m2 1.0 m 5/ 125

93750 m2 0.75 m 1000 m
125150
20 %
3 %
5 % 1 %
2
150
3.2.1
34
3.4.3

10
2.1.4
10

[9, 10]
n
n
3.4.4

n X
2X S EMX
2X
S EMX = , (3.1)
n
35
CVX
S EMX
CVX = 100[%], (3.2)
X
a b
RT P
2Y
ab
2Y = , (3.3)
(a + + b + 1)
b)2 (a

Z 2Z
Z = X RT P , (3.4)
2Z = R2T P S EMX2 + 2X 2Y , (3.5)
CVZ
Z
CVZ = 100[%], (3.6)
Z
RT P
X 2X CVX
Z
X = , (3.7)
RT P
X
CVX = 100[%], (3.8)
X
n CVX
a, b C
2007 C
n = 583X = 5.4392X = 8.162S EMX = 0.1183CVX = 2.17 %
n = 1000, 2000 C = 30
36
4.1
4.2 4.1.2 3.2.2
4.4 4.5
4.1
4.1.1
4.1
4.2
4.1
5.1
3.1
4.2
37
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e) (f)

4.1:
Scallop area images in seabed image of gravel field (size:128 128).
38
(a) No.1 (b) No.2 (c) No.3
(d) No.4 (e) No.5 (f) No.6

4.2:
Gravel area images in seabed image of gravel field (size:128 128).
4.1.2

4.3
4.2.1
4.3.1
4.3.4
39
4.3:
Proposed method to detect the scallop in the gravel field.
4.2
4.2.1

(M, N) I (W, H) I
Ilocal Ilocal I
Ilocal L
L2
T hL L , (4.1)
T hL2 L2 (4.2)
T hL T hL2
L L2 Ilocal k I
Ilocal (W, H) = (32, 32) k = 32

L L2 4.4
40
4.4 L L2
T hL = 100 T hL2 = 2000

4.5 4.5
10000
9000
8000
7000
Luminance-variance
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Luminance-average
4.4:
Distribution of average lightness and variance in localized area of gravel seabed image.
41
4.5:
Results of the recognizable areas in the seabed image of gravel field.
4.3
4.3.1
4.1.2
Hough

4.1
I (x, y)
d
I(x, y) I(x, y) I(x 1, y), (4.3)
dx
d
I(x, y) I(x, y) I(x, y 1) (4.4)
dy
I(x, y)

I(x, y) = ( I(x, y), I(x, y))T (4.5)
x y
42
| f (x, y)|

|I(x, y)| = ( I(x, y))2 + ( I(x, y))2 , (4.6)
x y
I(x, y) I(x, y)
= arctan( / ) (4.7)
y x
Sobel Sobel
4060pixel
3 3 Sobel
4.6
4.3.1 Hough
180 4.7
4.7
-1 0 1 -1 -2 -1
-2 0 2 0 0 0
-1 0 1 1 2 1
(a) (b)
4.6: Sobel
Sobel filter mask.
(a) (b) (c)
4.7:
Process to extract shape information in scallop area
43
Hough Hough
[41, 42]
(x, y) 5
f (x, y, , , ) 4.8
Hough
Hough
4.3.1
3.2.2
, 26 , 34
/ 0.85 /
Hough 5
[45]
[37, 46]
26 , 34
50 %
Hough
4.8:
Ellipse anatomy.
44
4.3.2
4.1.2
HLS

10,000
R, G, B HLS
4.9 4.11
4.9 100 175
4.10 4.11
,
6 128 128 6
4.2 4.12
Hue Hue Hue

Hue 4.1 4.13
4.1(a) 4.13 135 170

4.1(b) 170
Hue
Hue
125 Hue 175 (4.8)
45
120000 420
Picture 400
Scallop 380
100000 360
340
320
300
80000 280
260
Frequency
240
60000 220
200
180
160
40000 140
120
100
20000 80
60
40
20
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue
4.9:
Comparing scallops and seabed image by hue.
60000 100
Picture
Scallop
50000
80
40000
Frequency
60
30000
40
20000
20
10000
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Lightness
4.10:
Comparing scallops and seabed image by brightness.
46
120000 300
Picture 280
Scallop 260
100000
240
220
80000 200
Frequency
180
160
60000
140
120
40000 100
80
60
20000
40
20
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Saturation
4.11:
Comparing scallops and seabed image by saturation.
No.1 No.2 No.3
No.4 No.5 No.6

4.12: 4.3.2
Object images of scallop area in Sect. 4.3.2.
47
4.1: 4.12 4.2

Results of hue mean and standard deviate of scallop area and other area.
No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6
Mean ( ) 139.1 139.1 133.2 156.1 152.9 164.5
SD 14.6 7.3 10.7 18.1 17.5 31.0

(a)
No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6
Mean( ) 208.4 230.9 174.8 175.4 180.5 174.1
SD 59.0 50.7 15.7 33.6 14.3 18.9

(b)
48
0.07
original data
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue
(a) No.1
0.03
original data
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hue
(b) No.1
4.13:
Results of hue histogram.
49
4.3.3
4.1.2
4.1
4.7
3 3
Sobel 4.3.1

