I want to find all maximums (numbers of non-zero pixels) for my image. I need it to divide my picture such way:
So, i already asked question, how to project all image to one of the axis, and now i need to find all maximums on this one-row image.
Here's my part of the code:
void segment_plate (Mat input_image) {
double minVal;
double maxVal;
Point minLoc;
Point maxLoc;
Mat work_image = input_image;
Mat output;
//binarize image
adaptiveThreshold(work_image,work_image, 255, ADAPTIVE_THRESH_MEAN_C, THRESH_BINARY, 15, 10);
//project it to one axis
reduce(work_image,output,0,CV_REDUCE_SUM,CV_32S);
//find minimum and maximum falue for ALL image
minMaxLoc(output, &minVal,&maxVal,&minLoc,&maxLoc);
cout << "min val : " << minVal << endl;
cout << "max val: " << maxVal << endl;
As you can see, i could find one maximum and one minimum for all picture, but i need to find local maximums. Thanks for any help!
EDIT
Ok, so i made a mistake, i need to find peaks for this vector. I've used this code to find first peak:
int findPeakUtil(Mat arr, int low, int high, int n) {
// Find index of middle element
int mid = low + (high - low)/2; /* (low + high)/2 */
// Compare middle element with its neighbours (if neighbours exist)
if ((mid == 0 || arr.at<int>(0,mid-1) <= arr.at<int>(0,mid)) &&
(mid == n-1 || arr.at<int>(0,mid+1) <= arr.at<int>(0,mid)))
return mid;
// If middle element is not peak and its left neighbor is greater than it
// then left half must have a peak element
else if (mid > 0 && arr.at<int>(0,mid-1) > arr.at<int>(0,mid))
return findPeakUtil(arr, low, (mid - 1), n);
// If middle element is not peak and its right neighbor is greater than it
// then right half must have a peak element
else return findPeakUtil(arr, (mid + 1), high, n);
}
// A wrapper over recursive function findPeakUtil()
int findPeak(Mat arr, int n) {
return findPeakUtil(arr, 0, n-1, n);
}
So now my code looks like:
void segment_plate (Mat input_image) {
Mat work_image = input_image;
Mat output;
//binarize image
adaptiveThreshold(work_image,work_image, 255, ADAPTIVE_THRESH_MEAN_C, THRESH_BINARY, 15, 10);
//project it to one axis
reduce(work_image,output,0,CV_REDUCE_SUM,CV_32S);
int n = output.cols;
printf("Index of a peak point is %d", findPeak(output, n));
But how can i find another peaks? The algorithm of peak finding i took from here.
One way I can think about to find peaks is to find the first derivative and then find the negative numbers of it.
for example,
a = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 3, 4]
in this example the peak is 6 in the position 6 and 4 in the las position.
so, if you extend the vector (0 at the end) and apply the first derivative (a[i] - a[i-1]) you'll get
a_deriv = [1,1,1,0,1,1,-3,1,-4]
where the negative numbers are in the position of the peaks. In this case, -3 is in position 6 and -4 in position 8, that is where the peaks are located.
This is a way to do it.... but is not the only one.
Note that this method will count only the last number in a plateau as the peak ( you can find a plateau when two numbers share the peak because they have the same value and are consecutive)
Hope this helps you
Related
Im trying to upsample my image. I fill the upsampled version with corresponding pixels in this way.
pseudocode:
upsampled.getPixel(((int)(x * factorX), (int)(y * factorY))) = old.getPixel(x, y)
as a result i end up with the bitmap that is not completely filled and I try to fill each not filled pixel with it's nearest filled neighbor.
