Author Affiliations
1School of Electrical and Information Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China2School of Microelectronics, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China3China Southern Power Grid Co., Ltd., Guangzhou, Guangdong 510670, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Overall flow chart of proposed method
Fig. 2. Detection of pointer tip positioning
Fig. 3. Schematic of the meter reading
Fig. 4. Overall flow chart of instrument reading algorithm
Fig. 5. Flow chart of consistently significant algorithm
Fig. 6. Two-parameter Gaussian model. (a) Gaussian model curves of distance; (b) Gaussian model curves of angle
Fig. 7. Two-parameter three-dimensional Gaussian model. (a) Schematic of three-dimensional Gaussian model; (b) top view of three-dimensional Gaussian model
Fig. 8. Results of initial tick mark, end tick mark, and hand extraction. (a) Original input images; (b)tick rings; (c) meter rings; (d) experimental results by proposed method
Fig. 9. Comparison of pointer location results. (a) Traditional Hough method; (b) proposed method
Fig. 10. Comparison of consistently significant detection effects. (a) Original input image; (b) consistent saliency detection; (c) single image saliency detection
Fig. 11. Comparison of consistently significant image reading results. (a) Significant image reading results; (b) partial enlargements; (c) deviation from the rectangular frame by two algorithms
Number | Averagevalue ofmanual reading | Reading resultof proposedalgorithm | Errorrate /% |
---|
1 | 0.015 | 0.0159 | 5.6 | 2 | 0.023 | 0.0241 | 4.6 | 3 | 0.017 | 0.0160 | 6.3 | 4 | 0.066 | 0.0679 | 2.8 | 5 | 0.032 | 0.0330 | 3.1 |
|
Table 1. Error rate of initial tick reading results
Number | Proposed algorithm | Hough algorithm |
---|
Angledeviation | Distancedeviation | Reliabilityestimation /% | Angledeviation | Distancedeviation | Reliabilityestimation /% |
---|
1 | 2.00 | 2.26 | 95 | 3.70 | 3.41 | 93 | 2 | -0.99 | 3.64 | 95 | -4.21 | 7.62 | 88 | 3 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100 | 9.31 | 3.31 | 0 | 4 | 0.96 | 1.35 | 97 | 6.86 | 5.42 | 87 | 5 | -2.29 | 1.91 | 95 | 5.32 | 2.41 | 92 |
|
Table 2. Test results of reliability estimation model