My project is a query about the image and I am you first comparison between the two images by each image Histogram If alike given by presents to me that the picture is similar, but the problem whenever he tells me Enter the two are not alike
A=imread('C:\Users\saba\Desktop\images\q4.jpg');%reading images as array to variable 'a'&'b'
B = imread('C:\Users\saba\Desktop\images\q1.jpg');
j=rgb2gray(A);
i=rgb2gray(B);
subplot(2,2,1);imshow(A);
subplot(2,2,2);imshow(B);
subplot(2,2,3);imshow(j);
subplot(2,2,4);imshow(i);
if histeq(j)==histeq(i)
disp('The images are same')%output display
else
disp('the images are not same')
end
In order to compare directly with the == operator the images would have to be the same images. If you are wanting to do this, you could just check if i==j, provided they are the same size.
As far as I know, there is no builtin function or toolbox which checks whether or not two images are similar. One rough method you could use is seeing how different the sums of the pixel values for each of the rows and the columns are:
maxColumnDifference = max(abs(sum(j, 1) - sum(i, 1)));
maxRowDifference = max(abs(sum(j, 2) - sum(i, 2)));
You could then have some tolerance which the sums must be within, should be a function of the size of the image. To give a standardised answer (0-255) of how different the row or the column is, just divide each of the sums by the number of pixels.
maxColumnDifference = max(abs(sum(j, 1)/size(j,1) - sum(i, 1)/size(i,1)));
maxRowDifference = max(abs(sum(j, 2)/size(j,2) - sum(i, 2)/size(i,2)));
You could then determine if they are similar with something like:
tolerance = 50;
if (maxRowDifference < tolerance) && (maxColumnDifference < tolerance)
disp('Images are similarish');
else
disp('Images are not similar enough for this poor tool to recognise');
end
Note that this is all speculation, not tested at all, and there is probably a better way of doing it.
Related
So I'm trying to run an apply function over an array. The idea is to look at the value in the risk factor column and if this is 1, use "OnsetFunction" and if it's a zero to use the HighOnsetFunction. The would then produce a column of values which populates another column in array.
> apply(OutComes, 1, function(x) { if(x["Risk_Factor"] == 1)
> + {OnsetFunction()}
> + else{ HighOnsetFunction()}})
I'm having trouble with the apply function above and keep getting this message.
>Error in xy.coords(x, y) : 'x' and 'y' lengths differ
There are only five rows in the array at the moment as I'm trying to make sure the code works on a small group before I extend it to be many people, but I'm not sure what the x and y are. I've seen this message with graphs, but never with this before.
I think you are trying to use ifelse but using apply and an if
Try:
ifelse(OutComes$Risk_Factor==1, OnsetFunction(), HighOnsetFunction())
I've written code to smooth an image using a 3x3 averaging filter, however the output is strange, it is almost all black. Here's my code.
function [filtered_img] = average_filter(noisy_img)
[m,n] = size(noisy_img);
filtered_img = zeros(m,n);
for i = 1:m-2
for j = 1:n-2
sum = 0;
for k = i:i+2
for l = j:j+2
sum = sum+noisy_img(k,l);
end
end
filtered_img(i+1,j+1) = sum/9.0;
end
end
end
I call the function as follows:
img=imread('img.bmp');
filtered = average_filter(img);
imshow(uint8(filtered));
I can't see anything wrong in the code logic so far, I'd appreciate it if someone can spot the problem.
Assuming you're working with grayscal images, you should replace the inner two for loops with :
filtered_img(i+1,j+1) = mean2(noisy_img(i:i+2,j:j+2));
Does it change anything?
EDIT: don't forget to reconvert it to uint8!!
filtered_img = uint8(filtered_img);
Edit 2: the reason why it's not working in your code is because sum is saturating at 255, the upper limit of uint8. mean seems to prevent that from happening
another option:
f = #(x) mean(x(:));
filtered_img = nlfilter(noisy_img,[3 3],f);
img = imread('img.bmp');
filtered = imfilter(double(img), ones(3) / 9, 'replicate');
imshow(uint8(filtered));
Implement neighborhood operation of sum of product operation between an image and a filter of size 3x3, the filter should be averaging filter.
Then use the same function/code to compute Laplacian(2nd order derivative, prewitt and sobel operation(first order derivatives).
Use a simple 10*10 matrix to perform these operations
need matlab code
Tangentially to the question:
Especially for 5x5 or larger window you can consider averaging first in one direction and then in the other and you save some operations. So, point at 3 would be (P1+P2+P3+P4+P5). Point at 4 would be (P2+P3+P4+P5+P6). Divided by 5 in the end. So, point at 4 could be calculated as P3new + P6 - P2. Etc for point 5 and so on. Repeat the same procedure in other direction.
Make sure to divide first, then sum.
I would need to time this, but I believe it could work a bit faster for larger windows. It is sequential per line which might not seem the best, but you have many lines where you can work in parallel, so it shouldn't be a problem.