4.14 4.14(b)
4.14(c)
4.14(b)
(a) (b) (c)
4.14:
Results of edge treatment. Objects image is (a), edge strength image is (b), and edge direction
image is (c).
4.3.3
[47, 48]

DFT
50
M N 2 I(m, n) m, n
m = 0, 1, 2, . . . , M 1, (4.9)
n = 0, 1, 2, . . . , N 1 (4.10)
0 I F(u, v)
1
N1 M1
F(u, v) = f (m, n)W1mu W2nv , (4.11)
MN n=0 m=0
W1 , W2
W1 = e j M , W2 = e j N
2 2
Fu,v P(u, v)
P(u, v) = |F(u, v)|2 (4.12)
P(u, v) (u, v)
P(u, v) (u, v) = (0, 0) r

r
P(u, v) P(, r)
P(r)

P(r) = 2 P(, r) (4.13)
=0
P(r) 4.15
P(r)
4.15 r P(r)
r
32 32
4.3.3
P(r) 4.16 4.17
P(r) 4.18 4.16(c) 59 Hz
4.18 79 Hz
4.16(b) P(u, v)
4.17
P(r)
L(x, y) r L(x, y)
PL (r)
A

kmax
A= PL (r), (4.14)
r=kmin
51
kmin kmax
L(x, y) 32 32kmin = 7, kmax = 9
0 kmin r kmax 16 A
TA A (4.15)
T A A
4.15: P(r)
Definition of fourier feature P(r)
52
(a) (b) (c)
4.16:
(a) (b) (c)
Samples of power spectrum in scallop image of brightness and edge direction. Object image is
(a), power spectrum image of brightness is (b), and power spectrum image of edge direction is
(c).
(a) (b) (c)
4.17:
(a) (b) (c)
Samples of power spectrum in other image of brightness and edge direction. Object image is
(a), power spectrum image of brightness is (b), and power spectrum image of edge direction is
(c).
4.3.4
4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3
4.3.1
4.8 4.15
53
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
P(r)
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
r
(a)
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
P(r)
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
r
(b)
4.18: P(r) (a)

4.16(a)(b) 4.17(a)
Results of fourier feature P(r).
Hue
3.1 4.3.2
4.4
4.4.1
128 128
28 104
normal
covered 28 normal 19
19 covered 9 10

T P T N
54
FP N scallop
RT P RT N RFP
TP
RT P = 100[%], (4.16)
N scallop
RT N = 100 RT P [%], (4.17)
FP
RFP = 100[%], (4.18)
T P + FP
3.4.4
4.4.2
4.19 4.20
4.19(b)
4.19(c)
4.21 4.2 4.21

4.2 normal
RT P = 95 %covered RT P = 70 % RT P = 86 %
RFP = 17 %
3.4.4
normal a = 18, b = 1
2Y 3.3
18 1
2Y =
(18 + 1)2 (18 + 1 + 1)
= 0.002493,
RT P = 0.9474 Z
2Z 3.5 3.5
Z = 5.439 0.9474
= 5.125,
2Z = 0.94742 0.11832 + 5.4392 0.0024932
= 0.08631,
CVZ

0.08631
CVZ = 100
5.125
= 5.7 [%],
55
n = 1000, 2000 C = 30
CVX 4.3 4.3 n = 1000 CVX = 2.2 %
n = 2000 CVX = 1.8 %
(a) (b) (c)
4.19:
(a) (b) (c)
Actual process using proposed method to detect scallop for gravel field: Object image is (a),
extracted image of the scallop candidate areas is (b), and result image is (c).
(a) (b) (c)
4.20: (a)
(b) (c)
Actual process using proposed method to detect scallop for gravel field: Object image is (a),
extracted image of the scallop candidate areas is (b), and result image is (c).
56
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e) (f)

4.21:
4.1
Samples of the detected scallop in the gravel field. Object images are those in Figs. 4.1.
4.2: 4.4
Experiment results in Sect. 4.4. Clear scallop is normal, and scallop covered with something
is covered.

normal covered
19 9 104
19 10 0
18 (95 %) 7 (70 %) 86 (83 %)
1 (5 %) 3 (30 %) 18 (17 %)
25(86 %)
57
4.3: 4.4
Evaluation results in Sect. 4.4.
a b n CVX
1000 2.2 %
540 30
2000 1.8 %
4.5

4.19(b)
4.20(b)
4.19(c) 4.20(c)
4.4
4.22
4.23 4.22 2
4.23

95% 4.2 normal 95 %
Dawkins
Rocky background
92.04 % [9]
4.4 4.3
n = 1000 CVX = 2.2%n = 2000 CVX = 1.8%
583
2000
17 %
1
Hough
10
2.1.4
58
Patiria pectinifera[59] Asterias amurensis[57] 4.24

4.24
(a) (b) (c)
4.22: 4.4 (a) (b)

(c)
Examples of error in scallop area: Object image is (a), extracted image of the scallop candidate
areas is (b), and result image is (c).
(a) (b) (c)
4.23: 4.4 (a) (b)

(c)
Examples of error in other area: Object image is (a), extracted image of the scallop candidate
areas is (b), and result image is (c).
59
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
4.24: 128 128(a), (b)
(c), (d)
Patiria pectinifera and Asterias amurensis in seabed seabed image.
60
5.1
3.2.2 5.2 5.3
5.4 5.5
5.6
5.7
5.1
5.1.1

