On calculation of fractal dimension of images
Introduction
Fractal geometry popularized by Mandelbrot (1982) has gained much support in the field of image analysis. Pentland, 1984, Pentland, 1986 provided the first theory in this respect by stating that fractal dimension correlates quite well with human perception of smoothness versus roughness of surfaces, with fractal dimension of 2 corresponding to smooth surfaces and fractal dimension of 3 corresponding to a maximum rough “salt-and-pepper” surface. Of course, he assumed the surface to be modeled by fractional Brownian function. However, it was followed by many other theories applicable to a wider class of fractals. Gangepain and Roques-Carmes (1986) described the popular reticular cell counting method and Keller et al., 1987, Keller et al., 1989, Chen et al., 1990, Chen et al., 1993 gave even more interesting theories. Many studies are made to find the upper and lower bounds of the box size and in this regard (Chen et al., 1993) have given a theoretical justification for a restriction on the smallest box size inspired by the work of Pickover and Khorasani (1986). As we studied the cell counting method, we also found out the necessity of having a lower bound of the box size.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes various methods for calculating the fractal dimension. Section 3 discusses the reason for having upper and lower bounds of the box size. Section 4 gives a formula for finding the lower bound of the box size. Section 5 shows the experimental results. Concluding remarks are made in Section 6.
Section snippets
Methods for calculating fractal dimension
From the properties of self-similarity, fractal dimension D of a set A is defined aswhere N is the total number of distinct copies similar to A and A is scaled down by a ratio of 1/r.
Eq. (1) can be directly applied to geometrical fractals such as Sierpinski's Gasket or Cantor Dust and a theoretical estimation of fractal dimension is possible in such cases. However, for image surfaces, the value of N has to be computed using methods like box-counting and the fractal dimension
Bound of the box size
As we know box-counting is a very simple process. However, many researches have been performed to improve the procedures with respect to the calculation of the roughness accurately. Sometimes problems occur while estimating the roughness effectively due to improper limits and box size (Pickover and Khorasani, 1986, Chen et al., 1993, Feng et al., 1996). Of course, authors have taken various corrective measures. Many authors have assumed certain bounds according to the procedure adopted by them.
Proposed lower bound of the box size
According to Gangepain and Roques-Carmes (1986) L′=⌊L×G/M⌋ and hence M/L number of vertical boxes on any grid as indicated in Fig. 1 will have a length of L′, which can be a multiple of gray level units in the space. As the image intensity surface is quantized over the space, L′ determines how many boxes contain at least one gray level intensity surface. Studying the cell counting method, we discussed that the imposition of a lower bound on the box size is necessary in order to calculate the
Experimental results
In order to find the fractal dimensions of images generated by us (Bisoi and Mishra, 1999) which are shown in Fig. 2, we applied the various methods discussed in Section 2. The methods have been applied with and without the lower bound (as given by Eq. (9)) in order to estimate the fractal dimension; the upper bound is given by Eq. (10) being applicable in all cases. The images generated by us have used the IFS technique modified by incorporation of inverse replicas of images. The resulting
Concluding remarks
Due to growing importance of box-counting methods on calculation of fractal features from an image, we established a lower bound of the box size to ensure accurate results. Our study corroborates the following intuitive observations.
With too low a box size, the maximum number of boxes above a grid would be more than the number of available intensity levels. The resulting unaccounted boxes would lead to an underestimation of fractal dimension. On the other hand, for too high a box size, the
References (14)
- et al.
Shape from fractal geometry
Artificial Intell.
(1990) - et al.
Texture description through fractal geometry
Comput. Vision Graphics Image Process.
(1989) Shading into texture
Artificial Intell.
(1986)- et al.
Fractal characterization of speech waveform graphs
Comput. Graphics
(1986) - et al.
Fractal images with inverse replicas
Machine Graphics and Vision
(1999) - et al.
Texture segmentation using fractal dimension
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell.
(1995) - et al.
On the calculation of fractal features from images
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell.
(1993)
Cited by (122)
Improved XCT image automatic segmentation for quantitative characterization of the meso-morphological features in the damaged braided composite fabric
2024, Composites Science and TechnologyUnraveling the synergistic development of carbon skeleton and pore networks involved in lignin pyrolysis
2023, Journal of Analytical and Applied PyrolysisCorrecting for the clumping effect in leaf area index calculations using one-dimensional fractal dimension
2022, Remote Sensing of EnvironmentAI framework with computational box counting and Integer programming removes quantization error in fractal dimension analysis of optical images
2022, Chemical Engineering JournalCitation Excerpt :In Eq., N can only be theoretically determined if the object exhibits self-similarity. In most image analysis applications, the value of N is estimated using methods such as box counting (BC) [16]. The BC method gathers data for N and R, respectively, by subdividing images into unit squares and then quantifying the relationship between the total number of subdivisions and their length scale.
- 1
Tel.: +91-6760-40521; fax: +91-06760-40544.