I try to modify a BGRA mat using a pointer like this:
//Bound the value between 0 to 255
uchar boundPixelValue(double c) {
c = int(c);
if (c > 255)
c = 255;
if (c < 0)
c = 0;
return (uchar) c;
}
for (int i = 0; i < rows; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < cols; j++)
for (int k = 0; k < 3; k++){
//This loop is accessing the first three channels
mat.ptr<Vec4b>(i)[j][k] = boundPixelValue(
1.0 * mat.ptr<Vec4b>(i)[j][k] * max / avg[k]);
}
But this gives different outputs every time, sometimes work and sometimes give a white blank image. I am suspecting if this is due to the noncontinuous data, can anyone help?
One extra question, usually we access the columns of a 2D array first before accessing the rows because it is usually faster. However, I have to access the pixel using mat.ptr<Vec4b>(row)[col]. So, should I loop through the rows first then column?
Easier, less intensive way of doing is:
std::vector<cv::Mat> matArray;
cv::split(toBoundMat, matArray);
matArray[0].setTo(0, matArray[0] < 0);
matArray[0].setTo(255, matArray[0] > 255);
matArray[1].setTo(0, matArray[1] < 0);
matArray[1].setTo(255, matArray[1] > 255);
matArray[2].setTo(0, matArray[2] < 0);
matArray[2].setTo(255, matArray[2] > 255);
cv::Mat boundedMat;
cv::merge(matArray, boundedMat);
But I really don't understand what you are trying to do. Your double data may have values between 1.7E +/- 308. You either are expecting a very specific kind of data, or you are going to mess it up. If you want to make a Mat visualizable, just normalize it like this:
cv::normalize(inMat, destMat, 0, 255, CV_MINMAX);
cv::cvtColor(destMat, destMat, CV_8UC1) //--(8 bit visualizable mat)
This will check the min and max of your current Mat and will set the minimum to 0, the maximum to 255, and all the in between values proportionally :)
Related
I want to create a 1D plot from an image. Then I want to determine the maxima and their distances to each other in c++.
I am looking for some tips on how I could approach this.
I load the image as cv::Mat. In opencv I have searched, but only found the histogram function, which is wrong. I want to get a cross section of the image - from left to right.
does anyone have an idea ?
Well I have the following picture:
From this I want to create a 1D plot like in the following picture (I created the plot in ImageJ).
Here you can see the maxima (I could refine it with "smooth").
I want to determine the positions of these maxima and then the distances between them.
I have to get to the 1D plot somehow. I suppose I can get to the maxima with a derivation?
++++++++++ UPDATE ++++++++++
Now i wrote this to get an 1D Plot:
cv::Mat img= cv::imread(imgFile.toStdString(), cv::IMREAD_ANYDEPTH | cv::IMREAD_COLOR);
cv::cvtColor(img, img, cv::COLOR_BGR2GRAY);
uint8_t* data = img.data;
int width = img.cols;
int height = img.rows;
int stride = img.step;
std::vector<double> vPlot(width, 0);
for (int i = 0; i < height; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < width; j++) {
uint8_t val = data[ i * stride + j];
vPlot[j]=vPlot[j] + val;
}
}
std::ofstream file;
file.open("path\\plot.csv");
for(int i = 0; i < vPlot.size(); i++){
file << vPlot[i];
file << ";";
}
file.close();
When i plot this in excel i got this:
Thats looks not so smooth as in ImageJ. Did i something wrong?
I need it like in the Plot of ImageJ - more smooth.
ok I got it:
for (int i = 0; i < vPlot.size(); i++) {
vPlot[i] = vPlot[i] / height;
}
Ok but i don't know how to get the maxima an distances.
When i have the local maxima (i don't know how), i can calculate the distance between them with the index of the vetcor elements.
Has anybody an idea to get the local Maxima out of the vector, that I plot above ?
Now o wrote this to find the maxima:
// find maxima
std::vector<int> idxMax;
int flag = 0;
for(int i = 1; i < avg.size(); i++){
double diff = avg[i] - avg[i-1];
if(diff < 0){
if(flag>0){
idxMax.push_back(i);
flag = -1;
}
}
if(diff >= 0){
if(flag<=0){
flag = 1;
}
}
}
But more maxima are found than wanted. The length of the vector varies and also the number of peaks. These can be close together or far away. They are also not always the same height, as can be seen in the picture
My title may not be clear enough, but please look carefully on the following description.Thanks in advance.
I have a RGB image and a binary mask image:
Mat img = imread("test.jpg")
Mat mask = Mat::zeros(img.rows, img.cols, CV_8U);
Give some ones to the mask, assume the number of ones is N. Now the nonzero coordinates are known, based on these coordinates, we can surely obtain the corresponding pixel RGB value of the origin image.I know this can be accomplished by the following code:
Mat colors = Mat::zeros(N, 3, CV_8U);
int counter = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < mask.rows; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < mask.cols; j++)
{
if (mask.at<uchar>(i, j) == 1)
{
colors.at<uchar>(counter, 0) = img.at<Vec3b>(i, j)[0];
colors.at<uchar>(counter, 1) = img.at<Vec3b>(i, j)[1];
colors.at<uchar>(counter, 2) = img.at<Vec3b>(i, j)[2];
counter++;
}
}
}
And the coords will be as follows:
enter image description here
However, this two layer of for loop costs too much time. I was wondering if there is a faster method to obatin colors, hope you guys can understand what I was trying to convey.
