Finding images

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Finding images

Lars Aronsson
Why is it still, now in 2014, so hard to find images?
We have categories and descriptions, but we also know
they don't describe all that we want to find in an
image. If I need an image with a bicycle and some red
flowers, I can only go to the category:bicycles and
hope that I'm lucky when browsing through the first
700 images there. Most likely, the category will be
subdivided by country or in some other useless way
that will make my search harder.

Where is science? Google was created in 1998, based
on its Pagerank algorithm for web pages filled with
words and links. That was 14 years ago. But what
algorithms are there for finding images?


--
   Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Tim Starling-2
On 18/06/14 11:13, Lars Aronsson wrote:

> Why is it still, now in 2014, so hard to find images?
> We have categories and descriptions, but we also know
> they don't describe all that we want to find in an
> image. If I need an image with a bicycle and some red
> flowers, I can only go to the category:bicycles and
> hope that I'm lucky when browsing through the first
> 700 images there. Most likely, the category will be
> subdivided by country or in some other useless way
> that will make my search harder.
>
> Where is science? Google was created in 1998, based
> on its Pagerank algorithm for web pages filled with
> words and links. That was 14 years ago. But what
> algorithms are there for finding images?

How do the commercial stock agencies do it? They have a much more
similar problem to Commons than Google does.

-- Tim Starling


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Now that ONLY indicates that stock agencies have a similar problem to
Commons, it does not help finding images or indicates a path we could take
to improve things.

When images are gaining tags as part of the Wikidatification of multi
mediafiles we at least have a way to add multi lingual support and, that
does improve things on what we have today.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 18 June 2014 03:46, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 18/06/14 11:13, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> > Why is it still, now in 2014, so hard to find images?
> > We have categories and descriptions, but we also know
> > they don't describe all that we want to find in an
> > image. If I need an image with a bicycle and some red
> > flowers, I can only go to the category:bicycles and
> > hope that I'm lucky when browsing through the first
> > 700 images there. Most likely, the category will be
> > subdivided by country or in some other useless way
> > that will make my search harder.
> >
> > Where is science? Google was created in 1998, based
> > on its Pagerank algorithm for web pages filled with
> > words and links. That was 14 years ago. But what
> > algorithms are there for finding images?
>
> How do the commercial stock agencies do it? They have a much more
> similar problem to Commons than Google does.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Rayson Ho
In reply to this post by Lars Aronsson
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Lars Aronsson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why is it still, now in 2014, so hard to find images?
> We have categories and descriptions, but we also know
> they don't describe all that we want to find in an
> image. If I need an image with a bicycle and some red
> flowers, I can only go to the category:bicycles and
> hope that I'm lucky when browsing through the first
> 700 images there. Most likely, the category will be
> subdivided by country or in some other useless way
> that will make my search harder.
>

Four years ago I requested the "Wikimedia Category Flattening" feature:

http://marc.info/?l=wikitech-l&m=126525308906767

Fast forward back to 2014 and with an additional 1000 high resolution files
uploaded to wikimedia (over 95% of my photos are released into the public
domain -- it's more "free" than the iStock editorial license), that feature
is still not done. IMO, a better search function for Wikimedia Commons
would be way more useful than the WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia!

Rayson

==================================================
Open Grid Scheduler - The Official Open Source Grid Engine
http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/
http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/GridEngine/GridEngineCloud.html





>
> Where is science? Google was created in 1998, based
> on its Pagerank algorithm for web pages filled with
> words and links. That was 14 years ago. But what
> algorithms are there for finding images?
>
>
> --
>   Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Lars Aronsson
Lars Aronsson wrote:

>Why is it still, now in 2014, so hard to find images?
>We have categories and descriptions, but we also know
>they don't describe all that we want to find in an
>image. If I need an image with a bicycle and some red
>flowers, I can only go to the category:bicycles and
>hope that I'm lucky when browsing through the first
>700 images there. Most likely, the category will be
>subdivided by country or in some other useless way
>that will make my search harder.
>
>Where is science? Google was created in 1998, based
>on its Pagerank algorithm for web pages filled with
>words and links. That was 14 years ago. But what
>algorithms are there for finding images?

Hi.