4.1.1 3.1
5.1
5.2
5.1 5.2HabCamII
[9, 10] 5.2(a)(c) 5.2(d)
(f)
61
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e) (f)

5.1:
Scallop area images in the seabed image of sand field (size:128 128).
62
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e) (f)

5.2:
Scallop area images in the seabed video of sand field (size:450 450).
5.1.2

5.3
3.1
5.3

5.4
4.2.1
5.3.1
5.3.2
63
5.3.3 5.2 5.3
5.3: 5.1(a)
Definition of scallop area in the sand field.
5.4:
Proposed method for the sand field.
64
5.2
5.2.1

Mean-Shift
Median Gaussian
Mean-Shift [60, 61]
r s (hr , h s )
(hr , h s ) = (20, 15) Median
Median
3 3 Gaussian
Gaussian 3 3
128128 3 5.5(a1)
(a3) 5.5(b1)(d3) Mean-Shift Median Gaussian
Mean-Shift
5.5(b1)(b3)Median Gaussian
5.5(c1)(c3)
(d1)(d3)
Mean-Shift
Mean-Shift 5.6 5.6
65
(a1) (a2) (a3)
(b1) (b2) (b3)
(c1) (c2) (c3)
(d1) (d2) (d3)

5.5: (a1)(a3) (b1)(b3)Mean-Shift
(c1)(c3)Median (d1)(d3)Gaussian
Results of smoothing using Mean-Shift, Median, and Gaussian filtering. Object images are
(a1)(a3). Result images of Mean-Shift filtering are (b1)(b3). Those of Median filtering are
(c1)(c3), and those of Gaussian filtering are (d1)(d3).
66
5.6: Mean-Shift 3.8

Result of smoothing using Mean-Shift filtering. Object image is that in Fig. 3.8.
5.2.2
3.8
3.2

5.7
5.7(a) 5.7(b)
RGB SSD: Sum of Squared Dierence)

I (W, H) Ilocal Ilocal I
(i, j) T (i, j) I(i, j)
RS S D
H1
W1
RS S D = (I(i, j) T (i, j))2 , (5.1)
i=0 j=0
67
5.8 5.8
(a) (b)
5.7: 64 64(a)
(b)
Template images (size: 64 64). In metallic frame, part of top center is (a) and of middle is (b).
White areas are not compared with object image.
5.8: 5.6
Result of removing metalic frame area. Object image is that in Fig. 5.6.
68
5.2.3

4.2.1
4.2.1
(M, N) I (W, H) I Ilocal Ilocal I

Ilocal L T hL L
Ilocal k I
Ilocal (W, H) = (64, 64) k = 16
T hL = 75
5.9 5.9
5.9: 5.8
Result of removing the unrecognizable areas. Object image is that in Fig. 5.8.
69
5.3
5.3.1

5.1.1
(W , H ) I Ilocal (Ilocal I)
Ilocal
5.11 Ilocal Ilocal
Ilocal
S Rc Ilocal
L L (x0 , y0 ) (x0 , y0 ) I
(x, y) p (x0 , y0 )
T hS R (x0 , y0 )
T hS R (x0 , y0 ) = L + L (5.2)

p 256
T hS Rupper T hS Rupper < T hS R
T hS R = T hS Rupper T hS R (x0 , y0 ) I(x, y)
k I T hS R k
I T hS R I(x, y)
T hS R (x, y) I(x, y) (5.3)
S Rc

(W , H )
4 400400
5.10 (W , H ) (32, 32)
70
(64, 64)(128, 128)(256, 256) k = 16 T hS Rupper = 245

p = 0.01 2.326

S total S rim
E(W ,H )
S rim (W , H )
E(W ,H ) = (5.4)
S total (W , H )
(W , H ) 5.1 5.1 (W , H ) =
(64, 64) (W , H ) = (128, 128), (256, 256)
(W , H ) (64, 64)
5.11
T hS R 5.12 5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15 5.13
5.14 5.15
5.10: 5.3.1
Object image for the preliminary experiment in Sect. 5.3.1.
71
5.1: (W , H )
Comparison results of localized region parameters (W , H )

E

(W , H )
(32, 32) 142 1578 0.083
(64, 64) 169 1612 0.095
(128, 128) 124 2232 0.053
(256, 256) 91 2126 0.041
(a) (b)
5.11: 5.3.1
Object images in sand fields.
72
350
300
250
Frequency
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Lightness
(a) Threshold T hS R = 214.
300
250
200
Frequency
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Lightness
(b) Threshold T hS R = 149.
5.12: T hS R 5.11
Lightness histogram and threshold T hS R of object images. Object images are those in
Figs. 5.11.
73
5.13: T hS R 5.6
Results of threshold T hS R in seabed image. Object image is that in Fig. 5.6.
5.14: 5.6
Results of candidate pixels of shelly rim. Object image is that in Fig. 5.6. White pixels are
candidate pixels of shelly rim.
74
(a) (b)
5.15: 5.11
Results of the candidate pixels of shelly rim in the scallop area. The object images are
Figs. 5.11.
5.3.2