I use this method for nn search and call it for each unfilled pixel. I do not flag unfilled pixel as filled after changing its value as it may create some weird patterns. The problem is that - it works but very slow. Execution time on my i7 9700k for 2500 x 3000 img scaled by factor x = 1,5 and y = 1,5 takes about 10 seconds.
template<typename T>
std::pair<int, int> cn::Utils::nearestNeighbour(const Bitmap <T> &bitmap, const std::pair<int, int> &point, int channel, const bool *filledArr) {
auto belongs = [](const cn::Bitmap<T> &bitmap, const std::pair<int, int> &point){
return point.first >= 0 && point.first < bitmap.w && point.second >= 0 && point.second < bitmap.h;
};
if(!(belongs(bitmap, point))){
throw std::out_of_range("This point does not belong to bitmap!");
}
auto hash = [](std::pair<int, int> const &pair){
std::size_t h1 = std::hash<int>()(pair.first);
std::size_t h2 = std::hash<int>()(pair.second);
return h1 ^ h2;
};
//from where, point
std::queue<std::pair<int, int>> queue;
queue.push(point);
std::unordered_set<std::pair<int, int>, decltype(hash)> visited(10, hash);
while (!queue.empty()){
auto p = queue.front();
queue.pop();
visited.insert(p);
if(belongs(bitmap, p)){
if(filledArr[bitmap.getDataIndex(p.first, p.second, channel)]){
return {p.first, p.second};
}
std::vector<std::pair<int,int>> neighbors(4);
neighbors[0] = {p.first - 1, p.second};
neighbors[1] = {p.first + 1, p.second};
neighbors[2] = {p.first, p.second - 1};
neighbors[3] = {p.first, p.second + 1};
for(auto n : neighbors) {
if (visited.find(n) == visited.end()) {
queue.push(n);
}
}
}
}
return std::pair<int, int>({-1, -1});
}
the bitmap.getDataIndex() works in O(1) time. Here's its implementation
template<typename T>
int cn::Bitmap<T>::getDataIndex(int col, int row, int depth) const{
if(col >= this->w or col < 0 or row >= this->h or row < 0 or depth >= this->d or depth < 0){
throw std::invalid_argument("cell does not belong to bitmap!");
}
return depth * w * h + row * w + col;
}
I have spent a while on debugging this but could not really find what makes it so slow.
Theoretically when scaling by factor x = 1,5, y = 1,5, the filled pixel should be no further than 2 pixels from unfilled one, so well implemented BFS wouldn't take long.
Also i use such encoding for bitmap, example for 3x3x3 image
* (each row and channel is in ascending order)
* {00, 01, 02}, | {09, 10, 11}, | {18, 19, 20},
c0 {03, 04, 05}, c1{12, 13, 14}, c2{21, 22, 23},
* {06, 07, 08}, | {15, 16, 17}, | {24, 25, 26},
the filled pixel should be no further than 2 pixels from unfilled one, so well implemented BFS wouldn't take long.
Sure, doing it once won’t take long. But you need to do this for almost every pixel in the output image, and doing lots of times something that doesn’t take long will still take long.
Instead of searching for a set pixel, use the information you have about the earlier computation to directly find the values you are looking for.
For example, in your output image, and set pixel, is at ((int)(x * factorX), (int)(y * factorY)), for integer x and y. So for a non-set pixel (a, b), you can find the nearest set pixel by ((int)(round(a/factorX)*factorX), (int)(round(b/factorY)*factorY)).
However, you are much better off directly upsampling the image in a simpler way: don’t loop over the input pixels, instead loop over the output pixels, and find the corresponding input pixel.
Required to write a minimax algorithm that returns a value from a array of random numbers, the length of which is 2 ^ depth(the algorithm works on a binary tree).
my code:
int minimax(int* scores, unsigned int left, unsigned int right, int depth, bool search_max_score, bool& move)
{
if (search_max_score)
{
if (depth == 1)
{
int result = std::max(scores[left], scores[right]);
move = (result == scores[right]);
return result;
}
int left_value = minimax(scores, left, right / 2, depth - 1, false, move);
int right_value = minimax(scores, right / 2 + 1, right, depth - 1, false, move);
int result = std::max(left_value, right_value);
move = (result == right_value);
return result;
}
else
{
if (depth == 1)
{
int result = std::min(scores[left], scores[right]);
move = (result == scores[right]);
return result;
}
int left_value = minimax(scores, left, right / 2, depth - 1, true, move);
int right_value = minimax(scores, right / 2 + 1, right, depth - 1, true, move);
int result = std::min(left_value, right_value);
move = (result == right_value);
return result;
}
}
//score_num - array length
//search_max_score - which element to search for (false - minimum, true - maximum)
bool move;
int result = minimax(scores, 0, score_num - 1, depth, search_max_score, move);
std::cout << "result: " << result << '\n';
std::cout << "move: " << move;
But sometimes the program outputs the wrong value:
random values:
___/___ __\____
_/_ _\_ _/_ _\_
/ \ / \ / \ / \
-1 3 -5 1 -8 6 4 -7
result: 1
move: 0
move is the direction of the subsequent action of the AI. 0 - left, 1 - right
You have at least 2 bugs:
Inside if (search_max_score) block you call minmax with false as the 5th argument, which is equivalent to making the search for max element becoming a search for min element, and then max again, etc.
