Algorithm for adjustment of image levels - c++

I need to implement in C++ algorithm for adjusting image levels that works similar to Levels function in Photoshop or GIMP. I.e. inputs are: color RGB image to be adjusted adjust, while point, black point, midtone point, output from/to values. But I didn't find yet any info on how to perform this adjustment. Probably someone recommend me algorithm description or materials to study.
To the moment I've came up with following code myself, but it doesn't give expected result, similar to what I can see, for example in the GIMP, image becomes too lightened. Below is my current fragment of the code:
const int normalBlackPoint = 0;
const int normalMidtonePoint = 127;
const int normalWhitePoint = 255;
const double normalLowRange = normalMidtonePoint - normalBlackPoint + 1;
const double normalHighRange = normalWhitePoint - normalMidtonePoint;
int blackPoint = 53;
int midtonePoint = 110;
int whitePoint = 168;
int outputFrom = 0;
int outputTo = 255;
double outputRange = outputTo - outputFrom + 1;
double lowRange = midtonePoint - blackPoint + 1;
double highRange = whitePoint - midtonePoint;
double fullRange = whitePoint - blackPoint + 1;
double lowPart = lowRange / fullRange;
double highPart = highRange / fullRange;
int dim(256);
cv::Mat lut(1, &dim, CV_8U);
for(int i = 0; i < 256; ++i)
{
double p = i > normalMidtonePoint
? (static_cast<double>(i - normalMidtonePoint) / normalHighRange) * highRange * highPart + lowPart
: (static_cast<double>(i + 1) / normalLowRange) * lowRange * lowPart;
int v = static_cast<int>(outputRange * p ) + outputFrom - 1;
if(v < 0) v = 0;
else if(v > 255) v = 255;
lut.at<uchar>(i) = v;
}
....
cv::Mat sourceImage = cv::imread(inputFileName, CV_LOAD_IMAGE_COLOR);
if(!sourceImage.data)
{
std::cerr << "Error: couldn't load image " << inputFileName << "." << std::endl;
continue;
}
#if 0
const int forwardConversion = CV_BGR2YUV;
const int reverseConversion = CV_YUV2BGR;
#else
const int forwardConversion = CV_BGR2Lab;
const int reverseConversion = CV_Lab2BGR;
#endif
cv::Mat convertedImage;
cv::cvtColor(sourceImage, convertedImage, forwardConversion);
// Extract the L channel
std::vector<cv::Mat> convertedPlanes(3);
cv::split(convertedImage, convertedPlanes);
cv::LUT(convertedPlanes[0], lut, convertedPlanes[0]);
//dst.copyTo(convertedPlanes[0]);
cv::merge(convertedPlanes, convertedImage);
cv::Mat resImage;
cv::cvtColor(convertedImage, resImage, reverseConversion);
cv::imwrite(outputFileName, resImage);

Pseudocode for Photoshop's Levels Adjustment
First, calculate the gamma correction value to use for the midtone adjustment (if desired). The following roughly simulates Photoshop's technique, which applies gamma 9.99-1.00 for midtone values 0-128, and 1.00-0.01 for 128-255.
Apply gamma correction:
Gamma = 1
MidtoneNormal = Midtones / 255
If Midtones < 128 Then
MidtoneNormal = MidtoneNormal * 2
Gamma = 1 + ( 9 * ( 1 - MidtoneNormal ) )
Gamma = Min( Gamma, 9.99 )
Else If Midtones > 128 Then
MidtoneNormal = ( MidtoneNormal * 2 ) - 1
Gamma = 1 - MidtoneNormal
Gamma = Max( Gamma, 0.01 )
End If
GammaCorrection = 1 / Gamma
Then, for each channel value R, G, B (0-255) for each pixel, do the following in order.
Apply the input levels:
ChannelValue = 255 * ( ( ChannelValue - ShadowValue ) /
( HighlightValue - ShadowValue ) )
Apply the midtones:
If Midtones <> 128 Then
ChannelValue = 255 * ( Pow( ( ChannelValue / 255 ), GammaCorrection ) )
End If
Apply the output levels:
ChannelValue = ( ChannelValue / 255 ) *
( OutHighlightValue - OutShadowValue ) + OutShadowValue
Where:
All channel and adjustment parameter values are integers, 0-255 inclusive
Shadow/Midtone/HighlightValue are the input adjustment values (defaults 0, 128, 255)
OutShadow/HighlightValue are the output adjustment values (defaults 0, 255)
You should optimize things and make sure values are kept in bounds (like 0-255 for each channel)
For a more accurate simulation of Photoshop, you can use a non-linear interpolation curve if Midtones < 128. Photoshop also chops off the darkest and lightest 0.1% of the values by default.

Ignoring the midtone/Gamma, the Levels function is a simple linear scaling.
All input values are first linearly scaled so that all values less or equal to the "black point" are set to 0, and all values greater than or equal white point are set to 255.
Then all values are linearly scaled from 0/255 to the output range.
For the mid-point—it depends what you actually mean by that.
