I am trying to convert MATLAB code to C++.
In MATLAB, I use the find function to get the indices of a vector and then copy these to other variables. For example:
idx = find(A>s);
B = idx;
% A, idx, and B are vectors; s is a scalar
In C++ OpenCV (C++14 / OpenCV 3.4.10) I know I can use the findNonZero function, but it returns both row and column indices:
double s;
Mat1d A;
Mat1i B;
Mat idx;
.
.
.
findNonZero(A>s, idx);
I do not know how I can copy only row-indices directly (without using a for loop). I thought it could be done by defining Mat2i idx and using mixChannels like this:
Mat2i idx;
findNonZero(A>s, idx);
B = Mat1i::zeros(idx.size());
int from_to[] = {1, 0};
mixChannels(&idx, 1, &B, 1, from_to, 1);
However, I get the following error while running the findNonZero function:
OpenCV(3.4.10) Error: Assertion failed (!fixedType() || ((Mat*)obj)->type() == mtype) in cv::debug_build_guard::_OutputArray::create,
But if I set Mat idx, I get another error while running the mixChannel function:
OpenCV(3.4.10) Error: Assertion failed (j < nsrcs && src[j].depth() == depth) in cv::mixChannels,
I'm not sure what I should do. Any help is appreciated.
MATLAB's find determines the column-major indices of where values are nonzero in the input matrix. This is true if you specify the single output version of it. If you provide two output variables, that generates both the row and column locations of the nonzero values in the input. In your example you have provided the single output version of find so I will be working with this.
OpenCV's cv::Mat lays out the image in row-major. I'm assuming you would like the row-major indices. If so, since cv::findNonZero outputs both the row and column coordinates, you must loop through the output coordinates yourself and create the row-major indices. You shouldn't be afraid of using loops here. In fact, for loops over cv::Mats are optimised for quick access. Therefore:
Mat2i idx;
Mat1d A; // Define somewhere else
double s; // Define somewhere else
findNonZero(A > s, idx);
B = Mat1i::zeros(idx.total());
for (int i = 0; i < idx.total(); ++i) {
B.at<int>(i) = idx.at<Point>(i).y * A.cols + idx.at<Point>(i).x;
}
B will contain the row-major indices in a cv::Mat1i. If I have misunderstood your inquiry and simply want the row locations of the nonzero values, then it's just:
Mat2i idx;
Mat1d A; // Define somewhere else
double s; // Define somewhere else
findNonZero(A > s, idx);
B = Mat1i::zeros(idx.total());
for (int i = 0; i < idx.total(); ++i) {
B.at<int>(i) = idx.at<Point>(i).y;
}
Remember you are only iterating over the nonzero values, so the worst case complexity is to iterate over the locations that are nonzero.
Related
So we want to approximate the matrix A with m rows and n columns with the product of two matrices P and Q that have dimension mxk and kxn respectively. Here is an implementation of the multiplicative update rule due to Lee in C++ using the Eigen library.
void multiplicative_update()
{
Q = Q.cwiseProduct((P.transpose()*matrix).cwiseQuotient(P.transpose()*P*Q));
P = P.cwiseProduct((matrix*Q.transpose()).cwiseQuotient(P*Q*Q.transpose()));
}
where P, Q, and the matrix (matrix = A) are global variables in the class mat_fac. Thus I train them using the following method,
void train_2(){
double error_trial = 0;
for (int count = 0;count < num_iterations; count ++)
{
multiplicative_update();
error_trial = (matrix-P*Q).squaredNorm();
if (error_trial < 0.001)
{
break;
}
}
}
where num_iterations is also a global variable in the class mat_fac.
The problem is that I am working with very large matrices and in particular I do not have access to the entire matrix. Given a triple (i,j,matrix[i][j]), I have access to the row vector P[i][:] and the column vector Q[:][j]. So my goal is to write rewrite the multiplicative update rule in such a way that I update these two vectors every time, I see a non-zero matrix value.
In code, I want to have something like this:
void multiplicative_update(int i, int j, double mat_value)
{
Eigen::MatrixXd q_vect = get_vector(1, j); // get_vector returns Q[:][j] as a column vector
Eigen::MatrixXd p_vect = get_vector(0, i); // get_vector returns P[i][:] as a column vector
// Somehow compute coeff_AQ_t, coeff_PQQ_t, coeff_P_tA and coeff_P_tA.
for(int i = 0; i< k; i++):
p_vect[i] = p_vect[i]* (coeff_AQ_t)/(coeff_PQQ_t)
q_vect[i] = q_vect[i]* (coeff_P_tA)/(coeff_P_tA)
}
Thus the problem boils down to computing the required coefficients given the two vectors. Is this a possible thing to do? If not, what more data do I need for the multiplicative update to work in this manner?
