C++ OpenCV linear algebra on multiple images? - c++

I am very new to C++ and OpenCV but more familiar with Matlab. I have a task that I need to move to C++ for faster processing. So I would like to ask for your suggestion on a image processing problem. I have 10 images in a folder and I was able to read them all using dirent.h like in this and extract each frame by calling frame[count] = rawImage in a while loop:
int count = 0;
std::vector<cv::Mat> frames;
frames.resize(10);
while((_dirent = readdir(directory)) != NULL)
{
std::string fileName = inputDirectory + "\\" +std::string(_dirent->d_name);
cv::Mat rawImage = cv::imread(fileName.c_str(),CV_LOAD_IMAGE_GRAYSCALE);
frames[count] = rawImage; // Insert the rawImage to frames (this is original images)
count++;
}
Now I want to access each frames and do calculation similar to Matlab to get another matrix A such that A = frames(:,:,1)+2*frames(:,:,2). How to do that?

Since frames is a std::vector<cv::Mat>, you should be able to access each Mat this way:
// suppose you want the nth matrix
cv::Mat frame_n = frames[n];
Now, if you want to do the calculation you said on the first two Mats, then:
cv::Mat A = frames[0] + 2 * frames[1];
Example:
// mat1 = [[1 1 1]
// [2 2 2]
// [3 3 3]]
cv::Mat mat1 = (cv::Mat_<double>(3, 3) << 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3);
cv::Mat mat2 = mat1 * 2; // multiplication matrix x scalar
// just to look like your case
std::vector<cv::Mat> frames;
frames.push_back(mat1);
frames.push_back(mat2);
cv::Mat A = frames[0] + 2 * frames[1]; // your calculation works
// A = [[ 5 5 5]
// [10 10 10]
// [15 15 15]]
You can always read the list of acceptable expressions.

Related

OpenCV col-wise standard deviation result vs MATLAB

I've seen linked questions but I can't understand why MATLAB and OpenCV give different results.
MATLAB Code
>> A = [6 4 23 -3; 9 -10 4 11; 2 8 -5 1]
A =
6 4 23 -3
9 -10 4 11
2 8 -5 1
>> Col_step_1 = std(A, 0, 1)
Col_step_1 =
3.5119 9.4516 14.2945 7.2111
>> Col_final = std(Col_step_1)
Col_final =
4.5081
Using OpenCV and this function:
double getColWiseStd(cv::Mat in)
{
CV_Assert( in.type() == CV_64F );
cv::Mat meanValue, stdValue, m2, std2;
cv::Mat colSTD(1, A.cols, CV_64F);
cv::Mat colMEAN(1, A.cols, CV_64F);
for (int i = 0; i < A.cols; i++)
{
cv::meanStdDev(A.col(i), meanValue, stdValue);
colSTD.at<double>(i) = stdValue.at<double>(0);
colMEAN.at<double>(i) = meanValue.at<double>(0);
}
std::cout<<"\nCOLstd:\n"<<colSTD<<std::endl;
cv::meanStdDev(colSTD, m2, std2);
std::cout<<"\nCOLstd_f:\n"<<std2<<std::endl;
return std2.at<double>(0,0);
}
Applied to the same matrix yields the following:
Matrix:
[6, 4, 23, -3;
9, -10, 4, 11;
2, 8, -5, 1]
COLstd:
[2.867441755680876, 7.71722460186015, 11.67142760000773, 5.887840577551898]
COLstd_f:
[3.187726614989861]
I'm pretty sure that the OpenCV and MATLAB std function are correct, and thus can't find what I'm doing wrong, am I missing a type conversion? Something else?
The standard deviation you're calculating in OpenCV is normalised by number of observations (N) whereas you're calculating standard deviation in MATLAB normalised by N-1 (which is also the default normalisation factor in MATLAB and is known as Bessel's correction). Hence there is the difference.
You can normalise by N in MATLAB by selecting the second input argument as 1:
Col_step_1 = std(A, 1, 1);
Col_final = std(Col_step_1, 1);

Matrix masking operation in OpenCV(C++) and in Matlab

I would like to do the following operation (which is at the current state in Matlab) using cv::Mat variables.
I have matrix mask:
mask =
1 0 0
1 0 1
then matrix M:
M =
1
2
3
4
5
6
3
and samples = M(mask,:)
samples =
1
2
6
My question is, how can I perform the same operation like, M(mask,:), with OpenCV?
With my knowledge the closet function to this thing is copyTo function in opencv that get matrix and mask for inputs. but this function hold original structure of your matrix you can test it.
I think there is no problem to use for loop in opencv(in c++) because it's fast. I propose to use for loop with below codes.
Mat M=(Mat_<uchar>(2,3)<<1,2,3,4,5,6); //Create M
cout<<M<<endl;
Mat mask=(Mat_<bool>(2,3)<<1,0,0,1,0,1); // Create mask
cout<<mask<<endl;
Mat samples;
///////////////////////////////
for(int i=0;i<M.total();i++)
{
if(mask.at<uchar>(i))
samples.push_back(M.at<uchar>(i));
}
cout<<samples<<endl;
above code result below outputs.
[ 1, 2, 3;
4, 5, 6]
[ 1, 0, 0;
1, 0, 1]
[ 1;
4;
6]
with using copyTo your output will be like below
[1 0 0
4 0 6];