In GIMP, there is a Gamma value. The Gamma value is a simple exponent of the input values (after restricting to the black/white points).
For Gamma == 1, the values are not changed.
For gamma < 1, the values are darkened.

Related

Transform images with bezier curves

I'm using this article: nonlingr as a font to understand non linear transformations, in the section GLYPHS ALONG A PATH he explains how to use a parametric curve to transform an image, i'm trying to apply a cubic bezier to an image, however i have been unsuccessfull, this is my code:
OUT.aloc(IN.width(), IN.height());
//get the control points...
wVector p0(values[vindex], values[vindex+1], 1);
wVector p1(values[vindex+2], values[vindex+3], 1);
wVector p2(values[vindex+4], values[vindex+5], 1);
wVector p3(values[vindex+6], values[vindex+7], 1);
//this is to calculate t based on x
double trange = 1 / (OUT.width()-1);
//curve coefficients
double A = (-p0[0] + 3*p1[0] - 3*p2[0] + p3[0]);
double B = (3*p0[0] - 6*p1[0] + 3*p2[0]);
double C = (-3*p0[0] + 3*p1[0]);
double D = p0[0];
double E = (-p0[1] + 3*p1[1] - 3*p2[1] + p3[1]);
double F = (3*p0[1] - 6*p1[1] + 3*p2[1]);
double G = (-3*p0[1] + 3*p1[1]);
double H = p0[1];
//apply the transformation
for(long i = 0; i < OUT.height(); i++){
for(long j = 0; j < OUT.width(); j++){
//t = x / width
double t = trange * j;
//apply the article given formulas
double x_path_d = 3*t*t*A + 2*t*B + C;
double y_path_d = 3*t*t*E + 2*t*F + G;
double angle = 3.14159265/2.0 + std::atan(y_path_d / x_path_d);
mapped_point.Set((t*t*t)*A + (t*t)*B + t*C + D + i*std::cos(angle),
(t*t*t)*E + (t*t)*F + t*G + H + i*std::sin(angle),
1);
//test if the point is inside the image
if(mapped_point[0] < 0 ||
mapped_point[0] >= OUT.width() ||
mapped_point[1] < 0 ||
mapped_point[1] >= IN.height())
continue;
OUT.setPixel(
long(mapped_point[0]),
long(mapped_point[1]),
IN.getPixel(j, i));
}
}
Applying this code in a 300x196 rgb image all i get is a black screen no matter what control points i use, is hard to find information about this kind of transformation, searching for parametric curves all i find is how to draw them, not apply to images. Can someone help me on how to transform an image with a bezier curve?
IMHO applying a curve to an image sound like using a LUT. So you will need to check for the value of the curve for different image values and then switch the image value with the one on the curve, so, create a Look-Up-Table for each possible value in the image (e.g : 0, 1, ..., 255, for a gray value 8 bit image), that is a 2x256 matrix, first column has the values from 0 to 255 and the second one having the value of the curve.

How can I calculate the curvature of an extracted contour by opencv?

I did use the findcontours() method to extract contour from the image, but I have no idea how to calculate the curvature from a set of contour points. Can somebody help me? Thank you very much!
While the theory behind Gombat's answer is correct, there are some errors in the code as well as in the formulae (the denominator t+n-x should be t+n-t). I have made several changes:
use symmetric derivatives to get more precise locations of curvature maxima
allow to use a step size for derivative calculation (can be used to reduce noise from noisy contours)
works with closed contours
Fixes:
* return infinity as curvature if denominator is 0 (not 0)
* added square calculation in denominator
* correct checking for 0 divisor
std::vector<double> getCurvature(std::vector<cv::Point> const& vecContourPoints, int step)
{
std::vector< double > vecCurvature( vecContourPoints.size() );
if (vecContourPoints.size() < step)
return vecCurvature;
auto frontToBack = vecContourPoints.front() - vecContourPoints.back();
std::cout << CONTENT_OF(frontToBack) << std::endl;
bool isClosed = ((int)std::max(std::abs(frontToBack.x), std::abs(frontToBack.y))) <= 1;
cv::Point2f pplus, pminus;
cv::Point2f f1stDerivative, f2ndDerivative;
for (int i = 0; i < vecContourPoints.size(); i++ )
{
const cv::Point2f& pos = vecContourPoints[i];
int maxStep = step;
if (!isClosed)
{
maxStep = std::min(std::min(step, i), (int)vecContourPoints.size()-1-i);
if (maxStep == 0)
{
vecCurvature[i] = std::numeric_limits<double>::infinity();
continue;
}
}
int iminus = i-maxStep;
int iplus = i+maxStep;
pminus = vecContourPoints[iminus < 0 ? iminus + vecContourPoints.size() : iminus];
pplus = vecContourPoints[iplus > vecContourPoints.size() ? iplus - vecContourPoints.size() : iplus];
f1stDerivative.x = (pplus.x - pminus.x) / (iplus-iminus);
f1stDerivative.y = (pplus.y - pminus.y) / (iplus-iminus);
f2ndDerivative.x = (pplus.x - 2*pos.x + pminus.x) / ((iplus-iminus)/2*(iplus-iminus)/2);
f2ndDerivative.y = (pplus.y - 2*pos.y + pminus.y) / ((iplus-iminus)/2*(iplus-iminus)/2);
double curvature2D;
double divisor = f1stDerivative.x*f1stDerivative.x + f1stDerivative.y*f1stDerivative.y;
if ( std::abs(divisor) > 10e-8 )
{
curvature2D = std::abs(f2ndDerivative.y*f1stDerivative.x - f2ndDerivative.x*f1stDerivative.y) /
pow(divisor, 3.0/2.0 ) ;
}
else
{
curvature2D = std::numeric_limits<double>::infinity();
}
vecCurvature[i] = curvature2D;
}
return vecCurvature;
}
For me curvature is:
where t is the position inside the contour and x(t) resp. y(t) return the related x resp. y value. See here.
