I need to grab every pixel value of an raster image (.tif, single band, with pixel value as elevation value) and compare it with another image to see if the pixel values are identical or not. Tried gdalcompare.py, but this only gives generic differences such as file name, file type, file size etc.
I only have access to freeware, would be awesome to find out a way how to do this, as my google searches have been futile
You can probably use Imagemagick's compare tool for this. (If the usage examples on that page aren't enough, there's more here.)
For example, this command would compare image1.tiff and image2.tiff, output the number of differing pixels (other metrics are available too) to the console and write a difference map to differing_pixels.tiff.
compare -metric AE image1.tiff image2.tiff differing_pixels.tiff
Related
I am new to Google Earth Engine and have started playing with mathematically combining different bands to define new index. The problem I am having is the visualisation of the new index - I need to define the max and min parameter when adding it to the map, and I am having troubles understanding what these two end points should be. So here come my two questions:
Is it possible to get the matrix of my image in terms of pixel values? Then I could easily see from what values they range and hence could define min and max!
What values are taken in different bands? Is it from 0 to 1 and measures intensity at given wavelength, or is it something else?
Any help would be much appreciated, many thanks in advance!
Is it possible to get the matrix of my image in terms of pixel values? Then I could easily see from what values they range and hence could define min and max!
If this is what you want to do, there's a built in way to do it. Go to the layer list, click on the gear for the layer, and in the “Range” section, pick one of the “Stretch:” options from the menu, then click “Apply”. You can choose a range in standard deviations, or 100% (min and max).
You can then use the “Import” button to save these parameters as a value you can use in your script.
(All of this applies to the region of the image that's currently visible on screen — not the entire image.)
What values are taken in different bands? Is it from 0 to 1 and measures intensity at given wavelength, or is it something else?
This is entirely up to the individual dataset you are using; Earth Engine only knows about numbers stored in bands and not units of measure or spectra. There may be sufficient information in the dataset's description in the data catalog, or you may need to consult the original provider's documentation.
I am trying to enlarge a point cloud data set. Suppose I have a point cloud data set consisting of 100 points & I want to enlarge it to say 5 times. Actually I am studying some specific structure which is very small, so I want to zoom in & do some computations. I want something like imresize() in Matlab.
Is there any function to do this? What does resize() function do in PCL? Any idea about how can I do it?
Why would you need this? Points are just numbers, regardless whether they are 1 or 100, until all of them are on the same scale and in the same coordinate system. Their size on the screen is just a visual representation, you can zoom in and out as you wish.
You want them to be a thousandth of their original value (eg. millimeters -> meters change)? Divide them by 1000.
You want them spread out in a 5 times larger space in that particular coordinate system? Multiply their coordinates with 5. But even so, their visual representations will look exactly the same on the screen. The data remains basically the same, they will not be resized per se, they numeric representation will change a bit. It is the simplest affine transform, just a single multiplication.
You want to have finer or coarser resolution of your numeric representation? Or have different range? Change your data type accordingly.
That is, if you deal with a single set.
If you deal with different sets, say, recorded with different kinds of sensors and the numeric representations differ a bit (there are angles between the coordinate systems, mm vs cm scale, etc.) you just have to find the transformation from one coordinate system to the other one and apply it to the first one.
Since you want to increase the number of points while preserving shape/structure of the cloud, I think you want to do something like 'upsampling'.
Here is another SO question on this.
The PCL offers a class for bilateral upsampling.
And as always google gives you a lot of hints on this topic.
Beside (what Ziker mentioned) increasing allocated memory (that's not what you want, right?) or zooming in in visualization you could just rescale your point cloud.
This can be done by multiplying each points dimensions with a constant factor or using an affine transformation. So you can e.g switch from mm to m.
If i understand your question correctly
If you have defined your cloud like this
pcl::PointCloud<pcl::PointXYZ>::Ptr cloud (new pcl::PointCloud<pcl::PointXYZ>);
in fact you can do resize
cloud->points.resize (cloud->width * cloud->height);
Note that doing resize does nothing more than allocate more memory for variable thus after resizing original data remain in cloud. So if you want to have empty resized cloud dont forget to add cloud->clear();
If you just want zoom some pcd for visual puposes(i.e you cant see what is shape of cloud because its too small) why dont you use PCL Visualization and zoom by scrolling up/down
I am currently working on some kind of OCR (Optical Character Recognition) system. I have already written a script to extract each character from the text and clean (most of the) irregularities out of it. I also know the font. The images I have now for example are:
M (http://i.imgur.com/oRfSOsJ.png (font) and http://i.imgur.com/UDEJZyV.png (scanned))
K (http://i.imgur.com/PluXtDz.png (font) and http://i.imgur.com/TRuDXSx.png (scanned))
C (http://i.imgur.com/wggsX6M.png (font) and http://i.imgur.com/GF9vClh.png (scanned))
For all of these images I already have a sort of binary matrix (1 for black, 0 for white). I was now wondering if there was some kind of mathematical projection-like formula to see the similarity between these matrices. I do not want to rely on a library, because that was not the task given to me.
