I have the following code, which is a part of the algorithm that I am following. as you see I need to do some calculation for 10 different bands. and will end up with a matrix for each band that I need to recreate an image from it, the problem is that I dont know how to create/hold the 10 different matrix on the while loop, then after the while loop I can construct the images one by one. if you have any idea please let me know thank you
cv::Mat _reconstructionMatrix(height,width,CV_8UC1);
_reconsPointer = _reconstructionMatrix.ptr<uchar>(0);
while(_bandIteration<_bandsNumber){
if(_mainMatrix.isContinuous())
{
nCols *= nRows;
nRows = 1;
}
//for all the pixels
for(int i = 0; i < nRows; i++)
{
p = _mainMatrix.ptr<uchar>(i);
//in the images
for (int j = 0; j < nCols; j++)
{
if(_pCounter<_totalImgNO){
....
}else{
...
_reconsPointer[_resultFlag]=_summation;
_resultFlag++;
...
}
}
}
_bandIteration++;
}
Your question is a bit vague. But if you are asking simply how to create/hold the 10 different matrix on the while loop? then you can use STL vectors as normal.
#include<vector>
...
std::vector<cv::Mat> listOfMatrices;
...
cv::Mat M = SomehowGetMatrix();
listOfMatrices.push_back(M);
If this is not what you are looking for, then please provide more detail to your question.
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.
I am writing code for QR Factorization and for some reason my orthogonal method does not work as intended. Basically, my proj() method is outputting random projections. Here is the code:
apmatrix<double> proj(apmatrix<double> v, apmatrix<double> u)
//Projection of u onto v
{
//proj(v,u) = [(u dot v)/(v dot v)]*v
double a = mult(transpose(u,u),v)[0][0], b = mult(transpose(v,v),v)[0][0], c = (a/b);
apmatrix<double>k;
k.resize(v.numrows(),v.numcols());
for(int i = 0; i<v.numrows(); i++)
{
for(int j = 0; j<v.numcols(); j++)
{
k[i][j]=v[i][j]*c;
}
}
return k;
}
I tested the method by itself with manual matrix inputs, and it seems to work fine. Here is my orthogonal method:
apmatrix<double> orthogonal(apmatrix<double> A) //Orthogonal
{
/*
n = (number of columns of A)-1
x = columns of A
v0 = x0
v1 = x1 - proj(v0,x1)
vn = xn - proj(v0,xn) - proj(v1,xn) - ... - proj(v(n-1),xn)
V = {v1, v2, ..., vn} or [v0 v1 ... vn]
*/
apmatrix<double> V, x, v;
int n = A.numcols();
V.resize(A.numrows(),n);
x.resize(A.numrows(), 1);
v.resize(A.numrows(),1);
for(int i = 0; i<A.numrows(); i++)
{
x[i][0]=A[i][1];
v[i][0]=A[i][0];
V[i][0]=A[i][0];
}
for (int c = 1; c<n; c++) //Iterates through each col of A as if each was its own matrix
{
apmatrix<double>vn,vc; //vn = Orthogonalized v (avoiding matrix overwriting of v); vc = previously orthogonalized v
vn=x;
vc.resize(v.numrows(), 1);
for(int i=0; i<c; i++) //Vn = an-(sigma(t=1, n-1, proj(vt, xn))
{
for(int k = 0; k<V.numrows(); k++)
vc[k][0] = V[k][i]; //Sets vc to designated v matrix
apmatrix<double>temp = proj(vc, x);
for(int j = 0; j<A.numrows(); j++)
{
vn[j][0]-=temp[j][0]; //orthogonalize matrix
}
}
for(int k = 0; k<V.numrows(); k++)
{
V[k][c]=vn[k][0]; //Subtracts orthogonalized col to V
v[k][0]=V[k][c]; //v is redundant. more of a placeholder
}
if((c+1)<A.numcols()) //Matrix Out of Bounds Checker
{
for(int k = 0; k<A.numrows(); k++)
{
vn[k][0]=0;
vc[k][0]=0;
x[k][0]=A[k][c+1]; //Moves x onto next v
}
}
}
system("PAUSE");
return V;
}
For testing purposes, I have been using the 2D Array: [[1,1,4],[1,4,2],[1,4,2],[1,1,0]]. Each column is its own 4x1 matrix. The matrices should be outputted as: [1,1,1,1]T, [-1.5,1.5,1.5,-1.5]T, and [2,0,0,-2]T respectively. What's happening now is that the first column comes out correctly (it's the same matrix), but the second and third come out to something that is potentially similar but not equal to their intended values.
Again, each time I call on the orthogonal method, it outputs something different. I think it's due to the numbers inputted in the proj() method, but I am not fully sure.
The apmatrix is from the AP college board, back when they taught cpp. It is similar to vectors or ArrayLists in Java.
Here is a link to apmatrix.cpp and to the documentation or conditions (probably more useful), apmatrix.h.
Here is a link to the full code (I added visual markers to see what the computer is doing).
It's fair to assume that all custom methods work as intended (except maybe Matrix Regressions, but that's irrelevant). And be sure to enter the matrix using the enter method before trying to factorize. The code might be inefficient partly because I self-taught myself cpp not too long ago and I've been trying different ways to fix my code. Thank you for the help!
As said in comments:
#AhmedFasih After doing more tests today, I have found that it is in-fact some >memory issue. I found that for some reason, if a variable or an apmatrix object >is declared within a loop, initialized, then that loop is reiterated, the >memory does not entirely wipe the value stored in that variable or object. This >is noted in two places in my code. For whatever reason, I had to set the >doubles a,b, and c to 0 in the proj method and apmatrixdh to 0 in the >mult method or they would store some value in the next iteration. Thank you so >much for you help!
Given that my large and sub image are 2D matrices, how would I be able search my large matrix block by block until my sub matrix is found. It's like OpenCV template matching but I'm not using that so this needs to be C++ purely.
Something like this. Some sample code would be much appreciated.
SearchBlock(//parameters)
{
Matrix Block;
Block.Rows = //define block rows;
Block.Cols = //define block cols;
Block.data = new double[Block.Rows * Block.Cols];
for (int i = 0; i < Block.Rows; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < Block.Cols; j++)
return Block;
}
You can achieve this by iterating over the elements of the image matrix and checking if the neighbouring elements correspond to the elements of the subimage you are looking for.
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.);
}