So, according to my definition of curvature, one can implement it this way:
std::vector< float > vecCurvature( vecContourPoints.size() );
cv::Point2f posOld, posOlder;
cv::Point2f f1stDerivative, f2ndDerivative;
for (size_t i = 0; i < vecContourPoints.size(); i++ )
{
const cv::Point2f& pos = vecContourPoints[i];
if ( i == 0 ){ posOld = posOlder = pos; }
f1stDerivative.x = pos.x - posOld.x;
f1stDerivative.y = pos.y - posOld.y;
f2ndDerivative.x = - pos.x + 2.0f * posOld.x - posOlder.x;
f2ndDerivative.y = - pos.y + 2.0f * posOld.y - posOlder.y;
float curvature2D = 0.0f;
if ( std::abs(f2ndDerivative.x) > 10e-4 && std::abs(f2ndDerivative.y) > 10e-4 )
{
curvature2D = sqrt( std::abs(
pow( f2ndDerivative.y*f1stDerivative.x - f2ndDerivative.x*f1stDerivative.y, 2.0f ) /
pow( f2ndDerivative.x + f2ndDerivative.y, 3.0 ) ) );
}
vecCurvature[i] = curvature2D;
posOlder = posOld;
posOld = pos;
}
It works on non-closed pointlists as well. For closed contours, you may would like to change the boundary behavior (for the first iterations).
UPDATE:
Explanation for the derivatives:
A derivative for a continuous 1 dimensional function f(t) is:
But we are in a discrete space and have two discrete functions f_x(t) and f_y(t) where the smallest step for t is one.
The second derivative is the derivative of the first derivative:
Using the approximation of the first derivative, it yields to:
There are other approximations for the derivatives, if you google it, you will find a lot.
Here's a python implementation mainly based on Philipp's C++ code. For those interested, more details on the derivation can be found in Chapter 10.4.2 of:
Klette & Rosenfeld, 2004: Digital Geometry
def getCurvature(contour,stride=1):
curvature=[]
assert stride<len(contour),"stride must be shorther than length of contour"
for i in range(len(contour)):
before=i-stride+len(contour) if i-stride<0 else i-stride
after=i+stride-len(contour) if i+stride>=len(contour) else i+stride
f1x,f1y=(contour[after]-contour[before])/stride
f2x,f2y=(contour[after]-2*contour[i]+contour[before])/stride**2
denominator=(f1x**2+f1y**2)**3+1e-11
curvature_at_i=np.sqrt(4*(f2y*f1x-f2x*f1y)**2/denominator) if denominator > 1e-12 else -1
curvature.append(curvature_at_i)
return curvature
EDIT:
you can use convexityDefects from openCV, here's a link
a code example to find fingers based in their contour (variable res) source
def calculateFingers(res,drawing): # -> finished bool, cnt: finger count
# convexity defect
hull = cv2.convexHull(res, returnPoints=False)
if len(hull) > 3:
defects = cv2.convexityDefects(res, hull)
if type(defects) != type(None): # avoid crashing. (BUG not found)
cnt = 0
for i in range(defects.shape[0]): # calculate the angle
s, e, f, d = defects[i][0]
start = tuple(res[s][0])
end = tuple(res[e][0])
far = tuple(res[f][0])
a = math.sqrt((end[0] - start[0]) ** 2 + (end[1] - start[1]) ** 2)
b = math.sqrt((far[0] - start[0]) ** 2 + (far[1] - start[1]) ** 2)
c = math.sqrt((end[0] - far[0]) ** 2 + (end[1] - far[1]) ** 2)
angle = math.acos((b ** 2 + c ** 2 - a ** 2) / (2 * b * c)) # cosine theorem
if angle <= math.pi / 2: # angle less than 90 degree, treat as fingers
cnt += 1
cv2.circle(drawing, far, 8, [211, 84, 0], -1)
return True, cnt
return False, 0
in my case, i used about the same function to estimate the bending of board while extracting the contour
OLD COMMENT:
i am currently working in about the same, great information in this post, i'll come back with a solution when i'll have it ready
from Jonasson's answer, Shouldn't be here a tuple on the right side too?, i believe it won't unpack:
f1x,f1y=(contour[after]-contour[before])/stride
f2x,f2y=(contour[after]-2*contour[i]+contour[before])/stride**2

create 2D LoG kernel in openCV like fspecial in Matlab

My question is not how to filter an image using the laplacian of gaussian (basically using filter2D with the relevant kernel etc.).