I know this question may seem a bit vague and there are similar questions, but I'm looking for the method, not for a package and so far I couldn't find any comments regarding the method. The reason this question being vague is that I really have no point to start. What I want to do is actually described here on wikipedia:
Matrix matching involves comparing an image to a stored glyph on a pixel-by-pixel basis; it is also known as "pattern matching" or "pattern recognition".[9] This relies on the input glyph being correctly isolated from the rest of the image, and on the stored glyph being in a similar font and at the same scale. This technique works best with typewritten text and does not work well when new fonts are encountered. This is the technique the early physical photocell-based OCR implemented, rather directly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition#Character_recognition)
If anyone could help me out on this one, I would appreciate it very much.
for recognition or classification most OCR's use neural networks
These must be properly configured to desired task like number of layers internal interconnection architecture , and so on. Also problem with neural networks is that they must be properly trained which is pretty hard to do properly because you will need to know for that things like proper training dataset size (so it contains enough information and do not over-train it). If you do not have experience with neural networks do not go this way if you need to implement it yourself !!!
There are also other ways to compare patterns
vector approach
polygonize image (edges or border)
compare polygons similarity (surface area, perimeter, shape ,....)
pixel approach
You can compare images based on:
histogram
DFT/DCT spectral analysis
size
number of occupied pixels per each line
start position of occupied pixel in each line (from left)
end position of occupied pixel in each line (from right)
these 3 parameters can be done also for rows
points of interest list (points where is some change like intensity bump,edge,...)
You create feature list for each tested character and compare it to your font and then the closest match is your character. Also these feature list can be scaled to some fixed size (like 64x64) so the recognition became invariant on scaling.
Here is sample of features I use for OCR
In this case (the feature size is scaled to fit in NxN) so each character has 6 arrays by N numbers like:
int row_pixels[N]; // 1nd image
int lin_pixels[N]; // 2st image
int row_y0[N]; // 3th image green
int row_y1[N]; // 3th image red
int lin_x0[N]; // 4th image green
int lin_x1[N]; // 4th image red
Now: pre-compute all features for each character in your font and for each readed character. Find the most close match from font
min distance between all feature vectors/arrays
not exceeding some threshold difference
This is partially invariant on rotation and skew up to a point. I do OCR for filled characters so for outlined font it may have use some tweaking
[Notes]
For comparison you can use distance or correlation coefficient
I have an image which I would like to extract the number but in a dynamic way (I don't want to specify a roi because image may vary) so I have to filter it. I tried to detect the horizontal line(to crop the image) but it failed. I would like to detect high density zones in the binary image (the face and the top of the image)
ps:my problem isn't how to extract numbers but to specify the roi
and all the images have the same format
any help would be appreciated(even without code just the big lines)
thanks
the image
I would start form detecting frame of the whole document.
If you google: rectangle detection opencv, you will find lots of examples.
In second stage i would apply inRange to filter purple line and detect it with HoughLines.
This should be enough to calculate ROI.
I'm not sure this is the right place but here I go:
I have a database of 300 picture in high-resolution. I want to compute the PCA on this database and so far here is what I do: - reshape every image as a single column vector - create a matrix of all my data (500x300) - compute the average column and substract it to my matrix, this gives me X - compute the correlation C = X'X (300x300) - find the eigenvectors V and Eigen Values D of C. - the PCA matrix is given by XV*D^-1/2, where each column is a Principal Component
This is great and gives me correct component.
Now what I'm doing is doing the same PCA on the same database, except that the images have a lower resolution.
Here are my results, low-res on the left and high-res on the right. Has you can see most of them are similar but SOME images are not the same (the ones I circled)
Is there any way to explain this? I need for my algorithm to have the same images, but one set in high-res and the other one in low-res, how can I make this happen?
thanks
It is very possible that the filter you used could have done a thing or two to some of the components. After all, lower resolution images don't contain higher frequencies that, too, contribute to which components you're going to get. If component weights (lambdas) at those images are small, there's also a good possibility of errors.
I'm guessing your component images are sorted by weight. If they are, I would try to use a different pre-downsampling filter and see if it gives different results (essentially obtain lower resolution images by different means). It is possible that the components that come out differently have lots of frequency content in the transition band of that filter. It looks like images circled with red are nearly perfect inversions of each other. Filters can cause such things.
If your images are not sorted by weight, I wouldn't be surprised if the ones you circled have very little weight and that could simply be a computational precision error or something of that sort. In any case, we would probably need a little more information about how you downsample, how you sort the images before displaying them. Also, I wouldn't expect all images to be extremely similar because you're essentially getting rid of quite a few frequency components. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that you're stretching out images into vectors to compute PCA, but try to stretch them out in a different direction (take columns instead of rows or vice versa) and try that. If it changes the result, then perhaps you might want to try to perform PCA somewhat differently, not sure how.