If you have an interval [left, right] and you want to halve it, the midpoint is NOT right/2 (unless left == 0), but rather (left + right)/2 or left + (right-left + 1)/2. You need to work on the exact form of this formula that will fit your needs, taking into account the integer rounding when dividing an odd integer by 2. Or you can calculate the offset from depth, as the interval length will always be a power of two.
The third point is not a bug, but an error it is: please use a debugger.
I have a problem where I need to divide an AABB into a number of small AABBs. I need to find the minimum and maximum points in each of the smaller AABB.
If we take this cuboid as an example, we can see that is divided into 64 smaller cuboids. I need to calculate the minimum and maximum points of all of these smaller cuboids, where the number of cuboids (64) can be specified by the end user.
I have made a basic attempt with the following code:
// Half the length of each side of the AABB.
float h = side * 0.5f;
// The length of each side of the inner AABBs.
float l = side / NUMBER_OF_PARTITIONS;
// Calculate the minimum point on the parent AABB.
Vector3 minPointAABB(
origin.getX() - h,
origin.getY() - h,
origin.getZ() - h
);
// Calculate all inner AABBs which completely fill the parent AABB.
for (int i = 0; i < NUMBER_OF_PARTITIONS; i++)
{
// This is not correct! Given a parent AABB of min (-10, 0, 0) and max (0, 10, 10) I need to
// calculate the following positions as minimum points of InnerAABB (with 8 inner AABBs).
// (-10, 0, 0), (-5, 0, 0), (-10, 5, 0), (-5, 5, 0), (-10, 0, 5), (-5, 0, 5),
// (-10, 5, 5), (-5, 5, 5)
Vector3 minInnerAABB(
minPointAABB.getX() + i * l,
minPointAABB.getY() + i * l,
minPointAABB.getZ() + i * l
);
// We can calculate the maximum point of the AABB from the minimum point
// by the summuation of each coordinate in the minimum point with the length of each side.
Vector3 maxInnerAABB(
minInnerAABB.getX() + l,
minInnerAABB.getY() + l,
minInnerAABB.getZ() + l
);
// Add the inner AABB points to a container for later use.
}
Many thanks!
I assume that your problem is that you don't get enough sub-boxes. The number of partitions refers to partitions per dimension, right? So 2 partitions yield 8 sub-boxes, 3 partitions yield 27 sub-boxes and so on.
Then you must have three nested loops, one for each dimension:
for (int k = 0; k < NUMBER_OF_PARTITIONS; k++)
for (int j = 0; j < NUMBER_OF_PARTITIONS; j++)
for (int i = 0; i < NUMBER_OF_PARTITIONS; i++)
{
Vector3 minInnerAABB(
minPointAABB.getX() + i * l,
minPointAABB.getY() + j * l,
minPointAABB.getZ() + k * l
);
Vector3 maxInnerAABB(
minInnerAABB.getX() + l,
minInnerAABB.getY() + l,
minInnerAABB.getZ() + l
);
// Add the inner AABB points to a container for later use.
}
}
}
Alternatively, you can have one huge loop over the cube of your partitios and sort out the indices by division and remainder operations inside the loop, which is a bit messy for three dimensions.
It might also be a good idea to make the code more general by calculating three independent sub-box lengths for each dimension based on the side lengths of the original box.
I have a picture of 2600x2600 in gray.
Or it can be seen as a matrix of unsigned short.
I would like to find the darkest (or the brightest by computing the inverse picture) square are of a fixed size N. N could be parametrized (if there is more than one darkest square I would like all).