Have you tried Special:Search? :-)

There's a very nice category of red flowers:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Red_flowers>.

If you search for 'incategory:"Red flowers"', you can find pictures in
only that category. If you search for 'incategory:"Red flowers"
incategory:"Bicycles"', you can see the intersection of these two
categories. (No results currently, alas.) Try a search such as
'incategory:"Red flowers" incategory:"Cosmos atrosanguineus"' to see the
search actually work (it should return one result currently, 'File:Cosmos
atrosanguineus "Choco Mocha".jpg').

Hope that helps.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Lars Aronsson
On 06/18/2014 06:14 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> If you search for 'incategory:"Red flowers"', you can find pictures in
> only that category. If you search for 'incategory:"Red flowers"
> incategory:"Bicycles"', you can see the intersection of these two
> categories. (No results currently, alas.)

This requires that the interesting images have been
categorized as having red flowers. I could just as well
hope that the description text mentions red flowers,
and do a full text search. Both will fail, because this
detailed level of categorization/description is lacking.

Even though this picture is categorized as "fruit vendors",
it isn't categorized as apples, bananas, cherries, peaches,
and pears, or paper crates, or string, or mostly shadow
with a little sunshine on a sidewalk. With 21 million files,
how can we reach that level of detail in documentation?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Still_Life_with_Fruit-Laden_Bike_-_Medina_%28Old_City%29_-_Rabat_-_Morocco.jpg

Here's a bicycle with red flowers, now categorized,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xe_%C4%91%E1%BA%A1p_ch%E1%BB%9F_h%C3%A0ng.jpg



--
   Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

MZMcBride-2
Lars Aronsson wrote:

>On 06/18/2014 06:14 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> If you search for 'incategory:"Red flowers"', you can find pictures in
>> only that category. If you search for 'incategory:"Red flowers"
>> incategory:"Bicycles"', you can see the intersection of these two
>> categories. (No results currently, alas.)
>
>This requires that the interesting images have been
>categorized as having red flowers. I could just as well
>hope that the description text mentions red flowers,
>and do a full text search. Both will fail, because this
>detailed level of categorization/description is lacking.

This doesn't sound like a technical problem to me... can't you just add
the relevant categories? It's a wiki, after all.

Perhaps you're hoping for automatic image recognition? I don't think
computing, as a science, is there yet. I think I read something about
Google and videos of cats, but even the billionaires can't solve this
problem, yet. Sorry.

>Even though this picture is categorized as "fruit vendors",
>it isn't categorized as apples, bananas, cherries, peaches,
>and pears, or paper crates, or string, or mostly shadow
>with a little sunshine on a sidewalk. With 21 million files,
>how can we reach that level of detail in documentation?
>[...]

Click edit. Actually, Commons has HotCat enabled, so you can just click
the (+) link, I imagine. What's the issue?

>Here's a bicycle with red flowers, now categorized, [...]

Cool, thanks for that.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Pine W
Machine vision is definitely getting better with time. We have
computer-driven airplanes, computer-driven cars, and computer-driven
spacecraft. The computers need us less and less as hardware and software
improve. I think it may be less than a decade before machine vision is good
enough to categorize most objects in photographs.

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Kristian Kankainen
Hello!

I think, if one is clever enough, some categorization could be automated
allready.

Searching for pictures based on meta-data is called "Concept Based Image
Retrieval", searching based on the machine vision recognized content of
the image is called "Content Based Image Retrieval".

What I understood of Lars' request, is an automated way of finding the
"superfluous" concepts or meta-data for pictures based on their content.
Of course recognizing an images content is very hard (and subjective),
but I think it would be possible for many of these "superfluous"
categories, such as "winter landscape", "summer beach" and perhaps also
"red flowers" and "bicycle".

There exist today many open source "Content Based Image Retrieval"
systems, that I understand basically works in the way that you give them
a picture, and they find you the "matching" pictures accompanied with a
score. Now suppose we show a picture with known content (pictures from
Commons with good meta-data), then we could to a degree of trust find
pictures with overlapping categories.
I am not sure whether this kind of automated reverse meta-data labelling
should be done for only one category per time, or if some kind of
"category bundles" work better. Probably adjectives and items should be
compounded (eg "red flowers").