5.3.1
Hough
Hough 4.3.1
Hough
5.3.1 C
c(c C) c
Hough
Hough 5.16
Hough

Q Q

f (x, y, , ) Q f (x, y, + , + ) (5.5)
2 2 2 2
Q 5.16
Q
Hough
N
Hough 4.3.1
= 0 4 ,
75
22 , 36 / 0.85 /
, = 2
5.16:
Definition of the near-field ellipse.
5.3.3
5.3.2
5.3.1
5.1
1 %
5.3.2
5.17 5.17(a) 5.1 5.2
5.17(b)
5.1
5.2
l D(1 D)
Dl Q Dl
76
NumQ RQ
NumQ
RQ = 1
. (5.6)
Dl
Q Q
5.16 Q NumQ
RQ
NumQ
RQ = . (5.7)
Q
RQ RQ
T hQ RQ RQ T hQ (5.8)
T hQ RQ
T hQ RQ
77
(a)
(b)
5.17: 15(a)
(b)
Distribution of feature points on extracted ellipse. (a) Sample scallop area. (b) Sample noise
area.
5.4 1

78
5.4.1
5.3.3 D T hQ
79 19
l 1/8 clear
79 clear 72
4.4.1 RT P RT N RFP
D D = 2, D = 4, D = 8 T hQ
0.11.0 0.1
T hQ = 0.03
5.18 5.19 D = 8
5.18 RFP = 22.8 %
5.19 D = 2 5.18(a)
T hQ = 1.0
D = 4
0.6 T hQ T hQ = 0.6 clear
RT P = 90.6 % RFP = 18.8 %
D = 4 T hQ = 0.6
5.20 5.21
5.20 RQ
5.21(b) RS R = 0.8
79
1 D=2
D=4
0.8 D=8
Extraction Rate
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Threshold for Shelly Rim Feature(ThQ)
(a)
1 D=2
D=4
0.8 D=8
Extraction Rate
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(b)
5.18: 5.4.1
Preliminary experimental results of extraction rate in Sect. 5.4.1. (a) Results of all scallops. (b)
Results of clear scallops.
80
1 D=2
D=4
0.8 D=8
Error Rate
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(a)
1 D=2
D=4
0.8 D=8
Error Rate
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(b)
5.19: 5.4.1
Preliminary experimental results of error rate in Sect. 5.4.1. (a) Results of all scallops. (b)
Results of clear scallops.
81
(a) RS R = 0.3 (b) RS R = 0.5 (c) RS R = 1.0

5.20: 5.4.1 RS R
Results of shelly rim feature RQ in the scallop area images.
(a) RS R = 0.2 (b) RS R = 0.8

5.21: 5.4.1 RS R
Results of shelly rim feature RS R in the other areas.
5.4.2
87 clear 70 25
4.4.1 RT P RT N
RFP
5.22 5.22 8
5 clear clear
5.20 clear 5.20(a)
5.21 RS R = 0.8 5.21(b) RQ
82
5.2 RT P = 73.6 % clear

RT P = 91.4 %
3.4.4
clear a = 70, b = 16
4.4.2
2Y = 0.001104,
Z = 4.973,
2Z = 0.04436,
CVZ = 4.2[%],
n = 1000, 2000 C = 30 CVX

5.3 5.3 n = 1000 CVX = 1.9 % n = 2000
CVX = 1.5 %
5.22: 5.4.2 3.8

Sample of experimental result. Object image is that in Fig. 3.8.
83
5.2: 5.4.2
Experimental results in Sect. 5.4.2.
TP FP
all 87 64 14 73.6 % 17.9 %
clear 70 64 14 91.4 % 17.9 %
5.3: 5.4.2
Evaluation results in Sect. 5.4.2.
a b n CVX
1000 1.9 %
1920 180
2000 1.5 %
5.5 2

5.5.1
5.1
5.2.2 5.2.3
3.11 ,
240 , 400

12 10 86 4.4.1 RT P
RT N RFP
5.5.2
5.23 5.23
5.4 5.4 RT P = 81.4 %
RFP = 22.2 % .
84
3.4.4
3.4.4
a = 70, b = 16 4.4.2
2Y = 0.001740,
Z = 4.427,
2Z = 0.06077,
CVZ = 5.557[%],
n = 1000, 2000 C = 30 CVX

5.5 5.5 n = 1000 CVX = 2.1 % n = 2000
CVX = 1.8 %
5.24 5.24(a)
5.24(b)
5.23: 5.5 3.11

Sample of experimental result in Sect. 5.5. Object image is that in Fig. 3.11.
5.4: 5.5
Experiment results of the scallop in Sect. 5.5.
TP FP
all 86 70 20 81.4 % 22.2 %
85
5.5: 5.5
Evaluation results in Sect. 5.5.
a b n CVX
1000 2.1 %
2100 480
2000 1.8 %
(a) (b)
5.24: 5.5
Examples of error detection.
5.6
3.4.1
5.6.1

OS Microsoft Win-
dows7 64bit Microsoft Visual C 2013 Professional
AForge.NET [62] OpenCV [63] OpenCVSharp
[64] GPS
5.25 GUI
5.25(a)
86
5.25(b)
GPS
(b)
(a)
5.25:
Sample of the application to count scallop using seabed video.
5.6.2
GPS 3.3.1
GPS 5.26 GPS 1020