I read detection-of-rectangular-bright-area-in-a-image-using-opencv
but it needs to a threshold value I don't have and furthermore I search a fixed size.
Do anyone as a way to find it in c++ or python ?
For each row of the image,
Add up the N consecutive pixels, so you get W - N + 1 pixels.
For each column of the new image,
For each consecutive sequence of N pixels, (H - N + 1)
Add them up and compare to the current best.
To add up each consecutive sequence of pixels, you could subtract the last pixel, and add the next pixel.
You could also reuse the image array as storage, if it can be modified. If not, a memory-optimization would be to just store the latest column, and go trough it for each step in the first loop.
Runtime: O(w·h)
Here is some code in C#, to demonstrate this (ignoring the pixel format, and any potential overflows):
List<Point> FindBrightestSquare(int[,] image, int N, out int squareSum)
{
int width = image.GetLength(0);
int height = image.GetLength(1);
if (width < N || height < N)
{
return false;
}
int currentSum;
for (int y = 0; y < height; y++)
{
currentSum = 0;
for (int x = 0; x < width; x++)
{
currentSum += image[x,y];
if (x => N)
{
currentSum -= image[x-N,y];
image[x-N,y] = currentSum;
}
}
}
int? bestSum = null;
List<Point> bestCandidates = new List<Point>();
for (int x = 0; x <= width-N; x++)
{
currentSum = 0;
for (int y = 0; y < height; y++)
{
currentSum += image[x,y];
if (y >= N)
{
currentSum -= image[x, y-N];
if (bestSum == null || currentSum > bestSum)
{
bestSum = currentSum;
bestCandidates.Clear();
bestCandidates.Add(new Point(x, y-N));
}
else if (currentSum == bestSum)
{
bestCandidates.Add(new Point(x, y-N));
}
}
}
}
squareSum = bestSum.Value;
return bestCandidates;
}
You could increment the threshold until you find a square, and use a 2D FSM to detect the square.
This will produce a match in O(width * height * bpp) (binary search on the lowest possible threshold, assuming a power-of-two range):
- set threshold to its maximum value
- for every bit of the threshold
- clear the bit in the threshold
- if there is a match
- record the set of matches as a result
- else
- set the bit
- if there is no record, then the threshold is its maximum.
to detect a square:
- for every pixel:
- if the pixel is too bright, set its line-len to 0
- else if it's the first column, set its line-len to 1
- else set its line-len to the line-len of the pixel to the left, plus one
- if the pixel line-len is less than N, set its rect-len to 0
- else if it's the first row, set its rect-len to 1
- else set its rect-len to the rect-len of the pixel above, plus one
- if the rect-len is at least N, record a match.
line-len represents the number of consecutive pixels that are dark enough.
rect-len represents the number of consecutive rows of dark pixels that are long enough and aligned.
For video-capture, replace the binary search by a linear search from the threshold for the previous frame.
Obviously, you can't get better than theta(width/N * height/N) best case (as you'll have to rule out every possible position for a darker square) and the bit depth can be assumed constant, so this algorithm is asymptotically optimal for a fixed N. It's probably asymptotically optimal for N as a part of the input as well, as (intuitively) you have to consider almost every pixel in the average case.
There is a rectangular grid of coins, with heads being represented by the value 1 and tails being represented by the value 0. You represent this using a 2D integer array table (between 1 to 10 rows/columns, inclusive).
In each move, you choose any single cell (R, C) in the grid (R-th row, C-th column) and flip the coins in all cells (r, c), where r is between 0 and R, inclusive, and c is between 0 and C, inclusive. Flipping a coin means inverting the value of a cell from zero to one or one to zero.
Return the minimum number of moves required to change all the cells in the grid to tails. This will always be possible.
Examples:
1111
1111
returns: 1
01
01
returns: 2
010101011010000101010101
returns: 20
000
000
001
011
returns: 6
This is what i tried:
Since the order of flipping doesn't matter, and making a move on a coin twice is like not making a move at all, we can just find all distinct combinations of flipping coins, and minimizing the size of good combinations(good meaning those that give all tails).
This can be done by making a set consisting of all coins, each represented by an index.(i.e. if there were 20 coins in all, this set would contain 20 elements, giving them an index 1 to 20). Then make all possible subsets and see which of them give the answer(i.e. if making a move on the coins in the subset gives us all tails). Finally, minimize size of the good combinations.