Relevant articles and links from Wikipedia:
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_retrieval
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-based_image_retrieval
#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CBIR_engines#CBIR_research_projects.2Fdemos.2Fopen_source_projects

Best wishes
Kristian Kankainen

18.06.2014 09:14, Pine W kirjutas:

> Machine vision is definitely getting better with time. We have
> computer-driven airplanes, computer-driven cars, and computer-driven
> spacecraft. The computers need us less and less as hardware and software
> improve. I think it may be less than a decade before machine vision is good
> enough to categorize most objects in photographs.
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Pine W
That sounds like a good idea for an experiment. Any volunteers?

Pine


On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Kristian Kankainen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I think, if one is clever enough, some categorization could be automated
> allready.
>
> Searching for pictures based on meta-data is called "Concept Based Image
> Retrieval", searching based on the machine vision recognized content of the
> image is called "Content Based Image Retrieval".
>
> What I understood of Lars' request, is an automated way of finding the
> "superfluous" concepts or meta-data for pictures based on their content. Of
> course recognizing an images content is very hard (and subjective), but I
> think it would be possible for many of these "superfluous" categories, such
> as "winter landscape", "summer beach" and perhaps also "red flowers" and
> "bicycle".
>
> There exist today many open source "Content Based Image Retrieval"
> systems, that I understand basically works in the way that you give them a
> picture, and they find you the "matching" pictures accompanied with a
> score. Now suppose we show a picture with known content (pictures from
> Commons with good meta-data), then we could to a degree of trust find
> pictures with overlapping categories.
> I am not sure whether this kind of automated reverse meta-data labelling
> should be done for only one category per time, or if some kind of "category
> bundles" work better. Probably adjectives and items should be compounded
> (eg "red flowers").
>
> Relevant articles and links from Wikipedia:
> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_retrieval
> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-based_image_retrieval
> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CBIR_engines#CBIR_
> research_projects.2Fdemos.2Fopen_source_projects
>
> Best wishes
> Kristian Kankainen
>
> 18.06.2014 09:14, Pine W kirjutas:
>
>> Machine vision is definitely getting better with time. We have
>> computer-driven airplanes, computer-driven cars, and computer-driven
>> spacecraft. The computers need us less and less as hardware and software
>> improve. I think it may be less than a decade before machine vision is
>> good
>> enough to categorize most objects in photographs.
>>
>> Pine
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Kristian Kankainen
I have no time but for brainstorming and such kind of advicing/helping,
if any volunteers would need this kind of help.

Kristian


18.06.2014 10:20, Pine W kirjutas:

> That sounds like a good idea for an experiment. Any volunteers?
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Kristian Kankainen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I think, if one is clever enough, some categorization could be automated
>> allready.
>>
>> Searching for pictures based on meta-data is called "Concept Based Image
>> Retrieval", searching based on the machine vision recognized content of the
>> image is called "Content Based Image Retrieval".
>>
>> What I understood of Lars' request, is an automated way of finding the
>> "superfluous" concepts or meta-data for pictures based on their content. Of
>> course recognizing an images content is very hard (and subjective), but I
>> think it would be possible for many of these "superfluous" categories, such
>> as "winter landscape", "summer beach" and perhaps also "red flowers" and
>> "bicycle".
>>
>> There exist today many open source "Content Based Image Retrieval"
>> systems, that I understand basically works in the way that you give them a
>> picture, and they find you the "matching" pictures accompanied with a
>> score. Now suppose we show a picture with known content (pictures from
>> Commons with good meta-data), then we could to a degree of trust find
>> pictures with overlapping categories.
>> I am not sure whether this kind of automated reverse meta-data labelling
>> should be done for only one category per time, or if some kind of "category
>> bundles" work better. Probably adjectives and items should be compounded
>> (eg "red flowers").
>>
>> Relevant articles and links from Wikipedia:
>> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_retrieval
>> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-based_image_retrieval
>> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CBIR_engines#CBIR_
>> research_projects.2Fdemos.2Fopen_source_projects
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Kristian Kankainen
>>
>> 18.06.2014 09:14, Pine W kirjutas:
>>
>>> Machine vision is definitely getting better with time. We have
>>> computer-driven airplanes, computer-driven cars, and computer-driven
>>> spacecraft. The computers need us less and less as hardware and software
>>> improve. I think it may be less than a decade before machine vision is
>>> good
>>> enough to categorize most objects in photographs.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Kristian Kankainen
Kristian, it's not impossible to find a mentee for such an idea. Please
edit:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mentorship_programs/Possible_projects#Category_suggestions 
.