PS:If I can use python, this can be done in only one sentence:
colors = img[mask == 1]
The .at() method is the slowest way to access Mat values in C++. Fastest is to use pointers, but best practice is an iterator. See the OpenCV tutorial on scanning images.
Just a note, even though Python's syntax is nice for something like this, it still has to loop through all of the elements at the end of the day---and since it has some overhead before this, it's de-facto slower than C++ loops with pointers. You necessarily need to loop through all the elements regardless of your library, you're doing comparisons with the mask for every element.
If you are flexible with using any other open source library using C++, try Armadillo. You can do all linear algebra operations with it and also, you can reduce above code to one line(similar to your Python code snippet).
Or
Try findNonZero()function and find all coordinates in image containing non-zero values. Check this: https://stackoverflow.com/a/19244484/7514664
Compile with optimization enabled, try profiling this version and tell us if it is faster:
vector<Vec3b> colors;
if (img.isContinuous() && mask.isContinuous()) {
auto pimg = img.ptr<Vec3b>();
for (auto pmask = mask.datastart; pmask < mask.dataend; ++pmask, ++pimg) {
if (*pmask)
colors.emplace_back(*pimg);
}
}
else {
for (int r = 0; r < img.rows; ++r) {
auto prowimg = img.ptr<Vec3b>(r);
auto prowmask = img.ptr(r);
for (int c = 0; c < img.cols; ++c) {
if (prowmask[c])
colors.emplace_back(prowimg[c]);
}
}
}
If you know the size of colors, reserve the space for it beforehand.
What is the fastest way of assigning a vector to a matrix row in a loop? I want to fill a data matrix along its rows with vectors. These vectors are computed in a loop. This loop last until all the entries of data matrix is filled those vectors.
Currently I am using cv::Mat::at<>() method for accessing the elements of the matrix and fill them with the vector, however, it seems this process is quite slow. I have tried another way by using cv::Mat::X.row(index) = data_vector, it works fast but fill my matrix X with some garbage values which I can not understand, why.
I read that there exists another way of using pointers (fastest way), however, I can not able to understand. Can somebody explain how to use them or other different methods?
Here is a part of my code:
#define OFFSET 2
cv::Mat im = cv::imread("001.png", CV_LOAD_IMAGE_GRAYSCALE);
cv::Mat X = cv::Mat((im.rows - 2*OFFSET)*(im.cols - 2*OFFSET), 25, CV_64FC1); // Holds the training data. Data contains image patches
cv::Mat patch = cv::Mat(5, 5, im.type()); // Holds a cropped image patch
typedef cv::Vec<float, 25> Vec25f;
int ind = 0;
for (int row = 0; row < (im.rows - 2*OFFSET); row++){
for (int col = 0; col < (im.cols - 2*OFFSET); col++){
cv::Mat temp_patch = im(cv::Rect(col, row, 5, 5)); // crop an image patch (5x5) at each pixel
patch = temp_patch.clone(); // Needs to do this because temp_patch is not continuous in memory
patch.convertTo(patch, CV_64FC1);
Vec25f data_vector = patch.reshape(0, 1); // make it row vector (1X25).
for (int i = 0; i < 25; i++)
{
X.at<float>(ind, i) = data_vector[i]; // Currently I am using this way (quite slow).
}
//X_train.row(ind) = patch.reshape(0, 1); // Tried this but it assigns some garbage values to the data matrix!
ind += 1;
}
}
To do it the regular opencv way you could do :-
ImageMat.row(RowIndex) = RowMat.clone();
or
RowMat.copyTo(ImageMat.row(RowIndex));
Haven't tested for correctness or speed.
Just a couple of edits in your code
double * xBuffer = X.ptr<double>(0);
for (int row = 0; row < (im.rows - 2*OFFSET); row++){
for (int col = 0; col < (im.cols - 2*OFFSET); col++){
cv::Mat temp_patch = im(cv::Rect(col, row, 5, 5)); // crop an image patch (5x5) at each pixel
patch = temp_patch.clone(); // Needs to do this because temp_patch is not continuous in memory
patch.convertTo(patch, CV_64FC1);
memcpy(xBuffer, patch.data, 25*sizeof(double));
xBuffer += 25;
}
}
Also, you dont seem to do any computation in patch just extract grey level values, so you can create X with the same type as im, and convert it to double at the end. In this way, you could memcpy each row of your patch, the address in memory beeing `unsigned char* buffer = im.ptr(row) + col
According to the docs:
if you need to process a whole row of matrix, the most efficient way is to get the pointer to the row first, and then just use plain C operator []:
// compute sum of positive matrix elements
// (assuming that M is double-precision matrix)
double sum=0;
for(int i = 0; i < M.rows; i++)
{
const double* Mi = M.ptr<double>(i);
for(int j = 0; j < M.cols; j++)
sum += std::max(Mi[j], 0.);
}
I'm new to OpenCV a have some trouble regarding writing to a subrange of a Mat-Object.