I don't know if I've been able to express myself too clearly... I'll post a code if you want.
Anyway, this method is too time consuming and wasteful, and not possible for no.of coins>20(in my code).
How to go about this?
I think a greedy algorithm suffices, with one step per coin.
Every move flips a rectangular subset of the board. Some coins are included in more subsets than others: the coin at (0,0) upper-left is in every subset, and the coin at lower-right is in only one subset, namely the one which includes every coin.
So, choosing the first move is obvious: flip every coin if the lower-right corner must be flipped. Eliminate that possible move.
Now, the lower-right coin's immediate neighbors, left and above, can only potentially be flipped by a single remaining move. So, if that move must be performed, do it. The order of evaluation of the neighbors doesn't matter, since they aren't really alternatives to each other. However, a raster pattern should suffice.
Repeat until finished.
Here is a C++ program:
#include <iostream>
#include <valarray>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <ctime>
using namespace std;
void print_board( valarray<bool> const &board, size_t cols ) {
for ( size_t i = 0; i < board.size(); ++ i ) {
cout << board[i] << " ";
if ( i % cols == cols-1 ) cout << endl;
}
cout << endl;
}
int main() {
srand( time(NULL) );
int const rows = 5, cols = 5;
valarray<bool> board( false, rows * cols );
for ( size_t i = 0; i < board.size(); ++ i ) board[i] = rand() % 2;
print_board( board, cols );
int taken_moves = 0;
for ( size_t i = board.size(); i > 0; ) {
if ( ! board[ -- i ] ) continue;
size_t sizes[] = { i%cols +1, i/cols +1 }, strides[] = { 1, cols };
gslice cur_move( 0, valarray<size_t>( sizes, 2 ),
valarray<size_t>( strides, 2 ) );
board[ cur_move ] ^= valarray<bool>( true, sizes[0] * sizes[1] );
cout << sizes[1] << ", " << sizes[0] << endl;
print_board( board, cols );
++ taken_moves;
}
cout << taken_moves << endl;
}
Not c++. Agree with #Potatoswatter that the optimal solutition is greedy, but I wondered if a Linear Diophantine System also works. This Mathematica function does it:
f[ei_] := (
xdim = Dimensions[ei][[1]];
ydim = Dimensions[ei][[2]];
(* Construct XOR matrixes. These are the base elements representing the
possible moves *)
For[i = 1, i < xdim + 1, i++,
For[j = 1, j < ydim + 1, j++,
b[i, j] = Table[If[k <= i && l <= j, -1, 0], {k, 1, xdim}, {l, 1, ydim}]
]
];
(*Construct Expected result matrix*)
Table[rv[i, j] = -1, {i, 1, xdim}, {j, 1, ydim}];
(*Construct Initial State matrix*)
Table[eiv[i, j] = ei[[i, j]], {i, 1, xdim}, {j, 1, ydim}];
(*Now Solve*)
repl = FindInstance[
Flatten[Table[(Sum[a[i, j] b[i, j], {i, 1, xdim}, {j, 1, ydim}][[i]][[j]])
eiv[i, j] == rv[i, j], {i, 1, xdim}, {j, 1, ydim}]],
Flatten[Table[a[i, j], {i, 1, xdim}, {j, 1, ydim}]]][[1]];
Table[c[i, j] = a[i, j] /. repl, {i, 1, xdim}, {j, 1, ydim}];
Print["Result ",xdim ydim-Count[Table[c[i, j], {i, 1, xdim}, {j, 1,ydim}], 0, ydim xdim]];)
When called with your examples (-1 instead of 0)
ei = ({
{1, 1, 1, 1},
{1, 1, 1, 1}
});
f[ei];
ei = ({
{-1, 1},
{-1, 1}
});
f[ei];
ei = {{-1, 1, -1, 1, -1, 1, -1, 1, 1, -1, 1, -1, -1, -1, -1, 1, -1,
1, -1, 1, -1, 1, -1, 1}};
f[ei];
ei = ({
{-1, -1, -1},
{-1, -1, -1},
{-1, -1, 1},
{-1, 1, 1}
});
f[ei];
The result is
Result :1
Result :2
Result :20
Result :6
Or :)
Solves a 20x20 random problem in 90 seconds on my poor man's laptop.