While we wait for The Perfect Wikidata Heaven Solution (TM), it's worth
expertimenting with.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Kristian Kankainen
Hoi,
As long as our categories are English, they are useless for all of those
who do not speak English. Even so, as long as the current technology is
used for those categories it is a trial to find images at all. Many people
have given up.
Thanks,
    GerardM


On 18 June 2014 09:12, Kristian Kankainen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I think, if one is clever enough, some categorization could be automated
> allready.
>
> Searching for pictures based on meta-data is called "Concept Based Image
> Retrieval", searching based on the machine vision recognized content of the
> image is called "Content Based Image Retrieval".
>
> What I understood of Lars' request, is an automated way of finding the
> "superfluous" concepts or meta-data for pictures based on their content. Of
> course recognizing an images content is very hard (and subjective), but I
> think it would be possible for many of these "superfluous" categories, such
> as "winter landscape", "summer beach" and perhaps also "red flowers" and
> "bicycle".
>
> There exist today many open source "Content Based Image Retrieval"
> systems, that I understand basically works in the way that you give them a
> picture, and they find you the "matching" pictures accompanied with a
> score. Now suppose we show a picture with known content (pictures from
> Commons with good meta-data), then we could to a degree of trust find
> pictures with overlapping categories.
> I am not sure whether this kind of automated reverse meta-data labelling
> should be done for only one category per time, or if some kind of "category
> bundles" work better. Probably adjectives and items should be compounded
> (eg "red flowers").
>
> Relevant articles and links from Wikipedia:
> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_retrieval
> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-based_image_retrieval
> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CBIR_engines#CBIR_
> research_projects.2Fdemos.2Fopen_source_projects
>
> Best wishes
> Kristian Kankainen
>
> 18.06.2014 09:14, Pine W kirjutas:
>
>  Machine vision is definitely getting better with time. We have
>> computer-driven airplanes, computer-driven cars, and computer-driven
>> spacecraft. The computers need us less and less as hardware and software
>> improve. I think it may be less than a decade before machine vision is
>> good
>> enough to categorize most objects in photographs.
>>
>> Pine
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Federico Leva (Nemo)
Hoi,
The "perfect Wikidata heaven solution" will be as imperfect as the "perfect
Wikipedia heaven solution". Lets stay down to earth and go for something
that works most of the time and does not take forever to realise.
Thanks,
    GerardM


On 18 June 2014 10:40, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Kristian, it's not impossible to find a mentee for such an idea. Please
> edit: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mentorship_programs/
> Possible_projects#Category_suggestions .
>
> While we wait for The Perfect Wikidata Heaven Solution (TM), it's worth
> expertimenting with.
>
> Nemo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Kristian Kankainen
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Could not the categories' language links be useful here? Otherwise
BabelNet[1] has set up different ways to connect concepts in different
languages into a semantic network. They call it a multilingual
encyclopedic dictionary and compile it by combining data from the
Wikipedia(s) and WordNet. It's quite clever but still easy.
This is still english-centric -- as in having english in the centre of a
hub-and-spoke modelled dictionary -- but it does make it _translatable_,
which I think is enough for this feature.