What I want to know is how I generate the NxN kernel.
I'll give an example showing how I generated a [Winsize x WinSize] Gaussian kernel in openCV.
In Matlab:
gaussianKernel = fspecial('gaussian', WinSize, sigma);
In openCV:
cv::Mat gaussianKernel = cv::getGaussianKernel(WinSize, sigma, CV_64F);
cv::mulTransposed(gaussianKernel,gaussianKernel,false);
Where sigma and WinSize are predefined.
I want to do the same for a Laplacian of Gaussian.
In Matlab:
LoGKernel = fspecial('log', WinSize, sigma);
How do I get the exact kernel in openCV (exact up to negligible numerical differences)?
I'm working on a specific application where I need the actual kernel values and simply finding another way of implementing LoG filtering by approximating Difference of gaussians is not what I'm after.
Thanks!
You can generate it manually, using formula
LoG(x,y) = (1/(pi*sigma^4)) * (1 - (x^2+y^2)/(sigma^2))* (e ^ (- (x^2 + y^2) / 2sigma^2)
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/log.htm
cv::Mat kernel(WinSize,WinSize,CV_64F);
int rows = kernel.rows;
int cols = kernel.cols;
double halfSize = (double) WinSize / 2.0;
for (size_t i=0; i<rows;i++)
for (size_t j=0; j<cols;j++)
{
double x = (double)j - halfSize;
double y = (double)i - halfSize;
kernel.at<double>(j,i) = (1.0 /(M_PI*pow(sigma,4))) * (1 - (x*x+y*y)/(sigma*sigma))* (pow(2.718281828, - (x*x + y*y) / 2*sigma*sigma));
}
If function above is not OK, you can simply rewrite matlab version of fspecial:
case 'log' % Laplacian of Gaussian
% first calculate Gaussian
siz = (p2-1)/2;
std2 = p3^2;
[x,y] = meshgrid(-siz(2):siz(2),-siz(1):siz(1));
arg = -(x.*x + y.*y)/(2*std2);
h = exp(arg);
h(h<eps*max(h(:))) = 0;
sumh = sum(h(:));
if sumh ~= 0,
h = h/sumh;
end;
% now calculate Laplacian
h1 = h.*(x.*x + y.*y - 2*std2)/(std2^2);
h = h1 - sum(h1(:))/prod(p2); % make the filter sum to zero
I want to thank old-ufo for nudging me in the correct direction.
I was hoping I won't have to reinvent the wheel by doing a quick matlab-->openCV conversion but guess this is the best solution I have for a quick solution.
NOTE - I did this for square kernels only (easy to modify otherwise, but I have no need for that so...).
Maybe this can be written in a more elegant form but is a quick job I did so I can carry on with more pressing matters.
From main function:
int WinSize(7); int sigma(1); // can be changed to other odd-sized WinSize and different sigma values
cv::Mat h = fspecialLoG(WinSize,sigma);
And the actual function is:
// return NxN (square kernel) of Laplacian of Gaussian as is returned by Matlab's: fspecial(Winsize,sigma)
cv::Mat fspecialLoG(int WinSize, double sigma){
// I wrote this only for square kernels as I have no need for kernels that aren't square
cv::Mat xx (WinSize,WinSize,CV_64F);
for (int i=0;i<WinSize;i++){
for (int j=0;j<WinSize;j++){
xx.at<double>(j,i) = (i-(WinSize-1)/2)*(i-(WinSize-1)/2);
}
}
cv::Mat yy;
cv::transpose(xx,yy);
cv::Mat arg = -(xx+yy)/(2*pow(sigma,2));
cv::Mat h (WinSize,WinSize,CV_64F);
for (int i=0;i<WinSize;i++){
for (int j=0;j<WinSize;j++){
h.at<double>(j,i) = pow(exp(1),(arg.at<double>(j,i)));
}
}
double minimalVal, maximalVal;
minMaxLoc(h, &minimalVal, &maximalVal);
cv::Mat tempMask = (h>DBL_EPSILON*maximalVal)/255;
tempMask.convertTo(tempMask,h.type());
cv::multiply(tempMask,h,h);
if (cv::sum(h)[0]!=0){h=h/cv::sum(h)[0];}
cv::Mat h1 = (xx+yy-2*(pow(sigma,2))/(pow(sigma,4));
cv::multiply(h,h1,h1);
h = h1 - cv::sum(h1)[0]/(WinSize*WinSize);
return h;
}
There is some difference between your function and the matlab version:
http://br1.einfach.org/tmp/log-matlab-vs-opencv.png.
Above is matlab fspecial('log', 31, 6) and below is the result of your function with the same parameters. Somehow the hat is more 'bent' - is this intended and what is the effect of this in later processing?