The code below iterates a given Image. For each pixel, it takes pixel within a range of 5x5, finds the brightest pixel, and put all other pixel to 0.
I call the function multiple times. After a random number of calls the function gives me a segmentation fault or "malloc memory corruption". Sometimes I can call the function 10 times with no problems sometimes only twice, then the program stops.
I tracked down the problem to the line, where I write to the original image using the subimage.
subimage.at<uchar>(rowSubimage,colSubimage) = 0;
There is the function that drives me crazy:
void findMaxAndBlackout(Mat& image, int size){
Point centralPoint;
Size rangeSize = Size(size,size);
Mat subimage;
Rect range;
// iterate the image
for(int row = 0; row <= image.rows-size; row++){
for(int col = 0; col <= image.cols-size; col++){
centralPoint = Point(col,row);
range = Rect(centralPoint, rangeSize);
// slice submatrix and find max
subimage = image(range);
double max;
minMaxLoc( subimage, NULL, &max, NULL, NULL );
// iterate the surrounding
for(int rowSubimage = 0; rowSubimage <= subimage.rows; rowSubimage++){
for(int colSubimage = 0; colSubimage <= subimage.cols; colSubimage++){
if(subimage.at<uchar>(rowSubimage,colSubimage) < max){
//this line cause the trouble
subimage.at<uchar>(rowSubimage,colSubimage) = 0;
}
}
}
}
}}
The Mat-Object is generated using:
Mat houghImage = imread("small_schachbrett1_cam.png", CV_LOAD_IMAGE_GRAYSCALE);
Please help me understand the problem.
If you know a better or more efficient way to achieve the same result please let me know. I am open for any improvements
Regards
benniz
You are out of range:
row <= image.rows-size
col <= image.cols-size
rowSubimage <= subimage.rows
colSubimage <= subimage.cols
should be
row < image.rows-size
col < image.cols-size
rowSubimage < subimage.rows
colSubimage < subimage.cols
I want to access image pixels as float array in opencv. Ive done the following:
Mat input = imread("Lena.jpg",CV_LOAD_IMAGE_GRAYSCALE);
int height = input.rows;
int width = input.cols;
Mat out;
input.convertTo(input, CV_32FC1);
copyMakeBorder(input, input, 3, 3, 3, 3, 0);
out = Mat(height, width, input.type());
float *outdata = (float*)out.data;
float *indata = (float*)input.data;
for(int j = 0; j < height; j++){
for(int i =0; i < width; i++){
outdata[j*width + i] = indata[(j* width + i)];
}
}
normalize(out, out,0,255,NORM_MINMAX,CV_8UC1);
imshow("output", out);
waitKey();
This should return the original image in "out", however, I'm getting some weird image. Can anyone explain whats wrong with the code. I think i need to use some step size (widthStep). Thanks.
the line
copyMakeBorder(input, input, 3, 3, 3, 3, 0);
changes the dimensions of input, it adds 6 rows and 6 columns to the image. That means your height and width variables are holding the wrong values when you define out and try to loop over the values on input.
if you change the order to
copyMakeBorder(input, input, 3, 3, 3, 3, 0);
int height = input.rows;
int width = input.cols;
it should work fine.
Some ideas:
Something like outdata[j*width + i] is a more standard pattern for this sort of thing.
According to the opencv documentation, there is a templated Mat::at(int y, int x) method that allows you to access individual elements of a matrix.
float f = input.at<float>(0, 0);
Note that this requires that your underlying matrix type is float -- it won't do a conversion for you.
Alternatively, you could access the data row-by-row, as in this example that sums up the positive elements of a matrix M of type double:
double sum=0;
for(int i = 0; i < M.rows; i++)
{
const double* Mi = M.ptr<double>(i);
for(int j = 0; j < M.cols; j++)
sum += std::max(Mi[j], 0.);
}
If none of these work, I'd suggest creating a small matrix with known values (e.g. a 2x2 matrix with 1 black pixel and 3 white pixels) and use that to help debug your code.
To really make it apparent what the problem is, imagine a 16 by 16 image. Now think of pixel number 17 in the linear representation.
17 is a prime number. There is no j*i that will index your source image at pixel 17 if the row or column width is 16. Thus elements like 17, 19, 23 and so on will be uninitialized or at best 0, resulting in a "weird" output.
How about pixel 8 in the linear representation? that one in contrast will get hit by your loop four times, i.e. by 1x8, 2x4, 4x2, and 8x1!
The indexing #NateKohl presents in his answer will fix it since he multiplies a row position by the length of the row and then simply walks along the columns.
You can try this loop...
for(int row=0;row<height;row++)
{
for(int col=0;col<width;col++)
{
float float_data = input.at<float>(row,col);
// do some processing with value of float_data
out.at<float>(row,col) = float_data;
}
}
Is there a need to cast the uchar pointers of input and out Mats to float pointers?