Kristian Kankainen

[1] http://babelnet.org/

18.06.2014 11:52, Gerard Meijssen kirjutas:

> Hoi,
> As long as our categories are English, they are useless for all of those
> who do not speak English. Even so, as long as the current technology is
> used for those categories it is a trial to find images at all. Many people
> have given up.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
> On 18 June 2014 09:12, Kristian Kankainen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I think, if one is clever enough, some categorization could be automated
>> allready.
>>
>> Searching for pictures based on meta-data is called "Concept Based Image
>> Retrieval", searching based on the machine vision recognized content of the
>> image is called "Content Based Image Retrieval".
>>
>> What I understood of Lars' request, is an automated way of finding the
>> "superfluous" concepts or meta-data for pictures based on their content. Of
>> course recognizing an images content is very hard (and subjective), but I
>> think it would be possible for many of these "superfluous" categories, such
>> as "winter landscape", "summer beach" and perhaps also "red flowers" and
>> "bicycle".
>>
>> There exist today many open source "Content Based Image Retrieval"
>> systems, that I understand basically works in the way that you give them a
>> picture, and they find you the "matching" pictures accompanied with a
>> score. Now suppose we show a picture with known content (pictures from
>> Commons with good meta-data), then we could to a degree of trust find
>> pictures with overlapping categories.
>> I am not sure whether this kind of automated reverse meta-data labelling
>> should be done for only one category per time, or if some kind of "category
>> bundles" work better. Probably adjectives and items should be compounded
>> (eg "red flowers").
>>
>> Relevant articles and links from Wikipedia:
>> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_retrieval
>> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-based_image_retrieval
>> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CBIR_engines#CBIR_
>> research_projects.2Fdemos.2Fopen_source_projects
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Kristian Kankainen
>>
>> 18.06.2014 09:14, Pine W kirjutas:
>>
>>   Machine vision is definitely getting better with time. We have
>>> computer-driven airplanes, computer-driven cars, and computer-driven
>>> spacecraft. The computers need us less and less as hardware and software
>>> improve. I think it may be less than a decade before machine vision is
>>> good
>>> enough to categorize most objects in photographs.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
My understanding of English is adequate. I find it however really hard to
find the pictures I seek. I have given up using Commons for illustrations
on my blog for instance.
Thanks,
    GerardM


On 18 June 2014 12:25, Kristian Kankainen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Could not the categories' language links be useful here? Otherwise
> BabelNet[1] has set up different ways to connect concepts in different
> languages into a semantic network. They call it a multilingual encyclopedic
> dictionary and compile it by combining data from the Wikipedia(s) and
> WordNet. It's quite clever but still easy.
> This is still english-centric -- as in having english in the centre of a
> hub-and-spoke modelled dictionary -- but it does make it _translatable_,
> which I think is enough for this feature.
>
> Kristian Kankainen
>
> [1] http://babelnet.org/
>
> 18.06.2014 11:52, Gerard Meijssen kirjutas:
>
>  Hoi,
>> As long as our categories are English, they are useless for all of those
>> who do not speak English. Even so, as long as the current technology is
>> used for those categories it is a trial to find images at all. Many people
>> have given up.
>> Thanks,
>>      GerardM
>>
>>
>> On 18 June 2014 09:12, Kristian Kankainen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>  Hello!
>>>
>>> I think, if one is clever enough, some categorization could be automated
>>> allready.
>>>
>>> Searching for pictures based on meta-data is called "Concept Based Image
>>> Retrieval", searching based on the machine vision recognized content of
>>> the
>>> image is called "Content Based Image Retrieval".
>>>
>>> What I understood of Lars' request, is an automated way of finding the
>>> "superfluous" concepts or meta-data for pictures based on their content.
>>> Of
>>> course recognizing an images content is very hard (and subjective), but I
>>> think it would be possible for many of these "superfluous" categories,
>>> such
>>> as "winter landscape", "summer beach" and perhaps also "red flowers" and
>>> "bicycle".
>>>
>>> There exist today many open source "Content Based Image Retrieval"
>>> systems, that I understand basically works in the way that you give them
>>> a
>>> picture, and they find you the "matching" pictures accompanied with a
>>> score. Now suppose we show a picture with known content (pictures from
>>> Commons with good meta-data), then we could to a degree of trust find
>>> pictures with overlapping categories.
>>> I am not sure whether this kind of automated reverse meta-data labelling
>>> should be done for only one category per time, or if some kind of
>>> "category
>>> bundles" work better. Probably adjectives and items should be compounded
>>> (eg "red flowers").
>>>
>>> Relevant articles and links from Wikipedia:
>>> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_retrieval
>>> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-based_image_retrieval
>>> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CBIR_engines#CBIR_
>>> research_projects.2Fdemos.2Fopen_source_projects
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>> Kristian Kankainen
>>>
>>> 18.06.2014 09:14, Pine W kirjutas:
>>>
>>>   Machine vision is definitely getting better with time. We have
>>>
>>>> computer-driven airplanes, computer-driven cars, and computer-driven
>>>> spacecraft. The computers need us less and less as hardware and software
>>>> improve. I think it may be less than a decade before machine vision is
>>>> good
>>>> enough to categorize most objects in photographs.
>>>>
>>>> Pine
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Magnus Manske-2
In reply to this post by Lars Aronsson
Well, you can use this:

