1 / 23

Estimating Pedestrian Density in Crowded Conditions

Estimating Pedestrian Density in Crowded Conditions. Sergio A Velastin Boghos Boghossian Jia Hong Yin Lionel Legry Vision & Robotics Lab King’s College London http://www.research.eee.kcl.ac.uk/VRL. The Context. Sustainable cities need to make public transport attractive.

aizza
Download Presentation

Estimating Pedestrian Density in Crowded Conditions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Estimating Pedestrian Density in Crowded Conditions Sergio A Velastin Boghos Boghossian Jia Hong Yin Lionel Legry Vision & Robotics Lab King’s College London http://www.research.eee.kcl.ac.uk/VRL BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  2. The Context • Sustainable cities need to make public transport attractive. • Public transport needs to be run efficiently. • Main passenger’s concerns: • Personal security. • Personal safety/comfort. • Safety issue: Congestion. • Crowd control through CCTV, but not enough human viewers. • Aim: Detect potential congestion to alert operators. BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  3. Requirements • Real-time (within 1-3 secs.) • Use existing CCTV infrastructure. • Detect events before they become uncontrollable. • Typical scenario: • An urban station might have 30-100 cameras. • A control room might have 3-10 TV monitors. • 1/2 of these monitors scan randomly. • only ~10% cameras seen at any given time. • Approach: • Note uneventful cameras. • From the rest, select most eventful. • Show these so operator judges possible actions. BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  4. Experimental Set-up • Part of EC-funded project “CROMATICA”. • Liverpool St. underground station in London. • Major commuting “hub” (four lines, links with railways, fourth busiest in London). • 72 cameras cover ~80% of the station. • Equipment: • PC (166MHz!) • Monochrome frame-grabber (8 bits, 512x512, 1 camera). • S-VHS Video tape recorder (for post-analysis). • Sometimes: additional processing hardware. Control Room Equipment BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  5. Detection of overcrowding • Based on earlier work (EPSRC 93-95). • Obtain background frame: • Cameras are fixed. • Small changes in ambient lighting. • Either end-user selects a background frame or continuous (slow) adaptation. • Subtract current image from background. • Label remaining pixels (remove small groups of isolated pixels). • There is an approximate relationship between number of people and number of labeled pixels. • Scene calibration: • People vs. pixels. • Perspective correction (from apparent size of nominal people vs. position on ground plane). BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  6. Image! BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  7. Methodology • Ground-truth: Manual annotation. • Manual measurement of number of people for each frame too expensive! • Operators don’t count people, but use what is known as “service levels” (discrete set of crowding levels): • “A”: Free normal flow ( 0.6 peds./m2). • “B”: Restricted flow (0.6 - 0.75 peds./m2). • “C”: Dense flow (0.75 - 1.25 peds./m2).  • “C2”: Very dense flow (1.25 - 2.0 peds./m2).  • “D”: Jammed flow ( 2.0 peds./m2). • Manual samples every 10 seconds (different pedestrians, if moving). • System generates results (estimate of number of people) every 200ms. Average within 10 sec. period. • Compare manual vs. automatic “service levels” BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  8. Service Levels A B C1 C2 D BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  9. Sample results • 2 hours of recording • 1% “no” detection (manual > auto) • 6% “false” detection (manual < auto) • 93% “true” detection (manual = auto) • Acceptable to end-users (no detection more critical than false alarms). • Does not use pedestrian identification, so performance affected by occlusion & density non-uniformity. Example over a 15 min interval BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  10. Stationary overcrowding • Congestion usually implies stationary people. • Can happen (alarm needed) at lower densities. • Similar approach: • Remove background. • Label moving pixels using moving-edge detector. • Correlate number of edges to number of (moving) people. • Estimate number of static people (). • Manual sampling ~ every 10 secs. Note situations higher than service level B. • Compare results. BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  11. Typical Results • Performance: • Speed: 3 seconds/frame (old transputer!). • True detection (same alarm): 96% (moving), 93% (static). • No detection (manual alarm, no auto alarm): 4% (moving), 7% (static). • False detection (auto alarm, no manual alarm): 7% (moving), 7% (static). • Detection ok. No/False: could be better! BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  12. Strengths/Limitations • Simple to implement  “real-time” is possible. • Difficult to deal with variability, so pedestrian identification has been avoided (c.f. gas theory!). • Reasonable detection performance. • Perspective: “saturation” reached when ~ 70-80% image occupied by people. • Does not deal with occlusion. • “Local” congestion difficult to measure. BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  13. Texture Approach • Hypothesis: image texture related to occupancy (MA Vicencio-Silva, UCL). • Low occupancy: “flat” texture. • High occupancy: “rich” texture. • Can it distinguish service levels? • Have used two methods: • “Statistical” (Grey Level Dependency Matrix). • “Spectral” (Fourier) BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  14. Grey Level Dependency Matrix • Define inter-pixel distance d and inter-pixel orientation . • Compute matrix of second-order joint conditional probability of grey levels , given : • Texture “measures” (Haralick) • Contrast • Homogeneity • Energy • Entropy • d = 1,  = 0, 45, 90, 135 four matrices, 16 texture vector components. BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  15. Spectral • Use polar image coordinates (r, ) • Calculate Fourier coefficients for discrete bands of r and . • Texture vector of 24 components. • Then for “Global” occupancy: • Compute a texture vector for the whole image (i.e. single descriptor for the image e.g. “nearly empty”). • Use manual ground truth to train a self organising map (Kohonen). • Use trained network to classify new images into service levels. BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  16. Results • Results comparable to previous ones. • “Real-time” implementation is possible. % correct detection (Grey level dependency matrix) % correct detection (spectral) BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  17. Local Occupancy • Manually identify areas for each class in a training set. • Compute GLDMs and texture vector for a random set of pixel neighbourhoods within such areas. • Train the classifier (SOM). • Use the trained classifier to estimate occupancy level for each pixel in unknown images. Smooth results. • Output is a segmented image showing local occupancy in an image. • Can also use frequency distribution of classes in segmented image to compute global occupancy. BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  18. Examples BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  19. Motion Estimation • Simple block-matching 8x8, search area: 20 pixels. • Own hardware can process video at full frame rates. • Currently experimenting with MPEG-2 video streams (~standard!). • Use motion to: • Improve estimation of background. • Estimate perspective. • Detect flow in unexpected directions (e.g. in one-way corridors). • Detect unusual stationary image regions (people/objects), e.g. buskers, drug dealers. • Detect intrusion into forbidden areas (e.g. edge of train platforms). BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  20. Background BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  21. Stationarity BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  22. Detection performance • Unusual direction (counter-flow) • True: 99.6%, No: 0.4%, False: 0.8% • Stationary people/objects • True: 98%, No: 2%, False: 0% • Global overcrowding • True: 96%, No: 4%, False: 4% • Congestion (stationary overcrowding) • True: 99%, No: 1%, False: 0.3%  BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

  23. Conclusions • Approaches to detect excessive density (congestion) have been developed. • Localisation & tracking of individuals have been avoided (scenes too cluttered). • “Real-time” implementations have been carried out. • Systems tested on-site and with pre-recorded video. • Performance assessed (within 5% confidence, i.e. with significant data sets). • Performance close to end-user expectations. • Next steps: • Integrate to public transport management. • Measure crowd/people behaviour. BMVA Intelligent Surveillance

More Related