I can create a kernel very similar to the matlab one with these functions, which just directly reflect the LoG formula:
float LoG(int x, int y, float sigma) {
float xy = (pow(x, 2) + pow(y, 2)) / (2 * pow(sigma, 2));
return -1.0 / (M_PI * pow(sigma, 4)) * (1.0 - xy) * exp(-xy);
}
static Mat LOGkernel(int size, float sigma) {
Mat kernel(size, size, CV_32F);
int halfsize = size / 2;
for (int x = -halfsize; x <= halfsize; ++x) {
for (int y = -halfsize; y <= halfsize; ++y) {
kernel.at<float>(x+halfsize,y+halfsize) = LoG(x, y, sigma);
}
}
return kernel;
}
Here's a NumPy version that is directly translated from the fspecial function in MATLAB.
import numpy as np
import sys
def get_log_kernel(siz, std):
x = y = np.linspace(-siz, siz, 2*siz+1)
x, y = np.meshgrid(x, y)
arg = -(x**2 + y**2) / (2*std**2)
h = np.exp(arg)
h[h < sys.float_info.epsilon * h.max()] = 0
h = h/h.sum() if h.sum() != 0 else h
h1 = h*(x**2 + y**2 - 2*std**2) / (std**4)
return h1 - h1.mean()
The code below is the exact equivalent to fspecial('log', p2, p3):
def fspecial_log(p2, std):
siz = int((p2-1)/2)
x = y = np.linspace(-siz, siz, 2*siz+1)
x, y = np.meshgrid(x, y)
arg = -(x**2 + y**2) / (2*std**2)
h = np.exp(arg)
h[h < sys.float_info.epsilon * h.max()] = 0
h = h/h.sum() if h.sum() != 0 else h
h1 = h*(x**2 + y**2 - 2*std**2) / (std**4)
return h1 - h1.mean()
I wrote exact Implementation of Matlab fspecial function in OpenCV
function:
Mat C_fspecial_LOG(double* kernel_size,double sigma)
{
double size[2]={ (kernel_size[0]-1)/2 , (kernel_size[1]-1)/2};
double std = sigma;
const double eps = 2.2204e-16;
cv::Mat kernel(kernel_size[0],kernel_size[1],CV_64FC1,0.0);
int row=0,col=0;
for (double y = -size[0]; y <= size[0]; ++y,++row)
{
col=0;
for (double x = -size[1]; x <= size[1]; ++x,++col)
{
kernel.at<double>(row,col)=exp( -( pow(x,2) + pow(y,2) ) /(2*pow(std,2)));
}
}
double MaxValue;
cv::minMaxLoc(kernel,nullptr,&MaxValue,nullptr,nullptr);
Mat condition=~(kernel < eps*MaxValue)/255;
condition.convertTo(condition,CV_64FC1);
kernel = kernel.mul(condition);
cv::Scalar SUM = cv::sum(kernel);
if(SUM[0]!=0)
{
kernel /= SUM[0];
}
return kernel;
}
usage of this function :
double kernel_size[2] = {4,4}; // kernel size set to 4x4
double sigma = 2.1;
Mat kernel = C_fspecial_LOG(kernel_size,sigma);
compare OpenCV result with Matlab:
opencv result:
[0.04918466596701741, 0.06170341496034986, 0.06170341496034986, 0.04918466596701741;
0.06170341496034986, 0.07740850411228289, 0.07740850411228289, 0.06170341496034986;
0.06170341496034986, 0.07740850411228289, 0.07740850411228289, 0.06170341496034986;
0.04918466596701741, 0.06170341496034986, 0.06170341496034986, 0.04918466596701741]
Matlab result for fspecial('gaussian', 4, 2.1) :
0.0492 0.0617 0.0617 0.0492
0.0617 0.0774 0.0774 0.0617
0.0617 0.0774 0.0774 0.0617
0.0492 0.0617 0.0617 0.0492
Just for the sake of reference, here is a Python implementation which creates the LoG filter kernel to detect blobs of a pre-defined radius in pixels.
def create_log_filter_kernel(r_in_px: float):
"""
Creates a LoG filter-kernel to detect blobs of a given radius r_in_px.
\[
LoG(x,y) = \frac{-1}{\pi\sigma^4}\left(1 - \frac{x^2 + y^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)e^{\frac{-(x^2+y^2)}{2\sigma^2}}
\]
Look for maxima if blob is black, minima if blob is white.
