I would like to force the HEVC reference software, HM Encoder Version [16.15], to use a fixed partition size of 8x8 pixels both for transform and motion compensation. Can I do that and what are the encoder configuration parameters to change? Thanks.
I would suggest manually changing the RDCost of all other sizes to a large number. For example you can multiply them by 1000.
This can easily be done inside the predInterSearch() function in the TEncSearch.cpp file.
Related
I am new to the field of medical imaging - and trying to solve this (potentially basic problem). For a machine learning purpose, I am trying to standardize and normalize a library of DICOM images, to ensure that all images have the same rotation and are at the same scale (e.g. in mm). I have been playing around with the Mango viewer, and understand that one can create transformation matrices that might be helpful in this regard. I have however the following basic questions:
I would have thought that a scaling of the image would have changed the pixel spacing in the image header. Does this tag not provide the distance between pixels, and should this not change as a result of scaling?
What is the easiest way to standardize a library of images (ideally in python)? Is it possible and should one extract a mean pixel spacing across all images, and then scaling all images to match that mean? or is there a smarter way to ensure consistency in scaling and rotation?
Many thanks in advance, W
Does this tag not provide the distance between pixels, and should this
not change as a result of scaling?
Think of the image voxels as fixed units of space, which are sampling your image. When you apply your transform, you are translating/rotating/scaling your image around within these fixed units of space. That is, the size and shape of the voxels doesn't change. They just sample different parts of your image.
You can resample your image by making your voxels bigger or smaller or changing their shape (pixel spacing), but this can be independent of the transform you are applying to the image.
What is the easiest way to standardize a library of images (ideally in
python)?
One option is FSL-FLIRT, although it only accepts data in NIFTI format, so you'd have to convert your DICOMs to NIFTI. There is also this Python interface to FSL.
Is it possible and should one extract a mean pixel spacing across all
images, and then scaling all images to match that mean? or is there a
smarter way to ensure consistency in scaling and rotation?
I think you'd just to have pick a reference image to register all your other images too. There's no right answer: picking the highest resolution image/voxel dimensions or an average or some resampling into some other set of dimensions all sound reasonable.
I create a big image stitched out of many single microscope images.
Suddenly, (after several month of working properly) the stitched overview images became blurry and they are containing strange structural artefacts like askew lines (not the rectangulars, they are because of not perfect stitching)
If I open any particular tile in full size, they are not blurry and the artefacts are hardly observable. (Consider, the image below is already 4x scaled)
The overview image is created manually by scaling each tile using QImage::scaled and copying all of them to the corresponding region in the big image. I'm not using opencv's stitching.
I assume, this happens because of image contents, because most if the overview images are ok.
The question is, how can I avoid such hardly observable artefacts to become very clearly visible after scaling? Is there some means in OpenCV or QImage?
Is there any algorithms to find out, if image content could lead to such effect for defined scale-factor?
Many thanks in advance!
Are you sure the camera is calibrated properly? That the lightning is uniform? Is the lens clear? Do you have electrical components that interfere with the camera connection?
If you add image frames of photos on a uniform material (or non-uniform material, moved randomly for significant time), the resultant integrated image should be completely uniform.
If your produced image is not uniform, especially if you get systematic noise (like the apparent sinusoidal noise in the provided pictures), write a calibration function that transforms image -> calibrated image.
Filtering in Fourier space is another way to filter out the noise but considering that the image is rotated you will lose precision, and you'll be cutting off components of the real signal, too. The following empiric method will reduce the noise in your particular case significantly:
ground_output: composite image with per-pixel sum of >10 frames (more is better) over uniform material (e.g. excited slab of phosphorus)
ground_input: the average(or sqrt(sum of px^2)) in ground_output
calib_image: ground_input /(per px) ground_output. Saved for the session, or persistent in a file (important: ensure no lossy compression! (jpeg)).
work_input: the images to work on
work_output = work_input *(per px) calib_image: images calibrated for systematic noise.
If you can't create a perfect ground_input target such as having a uniform material on hand, do not worry too much. If you move any material uniformly (or randomly) for enough time, it will act as a uniform material in this case (think of a blurred photo).
This method has the added advantage of calibrating solitary faulty pixels that ccd cameras have (eg NormalPixel.value(signal)).
If you want to have more fun you can always fit the calibration function to something more complex than a zero-intercept line (steps 3. and 5.).
I suggest scaling the image with some other software to verify if the artifacts are in fact caused by Qt or are inherent in the image you've captured.
The askew lines look a lot like analog tv interference, or CCTV noise induced by 50 or 60 Hz power lines running alongside the signal cable or some other electrical interference on the signal.
If the image distortion is caused by signal interference then you can try to mitigate it by moving the signal lines away from whatever could be the source of the problem, or fit something to try to filter the noise (baluns for example).
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 realize both mipmaps and integral images have the problem that the resulting pixel value is not the integral of an arbitrary polygon in original texture space. Integrating over axisaligned rectangle in texture coordinates using integral images requires 4 texture lookups. Using mipmaps, opengl interpolates across the 4 adjacent pixel values in the mipmap so also 4 memory lookups. Using an integral image you need less memory (no extra preresized images, only an integral image instead of the original) and no level determination. Of course this can be implemented through shaders, but why was the (now being deprecated) fixed function pipeline ever designed with mipmap support and no integral image support?
Using an integral image you need less memory
I very much doubt that this statement is true
From what I understand the values of an integral image can get quite large, therefore requiring floating point representation which will use a lot more space than a typical 24bit mipmap (mipmaps only double the size of an image) and/or be less precise and create noise during interpolation. Also floating point images were not really used that often with the fixed function pipeline and GPUs may have been a lot slower with floating point images.
If you would use integers for the picture then the bit-depth required for the integral image would rise unreasonably high (bitdepth = extents+8 for a white image which means a 256x256 image would need a bit-depth of 264bit per color channel) with higher resolution images.
but why was the (now being deprecated) fixed function pipeline ever designed with mipmap support and no integral image support?
Because the access and interpolation of mipmaps could be built as rather simple hardwired circuits. Ever wondered, why texture dimensions had to be powers of two? To implement mipmaping calculations as a series of bit shifts and additions. Also accessing the neighbouring elements in a gaussian pyramid requires less memory accesses than evaluating the integral. And there's your main problem: Fillrate, i.e. video memory bandwidth, always has been a bottleneck of GPUs.