Can the Hough Transform be used in commercial software?
I mean, it is one of those things that seem research only and unstable. You would not put it in a commercial compositing software for example and have the user rely on it at all times.
Any opinions?
Thanks
The Hough transform has been in use in commercial and industrial applications all over the world for years, decades even. From the wikipedia page you can see that it was first developed in 1972, based on earlier ideas from 1962. That means it is older than the CCD that you use to capture the images you use in the compositing software.
Given that it "seems research only and unstable" to you, I would suggest you spend some time learning various computer vision and image analysis algorithms and techniques, and get a good mathematical basis in the field in general before you implement the Hough transform in commercial compositing software.
And when you are done studying I'd suggest you use a well tested open source implementation.
Yes. In fact, I've written Hough transform code for a piece of commercial software that wasn't meant to be a research tool like MATLAB. Though I put a lot of time into its robustness towards a specific application, it worked great.
The Hough transform by itself can sometimes be unreliable in applications where you have some level noise, such in webcams, or when there are some distortions in the shape you need to extract. This may be what you are seeing. In this case you may need to do a little more tuning towards your application, or try some basic image preprocessing.
I'm a bit annoyed with the condescending tone in both the comment to the question (by High Performance Mark), as well as the accepted answer here.
Firstly, that programming libraries/frameworks provide an implementation of an algorithm does not mean it is used, or rather, suited for commercial applications (i.e. getting the job done, robustly, on less pristine conditions). The Hough transform is a well defined algorithm (with possible uses and limitations) which is simple enough to understand, and very commonly taught in introductory image processing courses. Not surprisingly, it has been implemented in general purpose libraries such as Matlab's, Octave's and OpenCV. I don't believe the question was intended to discuss the robustness of an implementation and possibility of inclusion in commercial image processing frameworks, but rather if the algorithm itself is well suited for end user software (an application that counts circles, or what not).
The accepted answer, as it stands, is "The algorithm is very old. Here is a book on image processing, here is a link to a image processing library that has implemented it". The other answer with zero score seems to be on topic (i.e. discussion possible applications), though isn't very specific ("worked for me").
So, why do some people get the impression that the hough transform is unreliable for shape detection? Here is a good example: Unreliable results with cv2.HoughCircles
The input seems to be very well defined circles. However, the more robust, suggested working solution doesn't use Hough transform. I've had similar experience with my own projects. Usually, the more robust way is some kind of object segmentation, distance transform, watershed and peak localization. Have I ever used Hough transform with good results? No. I think it could be useful in some cases. In particular if the shapes of the imaged objects are perfectly defined, and partially occluded.
In other words, I'm also curious as to commercial applications that ended up benefiting from Hough transform. That's how I came across this question, and subsequently disappointed in the "you wouldn't ask that question if you understood the subject better", responses.