:param r_in_px:
:return: filter kernel
"""
# sigma from radius: LoG has zero-crossing at $1 - \frac{x^2 + y^2}{2\sigma^2} = 0$
# i.e. r^2 = 2\sigma^2$ and thus $sigma = r / \sqrt{2}$
sigma = r_in_px/np.sqrt(2)
# ksize such that filter covers $3\sigma$
ksize = int(np.round(sigma*3))*2 + 1
# setup filter
xgv = np.arange(0, ksize) - ksize / 2
ygv = np.arange(0, ksize) - ksize / 2
x, y = np.meshgrid(xgv, ygv)
kernel = -1 / (np.pi * sigma**4) * (1 - (x**2 + y**2) / (2*sigma**2)) * np.exp(-(x**2 + y**2) / (2 * sigma**2))
#normalize to sum zero (does not change zero crossing, I tried it out for r < 100)
kernel -= np.sum(kernel) / ksize**2
#this is important: normalize such that positive/negative parts are comparable over different scales
kernel /= np.sum(kernel[kernel>0])
return kernel

Gaussian blur not uniform

I have been trying to implement a simple Gaussian blur algorithm, for my image editing program. However, I have been having some trouble making this work, and I think the problem lies in the below snippet:
for( int j = 0; j < pow( kernel_size, 2 ); j++ )
{
int idx = ( i + kx + ( ky * img.width ));
//Try and overload this whenever possible
valueR += ( img.p_pixelArray[ idx ].r * kernel[ j ] );
valueG += ( img.p_pixelArray[ idx ].g * kernel[ j ] );
valueB += ( img.p_pixelArray[ idx ].b * kernel[ j ] );
if( kx == kernel_limit )
{
kx = -kernel_limit;
ky++;
}
else
{
kx++;
}
}
kx = -kernel_limit;
ky = -kernel_limit;
A brief explanation of the code above: kernel size is the size of the kernel (or matrix) generated by the Gaussian blur formula. kx and ky are variables to be used for iterating over the kernel. i is the parent loop, that nests this one, and goes over every pixel in the image. Each value variable simply holds a float R, G, or B value, and is used afterwards to obtain the final result. The if-else is used to increase kx and ky. idx is used to find the correct pixel. kernel limit is a variable set to
(*kernel size* - 1) / 2
So I can have kx going from -1 ( with a 3x3 kernel ) to +1, and the same thing with ky. I think the problem lies with the line
int idx = ( i + kx + ( ky * img.width ));
But I am not sure. The image I get is:
As can be seen, the color is blurred in a diagonal direction, and looks more like some kind of motion blur than Gaussian blur. If someone could help out, I would be very grateful.
EDIT:
The way I fill the kernel is as follows:
for( int i = 0; i < pow( kernel_size, 2 ); i++ )
{
// This. Is. Lisp.
kernel[i] = (( 1 / ( 2 * pi * pow( sigma, 2 ))) * pow (e, ( -((( pow( kx, 2 ) + pow( ky, 2 )) / 2 * pow( sigma, 2 ))))));
if(( kx + 1 ) == kernel_size )
{
kx = 0;
ky++;
}
else
{
kx++;
}
}
Few problems:
Your Gaussian misses brackets (even though you already have plenty..) around 2 * pow( sigma, 2 ). Now you multiply by variance instead of divide.
But what your problem is, is that your gaussian is centered at kx = ky = 0, as you let it run from 0 to kernel_size, instead of from -kernel_limit to kernel_limit. This results in the diagonal blurring. Something like the following should work better
kx = -kernel_limit;
ky = -kernel_limit;
int kernel_size_sq = kernel_size * kernel_size;
for( int i = 0; i < kernel_size_sq; i++ )
{
double sigma_sq = sigma * sigma;
double kx_sq = kx * kx;
double ky_sq = ky * ky;
kernel[i] = 1.0 / ( 2 * pi * sigma_sq) * exp(-(kx_sq + ky_sq) / (2 * sigma_sq));
if(kx == kernel_limit )
{
kx = -kernel_limit;
ky++;
}
else
{
kx++;
}
}
Also note how I got rid of your lisp-ness and some improvements: use some intermediate variables for clarity (compiler will optimize them away if anyway you ask it to); simple multiplication is faster than pow(x, 2); pow(e, x) == exp(x).

Grayscale to Red-Green-Blue (MATLAB Jet) color scale

I was given a data set that is essentially an image, however each pixel in the image is represented as a value from -1 to 1 inclusive. I am writing an application that needs to take these -1 to 1 grayscale values and map them to the associated RGB value for the MATLAB "Jet" color scale (red-green-blue color gradient).
I am curious if anyone knows how to take a linear value (like -1 to 1) and map it to this scale. Note that I am not actually using MATLAB for this (nor can I), I just need to take the grayscale value and put it on the Jet gradient.
Thanks,
Adam
Consider the following function (written by Paul Bourke -- search for Colour Ramping for Data Visualisation):
/*
Return a RGB colour value given a scalar v in the range [vmin,vmax]
In this case each colour component ranges from 0 (no contribution) to
1 (fully saturated), modifications for other ranges is trivial.