Basically, you're taking the N+M-1 coins in the right and bottom borders and solving them, then just calling the algorithm recursively on everything else. This is basically what Potatoswatter is saying to do. Below is a very simple recursive algorithm for it.
Solver(Grid[N][M])
if Grid[N-1][M-1] == Heads
Flip(Grid,N-1,M-1)
for each element i from N-2 to 0 inclusive //This is empty if N is 1
If Grid[i][M-1] == Heads
Flip(Grid,i,M-1)
for each element i from M-2 to 0 inclusive //This is empty if M is 1
If Grid[N-1][i] == Heads
Flip(Grid,N-1,i)
if N>1 and M > 1:
Solver(Grid.ShallowCopy(N-1, M-1))
return;
Note: It probably makes sense to implement Grid.ShallowCopy by just having Solver have arguments for the width and the height of the Grid. I only called it Grid.ShallowCopy to indicate that you should not be passing in a copy of the grid, though C++ won't do that with arrays by default anyhow.
An easy criterion for rectangle(x,y) to be flipped seems to be: exactly when the number of ones in the 2x2 square with top-left square (x,y) is odd.
(code in Python)
def flipgame(grid):
w, h = len(grid[0]), len(grid)
sol = [[0]*w for y in range(h)]
for y in range(h-1):
for x in range(w-1):
sol[y][x] = grid[y][x] ^ grid[y][x+1] ^ grid[y+1][x] ^ grid[y+1][x+1]
for y in range(h-1):
sol[y][w-1] = grid[y][w-1] ^ grid[y+1][w-1]
for x in range(w-1):
sol[h-1][x] = grid[h-1][x] ^ grid[h-1][x+1]
sol[h-1][w-1] = grid[h-1][w-1]
return sol
The 2D array returned has a 1 in position (x,y) if rectangle(x,y) should be flipped, so the number of ones in it is the answer to your original question.
EDIT: To see why it works:
If we do moves (x,y), (x,y-1), (x-1,y), (x-1,y-1), only square (x,y) is inverted. This leads to the code above. The solution must be optimal, as there are 2^(hw) possible configurations of the board and 2^(hw) possible ways to transform the board (assuming every move can be done 0 or 1 times). In other words, there is only one solution, hence the above produces the optimal one.
You could use recursive trials.
You would need at least the move count and to pass a copy of the vector. You'd also want to set a maximum move cutoff to set a limit to the breadth of branches coming out of at each node of the search tree. Note this is a "brute force" approach."
Your general algorithm structure would be:
const int MAX_FLIPS=10;
const unsigned int TREE_BREADTH=10;
int run_recursion(std::vector<std::vector<bool>> my_grid, int current flips)
{
bool found = true;
int temp_val = -1;
int result = -1;
//Search for solution with for loops; if true is found in grid, found=false;
...
if ( ! found && flips < MAX_FLIPS )
{
//flip coin.
for ( unsigned int more_flips=0; more_flips < TREE_BREADTH; more_flips++ )
{
//flip one coin
...
//run recursion
temp_val=run_recursion(my_grid,flips+1)
if ( (result == -1 && temp_val != -1) ||
(temp_val != -1 && temp_val < result) )
result = temp_val;
}
}
return result;
}
...sorry in advance for any typos/minor syntax errors. Wanted to prototype a fast solution for you, not write the full code...
Or easier still, you could just use a brute force of linear trials. Use an outer for loop would be number of trials, inner for loop would be flips in trial. On each loop you'd flip and check if you'd succeeded, recycling your success and flip code from above. Success would short circuit the inner loop. At the end of the inner loop, store the result in the array. If failure after max_moves, store -1. Search for the max value.
A more elegant solution would be to use a multithreading library to start a bunch of threads flipping, and have one thread signal to others when it finds a match, and if the match is lower than the # of steps run thus far in another thread, that thread exits with failure.
I suggest MPI, but CUDA might win you brownie points as it's hot right now.
Hope that helps, good luck!