In Python I normally use functions like vstack, stack, etc to easily create a 3D array by stacking 2D arrays one onto another.
Is there any way to do this in C++?
In particular, I have loaded a image into a Mat variable with OpenCV like:
cv::Mat im = cv::imread("image.png", 0);
I would like to make a 3D array/Mat of N layers by stacking copies of that Mat variable.
EDIT: This new 3D matrix has to be "travellable" by adding an integer to any of its components, such that if I am in the position (x1,y1,1) and I add +1 to the last component, I arrive to (x1,y1,2). Similarly for any of the coordinates/components of the 3D matrix.
SOLVED: Both answers from #Aram and #Nejc do exactly what expected. I set #Nejc 's answer as the correct one for his shorter code.
The Numpy function vstack returns a contiguous array. Any C++ solution that produces vectors or arrays of cv::Mat objects does not reflect the behaviour of vstack in this regard, becase separate "layers" belonging to individual cv::Mat objects will not be stored in contiguous buffer (unless a careful allocation of underlying buffers is done in advance of course).
I present the solution that copies all arrays into a three-dimensional cv::Mat object with a contiguous buffer. As far as the idea goes, this answer is similar to Aram's answer. But instead of assigning pixel values one by one, I take advantage of OpenCV functions. At the beginning I allocate the matrix which has a size N X ROWS X COLS, where N is the number of 2D images I want to "stack" and ROWS x COLS are dimensions of each of these images.
Then I make N steps. On every step, I obtain the pointer to the location of the first element along the "outer" dimension. I pass that pointer to the constructor of temporary Mat object that acts as a kind of wrapper around the memory chunk of size ROWS x COLS (but no copies are made) that begins at the address that is pointed-at by pointer. I then use copyTo method to copy i-th image into that memory chunk. Code for N = 2:
cv::Mat img0 = cv::imread("image0.png", CV_IMREAD_GRAYSCALE);
cv::Mat img1 = cv::imread("image1.png", CV_IMREAD_GRAYSCALE);
cv::Mat images[2] = {img0, img1}; // you can also use vector or some other container
int dims[3] = { 2, img0.rows, img0.cols }; // dimensions of new image
cv::Mat joined(3, dims, CV_8U); // same element type (CV_8U) as input images
for(int i = 0; i < 2; ++i)
{
uint8_t* ptr = &joined.at<uint8_t>(i, 0, 0); // pointer to first element of slice i
cv::Mat destination(img0.rows, img0.cols, CV_8U, (void*)ptr); // no data copy, see documentation
images[i].copyTo(destination);
}
This answer is in response to the question above of:
In Python I normally use functions like vstack, stack, etc to easily create a 3D array by stacking 2D arrays one onto another.
This is certainly possible, you can add matrices into a vector which would be your "stack"
For instance you could use a
std::vector<cv::Mat>>
This would give you a vector of mats, which would be one slice, and then you could "layer" those by adding more slices vector
If you then want to have multiple stacks you can add that vector into another vector:
std::vector<std::vector<cv::Mat>>
To add matrix to an array you do:
myVector.push_back(matrix);
Edit for question below
In such case, could I travel from one position (x1, y1, z1) to an immediately upper position doing (x1,y1,z1+1), such that my new position in the matrix would be (x1,y1,z2)?
You'll end up with something that looks a lot like this. If you have a matrix at element 1 in your vector, it doesn't really have any relationship to the element[2] except for the fact that you have added it into that point. If you want to build relationships then you will need to code that in yourself.
You can actually create a 3D or ND mat with opencv, you need to use the constructor that takes the dimensions as input. Then copy each matrix into (this case) the 3D array
#include <opencv2/opencv.hpp>
using namespace cv;
using namespace std;
int main() {
// Dimensions for the constructor... set dims[0..2] to what you want
int dims[] = {5, 5, 5}; // 5x5x5 3d mat
Mat m = Mat::zeros(5, 5, CV_8UC1);
for (size_t i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
for (size_t k = 0; k < 5; k++) {
m.at<uchar>(i, k) = i + k;
}
}
// Mat with constructor specifying 3 dimensions with dimensions sizes in dims.