The colour is clipped at the end of the scales if v is outside
the range [vmin,vmax]
*/
typedef struct {
double r,g,b;
} COLOUR;
COLOUR GetColour(double v,double vmin,double vmax)
{
COLOUR c = {1.0,1.0,1.0}; // white
double dv;
if (v < vmin)
v = vmin;
if (v > vmax)
v = vmax;
dv = vmax - vmin;
if (v < (vmin + 0.25 * dv)) {
c.r = 0;
c.g = 4 * (v - vmin) / dv;
} else if (v < (vmin + 0.5 * dv)) {
c.r = 0;
c.b = 1 + 4 * (vmin + 0.25 * dv - v) / dv;
} else if (v < (vmin + 0.75 * dv)) {
c.r = 4 * (v - vmin - 0.5 * dv) / dv;
c.b = 0;
} else {
c.g = 1 + 4 * (vmin + 0.75 * dv - v) / dv;
c.b = 0;
}
return(c);
}
Which, in your case, you would use it to map values in the range [-1,1] to colors as (it is straightforward to translate it from C code to a MATLAB function):
c = GetColour(v,-1.0,1.0);
This produces to the following "hot-to-cold" color ramp:
It basically represents a walk on the edges of the RGB color cube from blue to red (passing by cyan, green, yellow), and interpolating the values along this path.
Note this is slightly different from the "Jet" colormap used in MATLAB, which as far as I can tell, goes through the following path:
#00007F: dark blue
#0000FF: blue
#007FFF: azure
#00FFFF: cyan
#7FFF7F: light green
#FFFF00: yellow
#FF7F00: orange
#FF0000: red
#7F0000: dark red
Here is a comparison I did in MATLAB:
%# values
num = 64;
v = linspace(-1,1,num);
%# colormaps
clr1 = jet(num);
clr2 = zeros(num,3);
for i=1:num
clr2(i,:) = GetColour(v(i), v(1), v(end));
end
Then we plot both using:
figure
subplot(4,1,1), imagesc(v), colormap(clr), axis off
subplot(4,1,2:4), h = plot(v,clr); axis tight
set(h, {'Color'},{'r';'g';'b'}, 'LineWidth',3)
Now you can modify the C code above, and use the suggested stop points to achieve something similar to jet colormap (they all use linear interpolation over the R,G,B channels as you can see from the above plots)...
I hope this is what you're looking for:
double interpolate( double val, double y0, double x0, double y1, double x1 ) {
return (val-x0)*(y1-y0)/(x1-x0) + y0;
}
double blue( double grayscale ) {
if ( grayscale < -0.33 ) return 1.0;
else if ( grayscale < 0.33 ) return interpolate( grayscale, 1.0, -0.33, 0.0, 0.33 );
else return 0.0;
}
double green( double grayscale ) {
if ( grayscale < -1.0 ) return 0.0; // unexpected grayscale value
if ( grayscale < -0.33 ) return interpolate( grayscale, 0.0, -1.0, 1.0, -0.33 );
else if ( grayscale < 0.33 ) return 1.0;
else if ( grayscale <= 1.0 ) return interpolate( grayscale, 1.0, 0.33, 0.0, 1.0 );
else return 1.0; // unexpected grayscale value
}
double red( double grayscale ) {
if ( grayscale < -0.33 ) return 0.0;
else if ( grayscale < 0.33 ) return interpolate( grayscale, 0.0, -0.33, 1.0, 0.33 );
else return 1.0;
}
I'm not sure if this scale is 100% identical to the image you linked but it should look very similar.
UPDATE
I've rewritten the code according to the description of MatLab's Jet palette found here
double interpolate( double val, double y0, double x0, double y1, double x1 ) {
return (val-x0)*(y1-y0)/(x1-x0) + y0;
}
double base( double val ) {
if ( val <= -0.75 ) return 0;
else if ( val <= -0.25 ) return interpolate( val, 0.0, -0.75, 1.0, -0.25 );
else if ( val <= 0.25 ) return 1.0;
else if ( val <= 0.75 ) return interpolate( val, 1.0, 0.25, 0.0, 0.75 );
else return 0.0;
}
double red( double gray ) {
return base( gray - 0.5 );
}
double green( double gray ) {
return base( gray );
}
double blue( double gray ) {
return base( gray + 0.5 );
}
The other answers treat the interpolation as a piecewise linear function. This can be simplified by using a clamped triangular basis function for interpolation. We need a clamp function that maps its input to the closed unit interval:
And a basis function for interpolation:
Then the color becomes:
Plotting this from -1 to 1 gives:
Which is the same as provided in this answer. Using an efficient clamp implementation:
double clamp(double v)
{
const double t = v < 0 ? 0 : v;
return t > 1.0 ? 1.0 : t;
}
and ensuring your value t is in [-1, 1], then jet color is simply:
double red = clamp(1.5 - std::abs(2.0 * t - 1.0));
double green = clamp(1.5 - std::abs(2.0 * t));
double blue = clamp(1.5 - std::abs(2.0 * t + 1.0));
As shown in the above link on implementing clamp, the compiler may optimize out branches. The compiler may also use intrinsics to set the sign bit for std::abs eliminating another branch.
