If I have a 4-D blob, say of size (40,1024,300,1) and I want to average pool across the second channel and generate an output of size (40,1,300,1), how would I do it? I think the reduction layer collapses the whole blob and generates a blob of size (40) by summing elements in all other axises (after 1) also. Is there any work around for this without re-implementing a new layer?
The only easy workaround I found is as follows. Permute your blob to a shape (40,300,1,1024). Use reduction layer to compute the mean with axis = -1 and operation = MEAN. I think the blob will be of shape (40,300,1). You may need to use reshape to append an extra dimension at the end (check if this is needed) and then permute back to shape (40,1,300,1).
You can find an implementation of a Permute layer here or here. I hope this helps.
Related
I have a Linear() layer in Pytorch after a few Conv() layers. All the images in my dataset are black and white. However most of the images in my test set are of a different dimension than the images in my training set. Apart from resizing the images themselves, is there any way to define the Linear() layer in such a way that it takes a variable input dimension? For example something similar to view(-1)
Well, it doesn't make sense to have a Linear() layer with a variable input size. Because in fact it's a learnable matrix of shape [n_in, n_out]. And matrix multiplication is not defined for inputs if theirs feature dimension != n_in
What you can do is to apply pooling from functional API. You'll need to specify kernel_size and stride such that resulting output will have feature dimension size = n_in.
Can someone please tell me that why the size of dense layer and the output layer is 256 and 10 respectively?
input = 1x28x28
conv2d1 (28-(5-1))=24 -> 32x24x24
maxpool1 32x12x12
conv2d2 (12-(3-1))=10 -> 32x10x10
maxpool2 32x5x5
dense 256
output 10
Convolution layers are different from Fully Connected layers. For fully connected, you reshape the vector to one single dimension and apply matrix multiplication with fc layer weights (W*x+B).
You should clearly read and understand concepts here (best tutorial to understand how convnets works) : http://cs231n.github.io/convolutional-networks/#conv
For Dense Layer:
In your case, first dense layer has size of weights [32*5*5,256]. Reshape the output of pool layer to one vector and feed it through dense layers. Output of first dense layer is 256 dim vector - feed it through second FC layer (weights_size = [256,10]) to get 10 dim vector
All the details of Conv, Pool, Relu, fully-connected layers and calculation of output sizes of each layer are clearly explained in the above link.
Please go through it. I hope that helps.
I want to merge 2 images. How can i remove the same area between 2 images?
Can you tell me an algorithm to solve this problem. Thanks.
Two image are screenshoot image. They have the same width and image 1 always above image 2.
When two images have the same width and there is no X-offset at the left side this shouldn't be too difficult.
You should create two vectors of integer and store the CRC of each pixel row in the corresponding vector element. After doing this for both pictures you find the CRC of the first line of the lower image in the first vector. This is the offset in the upper picture. Then you check that all following CRCs from both pictures are identical. If not, you have to look up the next occurrence of the initial CRC in the upper image again.
After checking that the CRCs between both pictures are identical when you apply the offset you can use the bitblit function of your graphics format and build the composite picture.
I haven't come across something similar before but I think the following might work:
Convert both to grey-scale.
Enhance the contrast, the grey box might become white for example and the text would become more black. (This is just to increase the confidence in the next step)
Apply some threshold, converting the pictures to black and white.
afterwards, you could find the similar areas (and thus the offset of overlap) with a good degree of confidence. To find the similar parts, you could harper's method (which is good but I don't know how reliable it would be without the said filtering), or you could apply some DSP operation(s) like convolution.
Hope that helps.
If your images are same width and image 1 is always on top. I don't see how that hard could it be..
Just store the bytes of the last line of image 1.
from the first line to the last of the image 2, make this test :
If the current line of image 2 is not equal to the last line of image 1 -> continue
else -> break the loop
you have to define a new byte container for your new image :
Just store all the lines of image 1 + all the lines of image 2 that start at (the found line + 1).
What would make you sweat here is finding the libraries to manipulate all these data structures. But after a few linkage and documentation digging, you should be able to easily implement that.
Some details about my problem:
I'm trying to realize corner detector in openCV (another algorithm, that are built-in: Canny, Harris, etc).
I've got a matrix filled with the response values. The biggest response value is - the biggest probability of corner detected is.
I have a problem, that in neighborhood of a point there are few corners detected (but there is only one). I need to reduce number of false-detected corners.