Mat 3DMat = Mat(3, dims, CV_8UC1);
// We fill our 3d mat.
for (size_t i = 0; i < m2.size[0]; i++) {
for (size_t k = 0; k < m2.size[1]; k++) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < m2.size[2]; j++) {
3DMat.at<uchar>(i, k, j) = m.at<uchar>(k, j);
}
}
}
// We print it to show the 5x5x5 array.
for (size_t i = 0; i < m2.size[0]; i++) {
for (size_t k = 0; k < m2.size[1]; k++) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < m2.size[2]; j++) {
std::cout << (int) 3DMat.at<uchar>(i, k, j) << " ";
}
std::cout << endl;
}
std::cout << endl;
}
return 0;
}
Based on the question and comments, I think you are looking for something like this:
std::vector<cv::Mat> vec_im;
//In side for loop:
vec_im.push_back(im);
Then, you can access it by:
Scalar intensity_1 = vec_im[z1].at<uchar>(y, x);
Scalar intensity_2 = vec_im[z2].at<uchar>(y, x);
This assumes that the image is single channel.
Suppose I have a Mat of indices (locations) called B, We can say that this Mat has dimensions of 1 x 100 and We suppose to have another Mat, called A, full of data of the same dimensions of B.
Now, I would access to the data of A with B. Usually I would create a for loop and I would take for each elements of B, the right elements of A. For the most fussy of the site, this is the code that I would write:
for(int i=0; i < B.cols; i++){
int index = B.at<int>(0, i);
std::cout<<A.at<int>(0, index)<<std:endl;
}
Ok, now that I showed you what I could do, I ask you if there is a way to access the matrix A, always using the B indices, in a more intelligent and fast way. As someone could do in python thanks to the numpy.take() function.
This operation is called remapping. In OpenCV, you can use function cv::remap for this purpose.
Below I present the very basic example of how remap algorithm works; please note that I don't handle border conditions in this example, but cv::remap does - it allows you to use mirroring, clamping, etc. to specify what happens if the indices exceed the dimensions of the image. I also don't show how interpolation is done; check the cv::remap documentation that I've linked to above.
If you are going to use remapping you will probably have to convert indices to floating point; you will also have to introduce another array of indices that should be trivial (all equal to 0) if your image is one-dimensional. If this starts to represent a problem because of performance, I'd suggest you implement the 1-D remap equivalent yourself. But benchmark first before optimizing, of course.
For all the details, check the documentation, which covers everything you need to know to use te algorithm.
cv::Mat<float> remap_example(cv::Mat<float> image,
cv::Mat<float> positions_x,
cv::Mat<float> positions_y)
{
// sizes of positions arrays must be the same
int size_x = positions_x.cols;
int size_y = positions_x.rows;
auto out = cv::Mat<float>(size_y, size_x);
for(int y = 0; y < size_y; ++y)
for(int x = 0; x < size_x; ++x)
{
float ps_x = positions_x(x, y);
float ps_y = positions_y(x, y);
// use interpolation to determine intensity at image(ps_x, ps_y),
// at this point also handle border conditions
// float interpolated = bilinear_interpolation(image, ps_x, ps_y);
out(x, y) = interpolated;
}
return out;
}
One fast way is to use pointer for both A (data) and B (indexes).
const int* pA = A.ptr<int>(0);
const int* pIndexB = B.ptr<int>(0);
int sum = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < Bi.cols; ++i)
{
sum += pA[*pIndexB++];
}
Note: Be carefull with pixel type, in this case (as you write in your code) is int!
Note2: Using cout for each point access put the optimization useless!
Note3: In this article Satya compare four methods for pixel access and fastest seems "foreach": https://www.learnopencv.com/parallel-pixel-access-in-opencv-using-foreach/
I am trying to sort pixel values of an image (example 80x20) from lowest to highest.
Below is the some code:
bool sortPixel(int first, int second)
{
return (first < second);
}
vector<int>vect_sortPixel;
for(int y=0; y<height; y++)
{
for(int x=0; x<width; x++)
{
vect_sortPixel.push_back(cvGetReal2D(srcImg, y, x));
sort(vect_sortPixel.begin(), vect_sortPixel.end(), sortPixel);
}
}
But it takes quite long time to compute. Any suggestion to reduce the processing time?
Thank you.
Don't use getReal2D. It's quite slow.
Convert image to cv::Mat or Mat. Use its data pointer to get the pixel values. Mat.data() will give you pointer to the original matrix. Use that.
And as far as sorting is concerned, I would advise you to first make an array of all the pixels, then sort it using Merge sort (time complexity O(n log n))
#include<opencv2/highgui/highgui.hpp>
#include<stdio.h>
using namespace cv;
using namespace std;
int main()
{
Mat img = imread("filename.jpg",CV_LOAD_IMAGE_COLOR);
unsigned char *input = (unsigned char*)(img.data);
int i,j,r,g,b;
for(int i = 0;i < img.cols;i++){
for(int j = 0;j < img.rows;j++){
b = input[img.cols * j + i] ;
g = input[img.cols * j+ i + 1];
r = input[img.cols *j + i +2];
}
}
return 0;
}
Using this you can access pixel values from the main matrix.