"Hot-to-Cold"
A similar treatment can be used for the "hot-to-cold" color mapping. In this case the basis and color functions are:
And the hot-to-cold plot for [-1, 1]:
OpenGL Shader Program
Eliminating explicit branches makes this approach efficient for implementing as an OpenGL shader program. GLSL provides built-in functions for both abs and clamp that operate on 3D vectors. Vectorizing the color calculation and preferring built-in functions over branching can provide significant performance gains. Below is an implementation in GLSL that returns the RGB jet color as a vec3. Note that the basis function was modified such that t must lie in [0,1] rather than the range used in the other examples.
vec3 jet(float t)
{
return clamp(vec3(1.5) - abs(4.0 * vec3(t) + vec3(-3, -2, -1)), vec3(0), vec3(1));
}
I'm not really sure why there are so many complex answers to this simple equation. Based on the MatLab JET Hot-to-Cold color map chart and graph plot posted above in Amro's comment (thank you), the logic is very simple to calculate the RGB values using high-speed/basic math.
I use the following function for live-rendering normalized data to display spectrograms and it's incredibly fast and efficient with no complex math outside double precision multiplication and division, simplified by ternary logic chaining. This code is C# but very easily ported to almost any other language (sorry PHP programmers, you're out of luck thanks to abnormal ternary chain order).
public byte[] GetMatlabRgb(double ordinal)
{
byte[] triplet = new byte[3];
triplet[0] = (ordinal < 0.0) ? (byte)0 : (ordinal >= 0.5) ? (byte)255 : (byte)(ordinal / 0.5 * 255);
triplet[1] = (ordinal < -0.5) ? (byte)((ordinal + 1) / 0.5 * 255) : (ordinal > 0.5) ? (byte)(255 - ((ordinal - 0.5) / 0.5 * 255)) : (byte)255;
triplet[2] = (ordinal > 0.0) ? (byte)0 : (ordinal <= -0.5) ? (byte)255 : (byte)(ordinal * -1.0 / 0.5 * 255);
return triplet;
}
The function takes an ordinal range from -1.0 to 1.0 per the JET color specification, though this function does no sanity checking if you're outside that range (I do that before my call here).
So make sure you do sanity/bounds checking prior to calling this function or simply add your own limiting to cap the value when you implement it yourself.
This implementation does not take luminosity into consideration so may not be considered a purist implementation but gets you in the ballpark fairly well and is much faster.
Seems like you have hue values of an HSL system and the saturation and lightness are implicit. Search for HSL to RGB conversion on the internet and you will find a lot of explanations, code etc. (Here is one link)
In your particular case, though, let's assume you are defaulting all color saturations to 1 and lightness to 0.5. Here is the formula you can use to get the RGB values:
Imagine for every pixel, you have h the value you read from your data.
hue = (h+1.0)/2; // This is to make it in range [0, 1]
temp[3] = {hue+1.0/3, hue, hue-1.0/3};
if (temp[0] > 1.0)
temp[0] -= 1.0;
if (temp[2] < 0.0)
temp[2] += 1.0;
float RGB[3];
for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
{
if (temp[i]*6.0 < 1.0)
RGB[i] = 6.0f*temp[i];
else if (temp[i]*2.0 < 1.0)
RGB[i] = 1;
else if (temp[i]*3.0 < 2.0)
RGB[i] = ((2.0/3.0)-temp[i])*6.0f;
else
RGB[i] = 0;
}
And there you have the RGB values in RGB all in the range [0, 1]. Note that the original conversion is more complex, I simplified it based on values of saturation=1 and lightness=0.5
Why this formula? See this wikipedia entry
Java(Processing) code that will generate Jet and HotAndCold RGB. I created this code following the RGB distribution scheme in the post of Amro above.
color JetColor(float v,float vmin,float vmax){
float r=0, g=0, b=0;
float x = (v-vmin)/(vmax-vmin);
r = 255*constrain(-4*abs(x-0.75) + 1.5,0,1);
g = 255*constrain(-4*abs(x-0.50) + 1.5,0,1);
b = 255*constrain(-4*abs(x-0.25) + 1.5,0,1);
return color(r,g,b);
}
color HeatColor(float v,float vmin,float vmax){
float r=0, g=0, b=0;
float x = (v-vmin)/(vmax-vmin);
r = 255*constrain(-4*abs(x-0.75) + 2,0,1);
g = 255*constrain(-4*abs(x-0.50) + 2,0,1);
b = 255*constrain(-4*abs(x) + 2,0,1);
return color(r,g,b);
}
//Values are calculated on trapezoid cutoff points in format y=constrain(a(x-t)+b,0,1)
//Where a=((delta)y/(delta)x), t=x-offset value to symetric middle of trapezoid, and b=y-a(x-t) for the last peak point (x,y)
This probably isn't exactly the same, but it may be close enough for your needs:
if (-0.75 > value) {
blue = 1.75 + value;
} else if (0.25 > value) {
blue = 0.25 - value;
} else {
blue = 0;
}
if ( -0.5 > value) {
green = 0;
} else if (0.5 > value) {
green = 1 - 2*abs(value);
} else {
green = 0;
}
if ( -0.25 > value) {
red = 0;
} else if (0.75 > value) {
red = 0.25 + value;
} else {
red = 1.75 - value;
}