5.5 4 33 10 18
5.6.1
5.27 n
5.27 2

11
87
5.26: GPS
GPS log with recorded the seabed video.
5
43.3110 0:
1:
2:
4
3:
3
Latitude
43.3080
43.3050
0
145.1712 145.1714 145.1716 145.1718
Longitude
5.27:
Sample of the fishery resource map of scallop.
88
5.6.3
2.3
[1]
5.28
Kolor Autopano Giga 3.0 [65] 5.28
89
5.28:
Sample of panorama seabed image using seabed video.
90
5.7

5.17
Hough
4.5
5.4.2
5.4.2
5.20(a), (b) 5.21(b)
5.2 clear 91.4 %
4.4.2
5.4.2 5.3
n = 1000 CVX = 1.9 %n = 2000 CVX = 1.5 %

1000
2 %
17.9 %
5.5
81.4 %
5.5 n = 1000 CVX = 2.1 %n = 2000 CVX = 1.8 %
150
3.4.2

Luidia yesoensis[58] 5.5

5.29
91
5.29(a), (b)
5.29(c)
5.5
5.30
5.30(a) 5.30(b)
5.30(c)
12
5.6 3.13
Dawkins CUI
Scallop Detector [9]
Scallop Detector
5.27
5.28
92
(a) (b) (c)

5.29: 450 450
Luidia yesoensis in seabed video.
(a) (b) (c)

5.30: 450 450
Asterias amurensis in seabed video.
93
6.1

1
2
4 5
4 5
4 5
4.4
5.4.2 A
94
6.2

14
95
96
[1]

http://www.fishexp.pref.hokkaido.jp/exp/abashiri/
saikin/manyuaru/.pdf (Accessed 24/10/13)
[2]

vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 542548, 2005.
[3]

vol. 73, no 6, pp. 10421048, 2007.
[4]
vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 695701, 2006.
[5]

vol. 98, no. 303, pp. 712, 1998.
[6]
vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 620623, 2003.
[7] J. Aguzzi, C. Costa, K. Robert, M. Matabos, F. Antonucci, S. K. Juniper, and P. Menesatti,

Automated Image Analysis for the Detection of Benthic Crustaceans and Bacterial Mat
Coverage Using the VENUS Undersea Cabled Network, Sensors, vol. 11, no. 11, pp.
10534-10556, Oct. 2011.
[8] D. K. Bassett and J. C. Montgomery, Investigating nocturnal fish populations in situ using
baited underwater video: With special reference to their olfactory capabilities, Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 409, no. 12, pp. 194199, Sep. 2011.
[9] M. Dawkins, Scallop Detection In Multiple Maritime Environments, Masters Thesis in

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. 2011.
[10] M. Dawkins, C. Stewart, S. Gallager, and A. York, Automatic Scallop Detection in Ben-
thic Environments, IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision, pp. 160167,
Jan. 2013.
[11]
2012.
97
[12] 21
http://kokushi.job.arc.go.jp/ (Accessed 24/10/13)
[13] 21 vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 313319,

2002.
[14]
no. 69, pp. 368375, 2003.
[15] vol. 73, no. 4, pp.

656659, 2007
[16]
vol .47, pp. 1923, 2000.
[17]
vol. 66, pp. 619622, 2000.
[18]
, vol. 102, no. 278, pp. 2126, 2002.
[19]

vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 658669, 2010.
[20]
http://www.ma.go.jp/hokkaido/policy/jyousei/pdf/pamphlet.pdf (Accessed 25/10/13)
[21]
http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/sr/sum/sui gensei/teisei25816.pdf (Accessed 25/10/13)
[22]
1994.
[23]
pp. 1106, 1949.
[24]

pp. 4970, 2000.
[25]
no. 27, 1985.
[26] RASNET
http://rasnet.sys-hk.jp/ (Accessed 24/10/13)
[27]
pp. 79, 2009.
[28] --vol. 80,

pp. 1619, 2010.
98
[29] J.M. Preston, A.C. Christney, S.F. Bloomer, and I.L. Beaudet, Seabed Classification of
Multibeam Sonar Images, MTS/IEEE Conference and Exhibition on OCEANS, vol. 4,
pp. 26162623, 2001.
[30] R. Javidan, M.A.M. Shirazi, and Z. Azimifar, Seabed Image Texture Segmentation and
Classification Based on Nonsubsampled Contourlet Transform, International CSI Com-
puter Conference, vol. 6, pp. 186193, Mar. 2008.
[31] H. Laanaya, A. Martin, D. Aboutajdine, and A. Khenchaf, Classifier fusion for post-
classification of textured images, International Conf. Information Fusion, pp. 17, Jun.
2008.
[32] T. Treibitz and Y.Y. Schechner, Active Polarization Descattering, IEEE Trans. PAMI,
vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 385399, 2009.
[33] A. Mehta, E. Ribeiro, J. Gilner, and R. Woesik, Coral Reef Texture Classification Using
Support Vector Machines, International Conf. on Computer Vision Theory and Applica-
tions, pp. 302310, Mar. 2007.
[34] A.C.R. Gleason, R.P. Reid, and K.J. Voss, Automated classification of underwater multi-
spectral imagery for coral reef monitoring, OCEANS 2007, pp. 18, Sept. 2007.
[35] S.P. Bernhardt and L.R. Gring, An evaluation of image analysis at benthic sites based on
color segmentation, Bulletin of Marine Science, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 639653, Sept. 2001.
[36] V. Gesu, F. Isgro, D. Tegolo, and E. Trucco, Finding essential features for tracking starfish
in a video sequence,, International Conf. on Image Analysis and Processing, pp. 504509,
Sept. 2003.
[37]
D, vol. 82, no. 12, pp. 22212229, 1999.
[38]