http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/quick_intersection.php?lang=commons&project=wikimedia&cats=Red+flowers%0D%0ABicycles&ns=6&depth=5&max=30000&start=0&format=html&redirects=&norun

which will give you one image. It has a bicycle and red flowers.

However, if you push the category depth past 7 you get false positives,
because the category tree is horribly broken on Commons.

Cheers,
Magnus




On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Lars Aronsson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why is it still, now in 2014, so hard to find images?
> We have categories and descriptions, but we also know
> they don't describe all that we want to find in an
> image. If I need an image with a bicycle and some red
> flowers, I can only go to the category:bicycles and
> hope that I'm lucky when browsing through the first
> 700 images there. Most likely, the category will be
> subdivided by country or in some other useless way
> that will make my search harder.
>
> Where is science? Google was created in 1998, based
> on its Pagerank algorithm for web pages filled with
> words and links. That was 14 years ago. But what
> algorithms are there for finding images?
>
>
> --
>   Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l




--
undefined
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Brian Wolff
In reply to this post by Kristian Kankainen
On 6/18/14, Kristian Kankainen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I think, if one is clever enough, some categorization could be automated
> allready.
>
> Searching for pictures based on meta-data is called "Concept Based Image
> Retrieval", searching based on the machine vision recognized content of
> the image is called "Content Based Image Retrieval".
>
> What I understood of Lars' request, is an automated way of finding the
> "superfluous" concepts or meta-data for pictures based on their content.
> Of course recognizing an images content is very hard (and subjective),
> but I think it would be possible for many of these "superfluous"
> categories, such as "winter landscape", "summer beach" and perhaps also
> "red flowers" and "bicycle".
>
> There exist today many open source "Content Based Image Retrieval"
> systems, that I understand basically works in the way that you give them
> a picture, and they find you the "matching" pictures accompanied with a
> score. Now suppose we show a picture with known content (pictures from
> Commons with good meta-data), then we could to a degree of trust find
> pictures with overlapping categories.
> I am not sure whether this kind of automated reverse meta-data labelling
> should be done for only one category per time, or if some kind of
> "category bundles" work better. Probably adjectives and items should be
> compounded (eg "red flowers").
>
> Relevant articles and links from Wikipedia:
> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_retrieval
> # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-based_image_retrieval
> #
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CBIR_engines#CBIR_research_projects.2Fdemos.2Fopen_source_projects
>
> Best wishes
> Kristian Kankainen
>
> 18.06.2014 09:14, Pine W kirjutas:
>> Machine vision is definitely getting better with time. We have
>> computer-driven airplanes, computer-driven cars, and computer-driven
>> spacecraft. The computers need us less and less as hardware and software
>> improve. I think it may be less than a decade before machine vision is
>> good
>> enough to categorize most objects in photographs.
>>
>> Pine
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Interesting. Some demo links that I found:

* http://demo-itec.uni-klu.ac.at/liredemo/
* http://image.mdx.ac.uk/time/demo.php
* http://mi-file.isti.cnr.it:8765/CophirSearch/
* http://orpheus.ee.duth.gr/anaktisi/ (not free)
* http://youtu.be/2eaGwk4Xhks

I suppose one integration pathway would be, you do a normal search,
and then from there you can say, find images similar to this search
result.

Of course if I do
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=bicycle%20red%20flower&fulltext=Search&profile=images
, the first result is relavent. But if I plug
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/2009_windowboxes_Bruges_4064497113.jpg/450px-2009_windowboxes_Bruges_4064497113.jpg
into http://demo-itec.uni-klu.ac.at/liredemo/ , the results aren't
really that relavent.