Equivalent function of Matlab's filter2 in OpenCV

I need to convert the following matlab code into OpenCV and obtain exactly the same result.
In matlab:
A = [1 2 3];
f = [4 5 6];
result = filter2(f, A);
This gives out as:
result = [17 32 23]
In OpenCV, I tried these lines:
cv::Mat A = (cv::Mat_<float>(1, 3) << 1, 2, 3);
cv::Mat f = (cv::Mat_<float>(1, 3) << 4, 5, 6);
cv::Mat result;
cv::filter2D(A, result, -1, f, cv::Point(-1, -1), 0, cv::BORDER_REPLICATE);
This gives me:
result = [21 32 41]
How can I obtain the same result as of Matlab?? I doubt the anchor point in OpenCV causes this difference, but I cannot figure out how to change it. Thanks in advance.
Use cv::BORDER_CONSTANT, which pads the array with zero rather than duplicating the neighboring element:
cv::filter2D(A, result, -1, f, cv::Point(-1, -1), 0, cv::BORDER_CONSTANT);
Result is:
result = [17, 32, 23]

The results of OpenCV idft() and MATLAB ifft2 does not match

So i'm testing my algorithm in MATLAB and it's done.
Then now doing cording for porting on C++ with OpenCV 2.4.5.
The problem is inverse fourier transform methods of two platforms, OpenCV and MATLAB.
So i have tested with simple matrix.
Here's test results.
The subject matrix is... 3 by 3 2-D.
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
-MATLAB-
test = [ 1, 2, 3;
4, 5, 6;
7, 8, 9];
ifft2(test);
result
5.0000 + 0.0000i -0.5000 - 0.2887i -0.5000 + 0.2887i
-1.5000 - 0.8660i 0.0000 + 0.0000i 0.0000 + 0.0000i
-1.5000 + 0.8660i 0.0000 + 0.0000i 0.0000 + 0.0000i
-OPENCV-
Note:Elements are same values.
Mat a = Mat::zeros(3, 3, CV_64FC1);
Mat b = Mat::zeros(3, 3, CV_64FC1);
a.at<double>(0,0) = 1;
a.at<double>(0,1) = 2;
a.at<double>(0,2) = 3;
a.at<double>(1,0) = 4;
a.at<double>(1,1) = 5;
a.at<double>(1,2) = 6;
a.at<double>(2,0) = 7;
a.at<double>(2,1) = 8;
a.at<double>(2,2) = 9;
idft(a, b, DFT_SCALE, 0);
result
4.33333 -4.13077 2.79743
-2.10313 -0.103134 -2.83518
-0.563533 2.16852 1.43647
I still didnt have found the solution. Even this couldn't gave me a solution.
EDIT: The problem has been solved. I put the CV_64FC1 to idft() as an input and CV_64FC2 as an output. A two matrices must be have same depth, both input and output are have to be 64_FC2. And flags DFT+COMPLEX_OUTPUT+DFT_SCALE is same as MATLAB's ifft2.
-SOLVED-
Mat input = Mat::zeros(3, 3, CV_64FC2);
Mat output = Mat::zeros(3, 3, CV_64FC2);
idft(input, output, DFT_COMPLEX_OUTPUT+DFT_SCALE, 0);
I believe you need cv::DFT_COMPLEX_OUTPUT+cv::DFT_SCALE since the input to idft clearly results in a complex-valued matrix.
Also, I think you'll need a 2-channel array for the output (type CV_64FC2), similarly for the input. As with any multi-channel image in OpenCV, you then access elements with the appropriate vector type (e.g. for doubles, .at<cv::Vec2d>(i,j), where the Vec2d stores the real and imaginary components at location i,j).
I think if you use 2 channel input matrices (CV_64FC2) you should use
a.at<Vec2d>(0,0)[0] = 1; // Re - part
a.at<Vec2d>(0,0)[1] = 0; // Im - part
instead of:
a.at<double>(0,0) = 1;

OpenCV Mat::ones function

According to the docs, this function should return a Mat with all elements as ones.
Mat m = Mat::ones(2, 2, CV_8UC3);
I was expecting to get a 2x2 matrix of [1,1,1]. Instead, I got this:
[1, 0, 0] [1, 0, 0]
[1, 0, 0] [1, 0, 0]
Is this the expected behaviour?
It looks like Mat::ones() works as expected only for single channel arrays. For matrices with multiple channels ones() sets only the first channel to ones while the remaining channels are set to zeros.
Use the following constructor instead:
Mat m = Mat(2, 2, CV_8UC3, Scalar(1,1,1));
std::cout << m;
Edit. Calling
Mat m = Mat::ones(2, 2, CV_8UC3);
is the same as calling
Mat m = Mat(2, 2, CV_8UC3, 1); // OpenCV replaces `1` with `Scalar(1,0,0)`