Exact problem:
I need to walk through the matrix with a kernel, calculate maximum value of every kernel, leave max value, but others values in kernel make equal zero.
Are there build-in openCV functions to do this?
This is how I would do it:
Create a kernel, it defines a pixels neighbourhood.
Create a new image by dilating your image using this kernel. This dilated image contains the maximum neighbourhood value for every point.
Do an equality comparison between these two arrays. Wherever they are equal is a valid neighbourhood maximum, and is set to 255 in the comparison array.
Multiply the comparison array, and the original array together (scaling appropriately).
This is your final array, containing only neighbourhood maxima.
This is illustrated by these zoomed in images:
9 pixel by 9 pixel original image:
After processing with a 5 by 5 pixel kernel, only the local neighbourhood maxima remain (ie. maxima seperated by more than 2 pixels from a pixel with a greater value):
There is one caveat. If two nearby maxima have the same value then they will both be present in the final image.
Here is some Python code that does it, it should be very easy to convert to c++:
import cv
im = cv.LoadImage('fish2.png',cv.CV_LOAD_IMAGE_GRAYSCALE)
maxed = cv.CreateImage((im.width, im.height), cv.IPL_DEPTH_8U, 1)
comp = cv.CreateImage((im.width, im.height), cv.IPL_DEPTH_8U, 1)
#Create a 5*5 kernel anchored at 2,2
kernel = cv.CreateStructuringElementEx(5, 5, 2, 2, cv.CV_SHAPE_RECT)
cv.Dilate(im, maxed, element=kernel, iterations=1)
cv.Cmp(im, maxed, comp, cv.CV_CMP_EQ)
cv.Mul(im, comp, im, 1/255.0)
cv.ShowImage("local max only", im)
cv.WaitKey(0)
I didn't realise until now, but this is what #sansuiso suggested in his/her answer.
This is possibly better illustrated with this image, before:
after processing with a 5 by 5 kernel:
solid regions are due to the shared local maxima values.
I would suggest an original 2-step procedure (there may exist more efficient approaches), that uses opencv built-in functions :
Step 1 : morphological dilation with a square kernel (corresponding to your neighborhood). This step gives you another image, after replacing each pixel value by the maximum value inside the kernel.
Step 2 : test if the cornerness value of each pixel of the original response image is equal to the max value given by the dilation step. If not, then obviously there exists a better corner in the neighborhood.
If you are looking for some built-in functionality, FilterEngine will help you make a custom filter (kernel).
http://docs.opencv.org/modules/imgproc/doc/filtering.html#filterengine
Also, I would recommend some kind of noise reduction, usually blur, before all processing. That is unless you really want the image raw.
I am trying to do a 2D Real To Complex FFT using CUFFT.
I realize that I will do this and get W/2+1 complex values back (W being the "width" of my H*W matrix).
The question is - what if I want to build out a full H*W version of this matrix after the transform - how do I go about copying some values from the H*(w/2+1) result matrix back to a full size matrix to get both parts and the DC value in the right place
Thanks
I'm not familiar with CUDA, so take that into consideration when reading my response. I am familiar with FFTs and signal processing in general, though.
It sounds like you start out with an H (rows) x W (cols) matrix, and that you are doing a 2D FFT that essentially does an FFT on each row, and you end up with an H x W/2+1 matrix. A W-wide FFT returns W values, but the CUDA function only returns W/2+1 because real data is even in the frequency domain, so the negative frequency data is redundant.
So, if you want to reproduce the missing W/2-1 points, simply mirror the positive frequency. For instance, if one of the rows is as follows:
Index Data
0 12 + i
1 5 + 2i
2 6
3 2 - 3i
...
The 0 index is your DC power, the 1 index is the lowest positive frequency bin, and so forth. You would thus make your closest-to-DC negative frequency bin 5+2i, the next closest 6, and so on. Where you put those values in the array is up to you. I would do it the way Matlab does it, with the negative frequency data after the positive frequency data.
I hope that makes sense.
There are two ways this can be acheived. You will have to write your own kernel to acheive either of this.
1) You will need to perform conjugate on the (half) data you get to find the other half.
2) Since you want full results anyway, it would be best if you convert the input data from real to complex (by padding with 0 imaginary) and performing the complex to complex transform.
From practice I have noticed that there is not much of a difference in speed either way.
I actually searched the nVidia forums and found a kernel that someone had written that did just what I was asking. That is what I used. if you search the cuda forum for "redundant results fft" or similar you will find it.