--bawolff

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Nikolas Everett
On Jun 18, 2014 2:28 PM, "Brian Wolff" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 6/18/14, Kristian Kankainen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I think, if one is clever enough, some categorization could be automated
> > allready.
> >
> > Searching for pictures based on meta-data is called "Concept Based Image
> > Retrieval", searching based on the machine vision recognized content of
> > the image is called "Content Based Image Retrieval".
> >
> > What I understood of Lars' request, is an automated way of finding the
> > "superfluous" concepts or meta-data for pictures based on their content.
> > Of course recognizing an images content is very hard (and subjective),
> > but I think it would be possible for many of these "superfluous"
> > categories, such as "winter landscape", "summer beach" and perhaps also
> > "red flowers" and "bicycle".
> >
> > There exist today many open source "Content Based Image Retrieval"
> > systems, that I understand basically works in the way that you give them
> > a picture, and they find you the "matching" pictures accompanied with a
> > score. Now suppose we show a picture with known content (pictures from
> > Commons with good meta-data), then we could to a degree of trust find
> > pictures with overlapping categories.
> > I am not sure whether this kind of automated reverse meta-data labelling
> > should be done for only one category per time, or if some kind of
> > "category bundles" work better. Probably adjectives and items should be
> > compounded (eg "red flowers").
> >
> > Relevant articles and links from Wikipedia:
> > # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_retrieval
> > # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-based_image_retrieval
> > #
> >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CBIR_engines#CBIR_research_projects.2Fdemos.2Fopen_source_projects
> >
> > Best wishes
> > Kristian Kankainen
> >
> > 18.06.2014 09:14, Pine W kirjutas:
> >> Machine vision is definitely getting better with time. We have
> >> computer-driven airplanes, computer-driven cars, and computer-driven
> >> spacecraft. The computers need us less and less as hardware and
software

> >> improve. I think it may be less than a decade before machine vision is
> >> good
> >> enough to categorize most objects in photographs.
> >>
> >> Pine
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
> Interesting. Some demo links that I found:
>
> * http://demo-itec.uni-klu.ac.at/liredemo/

Lire has been on my list of things to look at for a while now. Its nice
because it could integrate reasonably easily into cirrus because it is
built on lucene.

I can't promise anything quick but I'll look into the others as well.

Nik
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding images

Krinkle
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On 18 Jun 2014, at 06:14, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Lars Aronsson wrote:
>> Why is it still, now in 2014, so hard to find images?
>> We have categories and descriptions, but we also know
>> they don't describe all that we want to find in an
>> image. If I need an image with a bicycle and some red
>> flowers, I can only go to the category:bicycles and
>> hope that I'm lucky when browsing through the first
>> 700 images there. Most likely, the category will be
>> subdivided by country or in some other useless way
>> that will make my search harder.
>>
>> Where is science? Google was created in 1998, based
>> on its Pagerank algorithm for web pages filled with
>> words and links. That was 14 years ago. But what
>> algorithms are there for finding images?
>
> Hi.
>
> Have you tried Special:Search? :-)
>
> There's a very nice category of red flowers:
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Red_flowers>.
>
> If you search for 'incategory:"Red flowers"', you can find pictures in
> only that category. If you search for 'incategory:"Red flowers"
> incategory:"Bicycles"', you can see the intersection of these two
> categories. (No results currently, alas.) Try a search such as
> 'incategory:"Red flowers" incategory:"Cosmos atrosanguineus"' to see the
> search actually work (it should return one result currently, 'File:Cosmos
> atrosanguineus "Choco Mocha".jpg').
>
> Hope that helps.
>

While having category intersection is definitely a huge plus now, for it to work really well we need it to be traversing up and down. Does it do that right now?

Especially because Commons has a policy against over categorisation (which makes sense), and because we subcategorise so insanely much (might not so much sense always but oh well), you really need it to traverse categories recursively to get anything useful.

So that you can search for category "Flowers" or "Red" and still those from "Red flowers".

And similarly so with Bicycles categorised. You want to get those from "Bicycles facing left" or "Bicycles in Vietnam" to be included when looking for "Bicycles".

-- Krinkle


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
12