The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Shadow detection: A survey and comparative evaluation of recent methods
Open accessAbstract
This paper presents a survey and a comparative evaluation of recent techniques for moving cast shadow detection. We identify shadow removal as a critical step for improving object detection and tracking. The survey covers methods published during the last decade, and places them in a feature-based taxonomy comprised of four categories: chromacity, physical, geometry and textures. A selection of prominent methods across the categories is compared in terms of quantitative performance measures (shadow detection and discrimination rates, colour desaturation) as well as qualitative observations. Furthermore, we propose the use of tracking performance as an unbiased approach for determining the practical usefulness of shadow detection methods. The evaluation indicates that all shadow detection approaches make different contributions and all have individual strength and weaknesses. Out of the selected methods, the geometry-based technique has strict assumptions and is not generalisable to various environments, but it is a straightforward choice when the objects of interest are easy to model and their shadows have different orientation. The chromacity based method is the fastest to implement and run, but it is sensitive to noise and less effective in low saturated scenes. The physical method improves upon the accuracy of the chromacity method by adapting to local shadow models, but fails when the spectral properties of the objects are similar to that of the background. The small-region texture based method is especially robust for pixels whose neighbourhood is textured, but may take longer to implement and is the most computationally expensive. The large-region texture based method produces the most accurate results, but has a significant computational load due to its multiple processing steps.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Algorithms for the Assignment and Transportation Problems
Munkres, J. (1957) · Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics · doi:10.1137/0105003 · Cited by 3,986
Learning patterns of activity using real-time tracking
Stauffer, C., & Grimson, W. E. L. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/34.868677 · Cited by 3,248
Evaluating Multiple Object Tracking Performance: The CLEAR MOT Metrics
Bernardin, K., & Stiefelhagen, R. (2008) · EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing · doi:10.1155/2008/246309 · Cited by 2,918
Learning openCV: computer vision with the openCV library
Bradski, G. R., & Kaehler, A. (2008) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 2,468
Wallflower: principles and practice of background maintenance
Toyama, K., Krumm, J., Brumitt, B., & Meyers, B. (1999) · Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/iccv.1999.791228 · Cited by 1,696
Detecting moving objects, ghosts, and shadows in video streams
Cucchiara, R., Grana, C., Piccardi, M., & Prati, A. (2003) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2003.1233909 · Cited by 1,423
Filtering for texture classification: a comparative study
Randen, T., & Husoy, J. H. (1999) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/34.761261 · Cited by 1,397
Learning OpenCV 3: Computer Vision in C++ with the OpenCV Library
Kaehler, A., & Bradski, G. R. (2016) · Cited by 1,204
A Statistical Approach for Real-time Robust Background Subtraction and Shadow Detection
Horprasert, T. (1999) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · Cited by 944
A Self-Organizing Approach to Background Subtraction for Visual Surveillance Applications
Maddalena, L., & Petrosino, A. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2008.924285 · Cited by 786
Cited by
Traditional and recent approaches in background modeling for foreground detection: An overview
Bouwmans, T. (2014) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2014.04.001 · Cited by 676
Metadata
- Authors
- Sanin, A., Sanderson, C., & Lovell, B. C.
- Venue
- Pattern Recognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-04
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1684-1695
- ISSN
- 0031-3203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1976363322
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 24.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Shadow detection: A survey and comparative evaluation of recent methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.patcog.2011.10.001
- The paper
- Sanin, A., Sanderson, C., & Lovell, B. C. (2012). Shadow detection: A survey and comparative evaluation of recent methods. Pattern Recognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2011.10.001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.