Warning: This is not how you compare it. I'm suggesting that by using something like this, you can access pixel values.
Mat.data() gives you pointer to the original matrix. This matrix is a 1 D matrix with all the given pixel values.
Image => (x,y,z),(x1,y1,z1), etc..
Mat(original matrix) => x,y,z,x1,y1,z1,...
If you still have some doubts regarding how to extract data from Mat, visit this link OpenCV get pixel channel value from Mat image
and here's a link regarding Merge Sort http://www.cplusplus.happycodings.com/Algorithms/code17.html
There are few problems in your code:
As Froyo already said you use cvGetReal2D which is actually not very fast. You have to convert your cvMat to cv::Mat. To do this there's cv::Mat constructor:
// converts old-style CvMat to the new matrix; the data is not copied by default
Mat(const CvMat* m, bool copyData=false);
And after this use direct pixels acces as mentioned in this SO question.
Another problem is that you use push_back which actually also not very fast. You know the size of array, so why don't you allocate needed memory at the beginning? Like this:
vector<int> vect_sortPixel(mat.cols*mat.rows);
And than just use vect_sortPixel[i] to get needed pixel.
Why do you call sort in the loop? You have to call it after loop, when array is already created! Default STL's sort should work fast:
Complexity
Approximately N*logN comparisons on average (where N is
last-first). In the worst case, up to N^2, depending on specific
sorting algorithm used by library implementation.
I'm using the following code to add some noise to an image (straight out of the OpenCV reference, page 449 -- explanation of cv::Mat::begin):
void
simulate_noise(Mat const &in, double stddev, Mat &out)
{
cv::Size s = in.size();
vector<double> noise = generate_noise(s.width*s.height, stddev);
typedef cv::Vec<unsigned char, 3> V4;
cv::MatConstIterator_<V4> in_itr = in.begin<V4>();
cv::MatConstIterator_<V4> in_end = in.end<V4>();
cv::MatIterator_<V4> out_itr = out.begin<V4>();
cv::MatIterator_<V4> out_end = out.end<V4>();
for (; in_itr != in_end && out_itr != out_end; ++in_itr, ++out_itr)
{
int noise_index = my_rand(noise.size());
for (int j = 0; j < 3; ++j)
(*out_itr)[j] = (*in_itr)[j] + noise[noise_index];
}
}
Nothing overly complicated:
in and out are allocated cv::Mat objects of the same dimensions and type
iterate over the input image in
at each position, pick a random value from noise (my_rand(int n) returns a random number in [0..n-1]
sum the pixel from in with the random noise value
put the summation result into out
I don't like this code because the following statement seems unavoidable:
typedef cv::Vec<unsigned char, 3> V4;
It has hard-coded two things:
The images have 3 channels
The channel depth is 8bpp
If I get this typedef wrong (e.g. wrong channel depth or wrong number of channels), then my program segfaults. I originally used typedef cv::Vec<unsigned char, 4> V4 to handle images with an arbitrary number of channels (the max OpenCV supports is 4), but this caused a segfault.
Is there any way I can avoid hard-coding the two things above? Ideally, I want something that's as generic as:
typedef cv::Vec<in.type(), in.size()> V4;
I know this comes late. However, the real solution to your problem is to use OpenCV functionality to do what you want to do.
create noise vector as you do already (or use the functions that OpenCV provides hint!)
shuffle noise vector so you don't need individual noise_index for each pixel; or create vector of randomised noise beforehand
build a matrix header around your shuffled/random vector: cv::Mat_<double>(noise);
use matrix operations for computation: out = in + noise; or cv::add(in, noise, out);
PROFIT!
Another advantage of this method is that OpenCV might employ multithreading, SSE or whatever to speed-up this massive-element operation, which you do not. Your code is simpler, cleaner, and OpenCV does all the nasty type handling for you.
The problem is that you need determine to determine type and number of channels at runtime, but templates need the information at compile time. You can avoid hardcoding the number of channels by either using cv::split and cv::merge, or by changing the iteration to
for(int row = 0; row < in.rows; ++row) {
unsigned char* inp = in.ptr<unsigned char>(row);
unsigned char* outp = out.ptr<unsigned char>(row);
for (int col = 0; col < in.cols; ++col) {
for (int c = 0; c < in.channels(); ++c) {
*outp++ = *inp++ + noise();
}
}
}
If you want to get rid of the dependance of the type, I'd suggest putting the above in a templated function and calling that from your function, depending on the type of the matrix.
They are hardcoded because performance is better that way.
In OpenCV1.x there is cvGet2D() , which can be used here since Mat can be casted as an IplImage.
But it's slow since each time you access a pixel the function will find out the type, size, etc. Specially inefficient in loops.