Author Affiliations
School of Information Science and Technology, Shijiazhuang Tiedao University, Shijiazhuang , Hebei 050043, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Schematic of spatio-temporal flow model
Fig. 2. Flow of surveillance video motion segment segmentation based on spatio-temporal flow
Fig. 3. Video frame boundaries and spatio-temporal profiles. (a) Frame boundaries; (b) spatio-temporal profiles
Fig. 4. Video spatio-temporal profiles
Fig. 5. Viewing the video profile as a video
Fig. 6. Spatio-temporal profiles after target extraction
Fig. 7. Schematic of the sub-boundary
Fig. 8. Video spatio-temporal flow curve and accumulative spatio-temporal flow curve. (a) Video spatio-temporal flow curve; (b) video accumulative spatio-temporal flow curve
Fig. 9. Corrected video spatio-temporal flow curve and corrected accumulative spatio-temporal flow curve. (a) Corrected video spatio-temporal flow curve; (b) corrected video accumulative spatio-temporal flow curve
Fig. 10. Schematic of self-collected surveillance videos
Fig. 11. Video4's spatio-temporal flow curve and accumulative spatio-temporal flow curve. (a) Spatio-temporal flow curve; (b) accumulative spatio-temporal flow curve
Fig. 12. Some of Video4's frames correspond to the spatio-temporal flow jumps
Fig. 13. Video5's accumulative spatio-temporal flow curve and partial video frames
Video sequence | Frame rate /(frame⋅s-1) | Resolution ratio | Number of frames |
---|
Video1 | 28 | | 1679 | Video2 | 28 | | 1342 | Video3 | 29 | | 975 | Video4 | 29 | | 569 | Video5 | 29 | | 578 | Video6 | 30 | | 390 | Video7 | 27 | | 180 | Video8 | 29 | | 552 | Video9 | 29 | | 5887 | Video10 | 29 | | 4002 | Video11 | 25 | | 892 | Video12 | 25 | | 741 | Video13 | 25 | | 293 | Video14 | 25 | | 381 | Video15 | 25 | | 2358 |
|
Table 1. Basic information of experimental videos
Method | Average accuracy/% | Average recall/% | Average F1/% | Average run time/s |
---|
Pixel difference[4] | 84.43 | 80.95 | 82.38 | 357.30 | PMHI[6] | 68.10 | 94.54 | 77.16 | 706.82 | Improved optical flow[18] | 83.62 | 84.76 | 83.78 | 468.51 | Proposed method | 89.11 | 88.81 | 88.25 | 61.67 |
|
Table 2. Comparison of experimental results