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
Related
I am trying to repeat values from an array (values) to a cell array where the individual elements have unequal sizes (specified by array_height and array_length).
I hope to apply this to a larger data set (containing ~100 x ~100 values) and my current solution is to have a line of code for each value (code example below). Surely there is a better way... Please could someone offer an alternative solution?
C = cell(3,2);
values = rand(3,2);
array_height = randi(10,3,2);
array_length = randi(10,3,2);
C{1,1} = repmat((values(1,1)),[array_height(1,1),array_length(1,1)]);
C{2,1} = repmat((values(2,1)),[array_height(2,1),array_length(2,1)]);
C{3,1} = repmat((values(3,1)),[array_height(3,1),array_length(3,1)]);
C{1,2} = repmat((values(1,2)),[array_height(1,2),array_length(1,2)]);
C{2,2} = repmat((values(2,2)),[array_height(2,2),array_length(2,2)]);
C{3,2} = repmat((values(3,2)),[array_height(3,2),array_length(3,2)]);
If you did this in a for loop, it might look something like this:
for i = 1:size(C,1)
for j = 1:size(C,2)
C{i,j} = repmat(values(i,j),[array_height(i,j),array_length(i,j)]);
end
end
However, if you are trying to generate or use this with a larger dataset, this code snippet likely will take forever! I suspect whatever your overall objective is can be better served by matlab's many optimizations for matrices and vectors, but without more information I can't help more than that.
I've got multiple arrays that you can't quite fit a curve/equation to, but i do need to solve them for a lot of values. Simplified it looks like this when i plot it, but the real ones have a lot more points:
So say i would like to solve for y=22,how would i do that? As you can see there'd be three solutions to this, but i only need the most left one.
Linear is okay, but i'd rather us a non-linear method.
The only way i found is to fit an equation to a set of points and solve that equation, but an equation can't approximate the array accurately enough.
This implementation uses a first-order interpolation- if you're looking for higher accuracy and it feels appropriate, you can use a similar strategy for another order estimator.
Assuming data is the name of your array containing data with x values in the first column and y values in the second, that the columns are sorted by increasing or decreasing x values, and you wanted to find all data at the value y = 22;
searchPoint = 22; %search for all solutions where y = 22
matchPoints = []; %matrix containing all values of x
for ii = 1:length(data)-1
if (data(ii,2)>searchPoint)&&(data(ii+1,2)<searchPoint)
xMatch = data(ii,1)+(searchPoint-data(ii,2))*(data(ii+1,1)-data(ii,1))/(data(ii+1,2)-data(ii,2)); %Linear interpolation to solve for xMatch
matchPoints = [matchPoints xMatch];
elseif (data(ii,2)<searchPoint)&&(data(ii+1,2)>searchPoint)
xMatch = data(ii,1)+(searchPoint-data(ii,2))*(data(ii+1,1)-data(ii,1))/(data(ii+1,2)-data(ii,2)); %Linear interpolation to solve for xMatch
matchPoints = [matchPoints xMatch];
elseif (data(ii,2)==searchPoint) %check if data(ii,2) is equal
matchPoints = [matchPoints data(ii,1)];
end
end
if(data(end,2)==searchPoint) %Since ii only goes to the rest of the data
matchPoints = [matchPoints data(end,1)];
end
This was written sans-compiler, but the logic was tested in octave (in other words, sorry if there's a slight typo in variable names, but the math should be correct)
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 2 arrays, A and B. I want to form a new array C with same dimension as B where each element will show SUM(A) for A > B
Below is my working code
A = [1:1:1000]
B=[1:1:100]
for n = 1:numel(B)
C(n) = sum(A(A>B(n)));
end
However, when A has millions of rows and B has thousands, and I have to do similar calculations for 20 array-couples,it takes insane amount of time.
Is there any faster way?
For example, histcounts is pretty fast, but it counts, rather than summing.
Thanks
Depending on the size of your arrays (and your memory limitations), the following code might be slightly faster:
C = A*bsxfun(#gt,A',B);
Though it's vectorized, however, it seems to be bottlenecked (perhaps) by the allocation of memory. I'm looking to see if I can get a further speedup. Depending on your input vector size, I've seen up to a factor of 2 speedup for large vectors.
Here's a method that is a bit quicker, but I'm sure there is a better way to solve this problem.
a=sort(A); %// If A and B are already sorted then this isn't necessary!
b=sort(B);
c(numel(B))=0; %// Initialise c
s=cumsum(a,2,'reverse'); %// Get the partial sums of a
for n=1:numel(B)
%// Pull out the sum for elements in a larger than b(n)
c(n)=s(find(a>b(n),1,'first'));
end
According to some very rough tests, this seems to run a bit better than twice as fast as the original method.
You had the right ideas with histcounts, as you are basically "accumulating" certain A elements based on binning. This binning operation could be done with histc. Listed in this post is a solution that starts off with similar steps as listed in #David's answer and then uses histc to bin and sum up selective elements from A to get us the desired output and all of it in a vectorized manner. Here's the implementation -
%// Sort A and B and also get sorted B indices
sA = sort(A);
[sB,sortedB_idx] = sort(B);
[~,bin] = histc(sB,sA); %// Bin sorted B onto sorted A
C_out = zeros(1,numel(B)); %// Setup output array
%// Take care of the case when all elements in B are greater than A
if sA(1) > sB(end)
C_out(:) = sum(A);
end
%// Only do further processing if there is at least one element in B > any element in A
if any(bin)
csA = cumsum(sA,'reverse'); %// Reverse cumsum on sorted A
%// Get sum(A(A>B(n))) for every n, but for sorted versions
valid_mask = cummax(bin) - bin ==0;
valid_mask2 = bin(valid_mask)+1 <= numel(A);
valid_mask(1:numel(valid_mask2)) = valid_mask2;
C_out(valid_mask) = csA(bin(valid_mask)+1);
%// Rearrange C_out to get back in original unsorted version
[~,idx] = sort(sortedB_idx);
C_out = C_out(idx);
end
Also, please remember when comparing the result from this method with the one from the original for-loop version that there would be slight variations in output as this vectorized solution uses cumsum which computes a running summation and as such would have large cumulatively summed numbers being added to individual elements that are comparatively very small, whereas the for-loop version
would sum only selective elements. So, floating-precision issues would come up there.
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.