Dvol. 130, no. 3, pp. 334340, 2010.
[39] T. Zhao & R. Nevatia, Bayesian human segmentation in crowded situations, IEEE Com-
puter Society Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 03), vol. 2, pp.
459466, 2003.
[40] O. Sidla, Y. Lypetskyy, N. Brandle, & S. Seer, Pedestrian Detection and Tracking for
Counting Applications in Crowded Situations, IEEE International Conf. on Advanced
Video and Signal Based Surveillance (AVSS06), pp. 70, 2006.
[41] R. O. Duda and P. E. Hart, Use of the Hough Transformation to Detect Lines and Curves
in Pictures, Comm. ACM, vol. 15, pp. 1115, 1972.
[42] Hough
vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 253258, 1995.
99
[43]
vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 6976, 2008.
[44] A. Kitamoto and K. Ono, The Construction of Typhoon Image Collection and its Appli-
cation to Typhoon Analysis, NII journal, vol. 1, pp. 722, 2000.
[45] L. Xu, E. Oja, and P. Kultanen, A new curve detection method: Randomized Hough
Transform (RHT), Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 11, no. 5 pp. 331338, 1990.
[46] A.Y.S. Chia, M.K.H. Leung, S. Rahardja, Ellipse Detection with Hough Transform in One
Dimensional Parametric Space, IEEE International Conf. on Image Processing, vol. 5, pp.
333336, 2007.
[47]

vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 10471051, 2002.
[48] 2
: 1
no. 589, pp. 105112, 2005.
[49]
2
no. 597, pp. 3945,
2005.
[50] M. Robert, K. Haralick, and D. ItsHak, Textural Features for Image Classification,
Trans. IEEE, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 610621, 1973.
[51]
X
(D-II), vol. J86, no. 5, pp. 587597, 2003.
[52]

no. 59, pp.
137140, 2006.
[53]
2000.
[54] vol. 35, no. 3,

pp. 253260, 1999.
[55] , vol. 73, no. 9, pp. 429440,

1967.9.
[56]

vol. 39, pp. 19, 1992.
[57] Global Invasive Species Database, Asterias amurensis,

http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?fr=1&si=82 (Accessed 24/10/13)
100
[58] World Register of Marine Species, Luidia yesoensis,

http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=241344 (Accessed 24/10/13)
[59] World Asteroidea Database, Patiria pectinifera,

http://www.marinespecies.org/asteroidea/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=459559 (Accessed
10/12/13)
[60] Y. Cheng, Mean Shift, Mode Seeking, and Clustering, Proc. IEEE, vol. 17, no. 8, pp.
790799, 1995.
[61] D. Comaniciu and P. Meer, Mean Shift: A Robust Approach Toward Feature Space Anal-
ysis, Proc. IEEE, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 603619, 2002.
[62] AForge.NET, https://code.google.com/p/aforge/ (Accessed 24/10/13)
[63] OpenCV, Open Source Computer Vision Library,

http://opencv.willowgarage.com/wiki/ (Accessed 24/10/13)
[64] OpenCVSharp, OpenCVSharp,

http://code.google.com/p/opencvsharp/ (Accessed 24/10/13)
[65] Kolor, Autopano Giga 3.0, http://www.kolor.com/ (Accessed 24/10/13)
101
1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1
[53] 22
3.2 [53] . . . . 22
3.3 [53] . . . . 23
3.4 (a) (b)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.6 (a) (b)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.11 1 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.4 . . . 41
4.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.6 Sobel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.12 4.3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
102
4.13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.14 . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.15 P(r) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.16
(a) (b) (c)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.17
(a) (b) (c)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.18 P(r) (a)
4.16(a)(b)
4.17(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.19
(a) (b) (c)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.20
(a) (b) (c)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.21
4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.22 4.4 (a)
(b) (c) . . . . . . . . 59
4.23 4.4 (a) (b)
(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.24 128 128(a), (b)
(c), (d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.3 5.1(a) . . . . . 64
5.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.5 (a1)(a3) (b1)(b3)Mean-Shift
(c1)(c3)Median (d1)(d3)
Gaussian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.6 Mean-Shift 3.8 . . . . 67
5.7 64 64(a)
(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.8 5.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.9 5.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.10 5.3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.11 5.3.1 . . . . . . . 72
5.12 T hS R 5.11 . . . . . . 73
103
5.13 T hS R 5.6 . . . . . . . . . 74
5.14 5.6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.15 5.11 . . 75
5.16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.17 15
(a) (b) . . . 78
5.18 5.4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.19 5.4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.20 5.4.1 RS R . . 82
5.21 5.4.1 RS R . . . 82
5.22 5.4.2 3.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.23 5.5 3.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.24 5.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.25 . 87
5.26 GPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.29 450 450 . . . . . . . . . 93
5.30 450 450 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
A.1 4.4 106