This first divide, then sum also prevents saturation if you have integers, so you might use the approach even in 3x3 case, as it is less wrong (though slower) to divide twice by 3 than once by 9. But note that you will always underestimate final value with that, so you might as well add a bit of bias (say all values +1 between the steps).
img=imread('camraman.tif');
nsy-img=imnoise(img,'salt&pepper',0.2);
imshow('nsy-img');
h=ones(3,3)/9;
avg=conv2(img,h,'same');
imshow(Unit8(avg));
I have a bit of a technical issue, but I feel like it should be possible with MATLAB's powerful toolset.
What I have is a random n by n matrix of 0's and w's, say generated with
A=w*(rand(n,n)<p);
A typical value of w would be 3000, but that should not matter too much.
Now, this matrix has two important quantities, the vectors
c = sum(A,1);
r = sum(A,2)';
These are two row vectors, the first denotes the sum of each column and the second the sum of each row.
What I want to do next is randomize each value of w, for example between 0.5 and 2. This I would do as
rand_M = (0.5-2).*rand(n,n) + 0.5
A_rand = rand_M.*A;
However, I don't want to just pick these random numbers: I want them to be such that for every column and row, the sums are still equal to the elements of c and r. So to clean up the notation a bit, say we define
A_rand_c = sum(A_rand,1);
A_rand_r = sum(A_rand,2)';
I want that for all j = 1:n, A_rand_c(j) = c(j) and A_rand_r(j) = r(j).
What I'm looking for is a way to redraw the elements of rand_M in a sort of algorithmic fashion I suppose, so that these demands are finally satisfied.
Now of course, unless I have infinite amounts of time this might not really happen. I therefore accept these quantities to fall into a specific range: A_rand_c(j) has to be an element of [(1-e)*c(j),(1+e)*c(j)] and A_rand_r(j) of [(1-e)*r(j),(1+e)*r(j)]. This e I define beforehand, say like 0.001 or something.
Would anyone be able to help me in the process of finding a way to do this? I've tried an approach where I just randomly repick the numbers, but this really isn't getting me anywhere. It does not have to be crazy efficient either, I just need it to work in finite time for networks of size, say, n = 50.
To be clear, the final output is the matrix A_rand that satisfies these constraints.
Edit:
Alright, so after thinking a bit I suppose it might be doable with some while statement, that goes through every element of the matrix. The difficult part is that there are four possibilities: if you are in a specific element A_rand(i,j), it could be that A_rand_c(j) and A_rand_r(i) are both too small, both too large, or opposite. The first two cases are good, because then you can just redraw the random number until it is smaller than the current value and improve the situation. But the other two cases are problematic, as you will improve one situation but not the other. I guess it would have to look at which criteria is less satisfied, so that it tries to fix the one that is worse. But this is not trivial I would say..
You can take advantage of the fact that rows/columns with a single non-zero entry in A automatically give you results for that same entry in A_rand. If A(2,5) = w and it is the only non-zero entry in its column, then A_rand(2,5) = w as well. What else could it be?
You can alternate between finding these single-entry rows/cols, and assigning random numbers to entries where the value doesn't matter.
Here's a skeleton for the process:
A_rand=zeros(size(A)) is the matrix you are going to fill
entries_left = A>0 is a binary matrix showing which entries in A_rand you still need to fill
col_totals=sum(A,1) is the amount you still need to add in every column of A_rand
row_totals=sum(A,2) is the amount you still need to add in every row of A_rand
while sum( entries_left(:) ) > 0
% STEP 1:
% function to fill entries in A_rand if entries_left has rows/cols with one nonzero entry
% you will need to keep looping over this function until nothing changes
% update() A_rand, entries_left, row_totals, col_totals every time you loop
% STEP 2:
% let (i,j) be the indeces of the next non-zero entry in entries_left
% assign a random number to A_rand(i,j) <= col_totals(j) and <= row_totals(i)
% update() A_rand, entries_left, row_totals, col_totals
end
update()
A_rand(i,j) = random_value;
entries_left(i,j) = 0;
col_totals(j) = col_totals(j) - random_value;
row_totals(i) = row_totals(i) - random_value;
end
Picking the range for random_value might be a little tricky. The best I can think of is to draw it from a relatively narrow distribution centered around N*w*p where p is the probability of an entry in A being nonzero (this would be the average value of row/column totals).
This doesn't scale well to large matrices as it will grow with n^2 complexity. I tested it for a 200 by 200 matrix and it worked in about 20 seconds.
I'm quite new to MatLab and this problem really drives me insane:
I have a huge array of 2 column and about 31,000 rows. One of the two columns depicts a spatial coordinate on a grid the other one a dependent parameter. What I want to do is the following:
I. I need to split the array into smaller parts defined by the spatial column; let's say the spatial coordinate are ranging from 0 to 500 - I now want arrays that give me the two column values for spatial coordinate 0-10, then 10-20 and so on. This would result in 50 arrays of unequal size that cover a spatial range from 0 to 500.
II. Secondly, I would need to calculate the average values of the resulting columns of every single array so that I obtain per array one 2-dimensional point.
III. Thirdly, I could plot these points and I would be super happy.
Sadly, I'm super confused since I miserably fail at step I. - Maybe there is even an easier way than to split the giant array in so many small arrays - who knows..
I would be really really happy for any suggestion.