A.2 5.4.2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
104
4.1 4.12 4.2 . . . . 48

4.2 4.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.3 4.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.1 (W , H ) . . . . . . . . 72
5.2 5.4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.3 5.4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.4 5.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.5 5.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
105
4.4 5.4.2
3.4.4 CVX
A.1 A.2 C = 30
A.1 A.2
1000
4000
0.03
proposed method
previous method
0.025
Coefficient of Variation[%]
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
583 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Sample Number
A.1: 4.4
Comparison between proposed method and previous method based on Sect. 4.4.
106
0.03
proposed method
previous method
0.025
Coefficient of Variation[%]
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
583 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Sample Number
A.2: 5.4.2
Comparison between proposed method and previous method based on Sect. 5.4.2.
107

1. K. Enomoto, M. Toda, and Y. Kuwahara, Extraction Method of Scallop Area in Gravel
Seabed Images for Fishery Investigation, IEICE Trans. Inf. & Syst. vol.E93-D, no. 7,
pp.17541760, Jul. 2010.
2. K. Enomoto, M. Toda, and Y. Kuwahara, Extraction Method of Scallop Area from Sand
Seabed Images, IEICE Trans. Inf. & Syst. vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 130139, Jan. 2014.
3. M. Toda, K. Enomoto, Y. Kuwahara, M. Wada, and K. Hatanaka, Extraction Method of

Scallop Area in Seabed Images for Fishery Resources Investigation, Proc. Of MTS/IEEE
OCEANS08, 5 pages in CD-ROM, Quebec, Canada, Sep. 2008.
4. M. Toda, K. Enomoto, Y. Kuwahara, M. Wada, and K. Hatanaka, Discussion on Method

to Extract Scallop Areas in Seabed Images for Fishery Resources Investigation, Proc.
of 2009 International Workshop on Advanced Image Technology (IWAIT2009), Image
Processing II-20, 6 pages in USB Memory, Soul, Korea, Jan. 2009.
5. K. Enomoto, M. Toda, Y. Kuwahara, M. Wada, and K. Hatanaka, Scallop Detection

Method in Seabed Images Using Color and Shape Information, Proc. of 15th Japan-
Korea Joint Workshop on Frontiers of Computer Vision, pp. 8791, Andong, Korea, Feb.
2009.
6. K. Enomoto, M. Toda, Y. Kuwahara, M. Wada, and K. Hatanaka, Scallop Detection from

Gravel-Seabed Images for Fishery Investigation, Proc. of 7th IAPR Conf. on Machine
Vision Applications (MVA2009), pp. 479482, Kanagawa, Japan, May. 2009.
7. K. Enomoto, M. Toda, and Y. Kuwahara, Scallop Detection from Sand-Seabed Images

for Fishery Investigation, Proc. of IEEE Congress on Image and Signal Processing
(CISP09), pp. 24532457, Tianjin, China, Oct. 2009.
108
8. K. Enomoto, M. Toda, and Y. Kuwahara, Extraction Method of Scallop Areas Using

Shelly Rim Features Considering Bottom Sediment of Sand, Proc. of 8th IAPR Conf. on
Machine Vision Applications(MVA2011), pp. 263266, Nara, Japan, Jan. 2011.
9. K. Enomoto, M. Toda, and Y. Kuwahara, Extraction Method of Scallop Areas Consid-

ering Bottom Sediment of Seabed, International Symposium on Underwater Technology
2011, 6 pages in CD-ROM, Sep. 2011.
10. K. Enomoto, M. Toda, and Y. Kuwahara, Bottom Sediment Classification Method from
Seabed Image for Automatic Counting System of Scallop, International Symp. on Op-
tomechatronic Technologies, 6 pages in CD-ROM, Oct. 2012.
11. K. Enomoto, M. Toda, and Y. Kuwahara, Detection Method of Scallop and Asteroid from
Seabed Video, Proc. of 9th IAPR Conference on Machine Vision Applications(MVA2013),
pp. 435438, May 2013.
12. K. Enomoto, M. Toda, and Y. Kuwahara, Detection Method of Asteroid in Sand field
from Seabed Video, International Conf. on Quality Control by Artificial Vision, pp.
298301, May 2013.

13.

pp. 69722009.7.
14.

vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 614, 2012.

15. , , , , ,
, 20
, pp. 612615, 2008.8.
16. , , , , ,
ViEW2008
, pp. 7681, 2008.12.
17. , , ,
ViEW2009 , pp. 152156, 2009.12.
18. Hough
13 MIRU2010pp.
163169, 2010.7.
109
19.
ViEW2010
pp. 324331, 2010.12.
20.
14 MIRU20116 pages in CD-ROM,
2011.7.
21.
10 FIT2011pp. 163164, 2011.9.
22.
ViEW2011 pp. 106113, 2011.12.
23.

DIA2012)pp. 6366, 2012.3.
24.

4 pages in CD-ROM, 2012.6.
25.

pp. 5, 2012.9.
26.
ViEW2012
27.

DIA2013pp. 103106, 2013.3.
28.