Thank you,
Arne
First of all, since you wish a data structure of array of different size you will need to place them in a cell array so you could try something like this:
res = arrayfun(#(x)arr(arr(:,1)==x,:), unique(arr(:,1)), 'UniformOutput', 0);
The previous code return a cell array with the array splitted according its first column with #(x)arr(arr(:,1)==x,:) you are doing a function on x and arrayfun(function, ..., 'UniformOutput', 0) applies function to each element in the following arguments (taken a single value of each argument to evaluate the function) but you must notice that arr must be numeric so if not you should map your values to numeric values or use another way to select this values.
In the same way you could do
uo = 'UniformOutput';
res = arrayfun(#(x){arr(arr(:,1)==x,:), mean(arr(arr(:,1)==x,2))), unique(arr(:,1)), uo, 0);
You will probably want to flat the returning value, check the function cat, you could do:
res = cat(1,res{:})
Plot your data depends on their format, so I can't help if i don't know how the data are, but you could try to plot inside a loop over your 'res' variable or something similar.
Step I indeed comes with some difficulties. Once these are solved, I guess steps II and III can easily be solved. Let me make some suggestions for step I:
You first define the maximum value (maxValue = 500;) and the step size (stepSize = 10;). Now it is possible to iterate through all steps and create your new vectors.
for k=1:maxValue/stepSize
...
end
As every resulting array will have different dimensions, I suggest you save the vectors in a cell array:
Y = cell(maxValue/stepSize,1);
Use the find function to find the rows of the entries for each matrix. At each step k, the range of values of interest will be (k-1)*stepSize to k*stepSize.
row = find( (k-1)*stepSize <= X(:,1) & X(:,1) < k*stepSize );
You can now create the matrix for a stepk by
Y{k,1} = X(row,:);
Putting everything together you should be able to create the cell array Y containing your matrices and continue with the other tasks. You could also save the average of each value range in a second column of the cell array Y:
Y{k,2} = mean( Y{k,1}(:,2) );
I hope this helps you with your task. Note that these are only suggestions and there may be different (maybe more appropriate) ways to handle this.
I would like to safe a certain amount of grayscale-images (->2D-arrays) as layers in a 3D-array.
Because it should be very fast for a realtime-application I would like to vectorize the following code, where m is the number of shifts:
for i=1:m
array(:,:,i)=imabsdiff(circshift(img1,[0 i-1]), img2);
end
nispio showed me a very advanced version, which you can see here:
I = speye(size(img1,2)); E = -1*I;
ii = toeplitz(1:m,[1,size(img1,2):-1:2]);
D = vertcat(repmat(I,1,m),E(:,ii));
data_c = shape(abs([double(img1),double(img2)]*D),size(data_r,1),size(data_r,2),m);
At the moment the results of both operations are not the same, maybe it shifts the image into the wrong direction. My knowledge is very limited, so I dont understand the code completely.
You could do this:
M = 16; N = 20; img1 = randi(255,M,N); % Create a random M x N image
ii = toeplitz(1:N,circshift(fliplr(1:N)',1)); % Create an indexing variable
% Create layers that are shifted copies of the image
array = reshape(img1(:,ii),M,N,N);
As long as your image dimensions don't change, you only ever need to create the ii variable once. After that, you can call the last line each time your image changes. I don't know for sure that this will give you a speed advantage over a for loop, but it is vectorized like you requested. :)
UPDATE
In light of the new information shared about the problem, this solution should give you an order of magnitudes increase in speed:
clear all;
% Set image sizes
M = 360; N = 500;
% Number of column shifts to test
ncols = 200;
% Create comparison matrix (see NOTE)
I = speye(N); E = -1*I;
ii = toeplitz([1:N],[1,N:-1:(N-ncols+2)]);
D = vertcat(repmat(I,1,ncols),E(:,ii));
% Generate some test images
img1 = randi(255,M,N);
img2 = randi(255,M,N);
% Compare images (vectorized)
data_c = reshape(abs([img2,img1]*D),M,N,ncols);
% Compare images (for loop)
array = zeros(M,N,ncols); % <-- Pre-allocate this array!
for i=1:ncols
array(:,:,i)=imabsdiff(circshift(img1,[0 i-1]),img2);
end
This uses matrix multiplication to do the comparisons instead of generating a whole bunch of shifted copies of the image.
NOTE: The matrix D should only be generated one time if your image size is not changing. Notice that the D matrix is completely independent of the images, so it would be wasteful to regenerate it every time. However, if the image size does change, you will need to update D.
Edit: I have updated the code to more closely match what you seem to be looking for. Then I throw the "original" for-loop implementation in to show that they give the same result. One thing worth noting about the vectorized version is that it has the potential to be very memory instensive. If ncols = N then the D matrix has N^3 elements. Even though D is sparse, things fall apart fast when you multiply D by the non-sparse images.
Also, notice that I pre-allocate array before the for loop. This is always good practice in Matlab, where practical, and it will almost invariably give you a large performance boost over the dynamic sizing.
If question is understood correctly, I think you need for loop
for v=1:1:20
array(:,:,v)=circshift(image,[0 v]);
end