DIA2014 2014.3.(accepted)
29.
26 UBI USB 2010.6. (

30.
PRMU vol. 111, no. 193, pp. 3742, 2011.9.
31. 2012113436 (2012/06/14)
110
32. 2009 3
33. 2010 6 26 UBI
34. 2011 3

35.
Viva Origino,
vol. 39, pp. 2529, 2011.
36. D. Fujiwara, K. Iizuka, Y. Matsumura, T. Moriyama, R. Watanabe, K. Enomoto, M. Toda,

and Y. Gunji, The Eect of Mobile Robot on Group Behavior of Animals, Journal of
Robotics and Mechatronics, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 10711079, 2012.
37.

vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 229237, 2013.
38. T. Hagisawa, K. Enomoto, M. Toda, M. Tamura, M. Kimura, and S. Takeda, Extrac-

tion Method for Ezo-Wakame Using Line Convergence Index Filter, The journal of the
Institute of Image Electronics Engineers of Japan, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 206213, 2013.
39.
,
vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 3338, 2013.
40.
vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 1824, 2013.
41. T. Hagisawa, K. Enomoto, M. Toda, S. Takeda, and M. Tamura, The Amount of Alaria
Praelonga Kjellmans Analysis Method from Laminaria Bed Images for Fishery Inves-
tigation, Proc. of 17th Japan-Korea Joint Workshop on Frontiers of Computer Vision
(FCV2011), 6 pages in USB memory, Feb. 2011.
111
42. Y. Nishiyama, K. Enomoto, M. Toda, T. Moriyama, and Y.P. Gunji, Autonomous oscil-
lations of soldier crabs, Proc. ICMC2011, pp. 117119, 2011.
43. Y. P. Gunji, H. Murakami, T. Niizato, A. Adamatzky, Y. Nishiyama, K. Enomoto, M. Toda,

T. Moriyama, T. Matsui, and K. Iizuka, Embodied swarming based on back propagation
through time shows water-crossing, hourglass and logic-gate behaviors, Proc. of the
Eleventh European Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems, pp.
294301, 2011.
44. Y. P. Gunji, H. Murakami, T. Niizato, A. Adamatzky, Y. Nishiyama, M. Toda, T. Moriyama,

T. Matsui, K. Iizaka, and K. Enomoto, An Embodied Swarm in Co-creation, Proc. of
SICE Annual Conference, pp. 25872589, 2011.
45.
--vol. 28,
no. 4, pp. 3032, May 2010.
46.
vol. 23, no. 7,
pp. 18, 2012.
47. , D
ViEW2009 , pp. 321324,
2009.12.
48. The Oscillating

Soldier Crabs 29 pp. 63, 2010.
49.
13 MIRU2010pp.
874879, 2010.7.
50.
ViEW2010
pp. 317323, 2010.12.
51.

112
11
SI2010pp. 13021305, 2010.
52.

DIA2011pp. 2730, 2011.3.
53.
14 MIRU2011
54.
ViEW2011
pp. 98105, 2011.12.
55.
ViEW2011
pp.114118, 2011.12.
56.

DIA2012pp. 6771, 2012.3.
57.

DIA2012pp. 161165, 2012.3.
58.

59.
PRMU vol. 111,
no. 193, pp. 3136, 2011.9.
113

Doctoral Thesis Image-Based Seabed Monitoring For Fishery Resource Estimation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctoral Thesis Image-Based Seabed Monitoring For Fishery Resource Estimation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2013 12 16

Image-based Seabed Monitoring for Fishery Resource Estimation

Graduate School of System Information Science

2007 62.5 km2 625 m2

Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO

[1]2013 62.5 km2 1

k-means [29] Laanaya

54Dawkins Habitat Mapping Camera System (HabCam) II

Hough [38]Zhao Sidla

Hough [41, 42]Hough

[47, 48] [49]

GLCM:Gley Level Co-occurrence MatrixM. Robert

Dawkins Habitat Mapping Camera System (HabCam) II

Shooting state of seabed image on the ship.

3.6: (a) (b)

The seabed image in gravel field

625 m2 1.0 m 5/ 125

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(a) No.1 (b) No.2 (c) No.3

(d) No.4 (e) No.5 (f) No.6

Ilocal (W, H) = (32, 32) k = 32

T hL = 100 T hL2 = 2000

(a) (b) (c)

Hue Hue Hue

4.1(a) 4.13 135 170

125 Hue 175 (4.8)

No.1 No.2 No.3

No.4 No.5 No.6

4.1: 4.12 4.2

No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6

Mean ( ) 139.1 139.1 133.2 156.1 152.9 164.5

SD 14.6 7.3 10.7 18.1 17.5 31.0

No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6

Mean( ) 208.4 230.9 174.8 175.4 180.5 174.1

SD 59.0 50.7 15.7 33.6 14.3 18.9

(a) (b) (c)

P(u, v) = |F(u, v)|2 (4.12)

P(u, v) (u, v) = (0, 0) r

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

4.18: P(r) (a)

4.21 4.2 4.21

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

18 (95 %) 7 (70 %) 86 (83 %)

Patiria pectinifera[59] Asterias amurensis[57] 4.24

(a) (b) (c)

4.22: 4.4 (a) (b)

(a) (b) (c)

4.23: 4.4 (a) (b)

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

5.3.3 5.2 5.3

(a1) (a2) (a3)

(b1) (b2) (b3)

(c1) (c2) (c3)

(d1) (d2) (d3)