Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Is it possible to convert the native vector shapes created in After Effects into adobe Illustrator or Eps etc? Tried exporting as SWF but still it converts into raster graphics and loses vector data.
Even if 3rd party scripts are available, please let me know.
One of the simplest ways of doing this, if you have Illustrator handy, is to turn on Illustrator's AICB support in preferences ("Clipboard Handling"), with "Preserve Paths" on. Then you can copy all the masks in a layer and paste them into a document in Illustrator.
If you're working with masks on Solids, the masks are fairly easy to copy. With Shape Layers, it is a little more tricky; you have to at least start with the path of the shape selected. It might be worth converting shape layer paths to masks on solids first. There's a script over at aescripts.com for that.
highlight literally just frame 0 from each Mask Path (don't just select all keyframes across the timeline) then holding shift to get the first frame of all shape layers or do one at a time and then paste that into Illustrator.
I just wanted to use some icons in a video but needed them as vectors as well for print.
so I chose the frame I wanted to use in AE, composition - save frame as- I chose PS file -then I opened it in Illustrator and image traced it. Because I had simple shapes on a transparent background it worked beautifully.
15 seconds from an AE robot to an AI robot
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I wonder if the training set should have the same resolution as the test set. I would like to make a CNN for object recognition. My dataset is much clearer than the data I found on web. The problem is that I found only 30 objects in my dataset which I could label. The data from web has labeled over 200 pictures but the resolution is worse. Here is a sample of my data and the data from web: https://imgur.com/a/pxSFU1x.
My two cents: it would definitely help if you had images with the same resolution.
When you load an image you get a matrix with a bunch of numbers for each pixel. Your neural network will try to identify patterns common to the labelled images and then look for those patterns in the test.
As the images differ thou, those patterns won't really be the same in the test dataset and this will definitely negatively affect the outcome.
A silly example would be if you are trying to identify antennas on the roof instead of the solar panels. In your image antennas have some kind of shape while in the web image they are just one pixel. This would make the testing dataset completely useless.
However, the solar panels in the two images have quite clear characteristics (shape, color, contrast, contour) and I believe you should still give it a try as the different resolution might not be extremely problematic in this case.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Background: If you want to modify one of your customly defined functions, you can access the source code by selecting the function name and press "F2", or ctrl-click it. This will take you to the function source and you can make changes.
Problem: You are redirected to a read-only definition of your function (indicated by read-only glasses icon appearing in the tab in rstudio) instead of your source script. (This is a similar behaviour as if you were inspecting a function loaded from a package or base R.)
Question: What should I do to remove the read-only mode? I want to be able to edit the functions again.
I would like to know what I could have done to run into the aforementioned problem, not to do it again.
That does provide directions to edit pre-built functions from packages. If this is a function you have created, then the part about copy/paste/edit would suffice to redefine the function.
In your case, view whatever the function is (I made this one up), copy it into your console and change it as you please.
> View(mathFunction)
function(x,y,...) {sum(x, y, ...)} # this will show up in a window.
> mathFunction <- function(x,y,..., digits = z) {round(sum(x, y, ...), digits = z)} # redefine it
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
My employer asked me to do a project for our local team. Actually, it will be a way to help our work to finished faster.
We have a local database where we add exercises divided in two fields. The question and the solution. My employer wants since we are a team and we work at the same time, to create a system like stackoverflow's similar questions. When one of the team tries to submit a new data in the database, then it will check if there are other fields which may be duplicates.
The reason he asked me is because I have done something similar in the past but only for text using techniques like TF-IDF and Latent Semantic Analysis. But now, since the math symbols are all in Latex, I cannot find a way to check for duplicates.
I have tried to apply TF-IDF to the text only, but it doesn't work.
Any suggestion?
Edit:
Sorry for the broad topic. I will try to give more examples about my problem.
All the texts are exercises of primary and secondary schools. It is a mix of text and numbers-equations-symbols. If there were only text, I could use TF-IDF to find possible duplicates. Now, several exercises have a little or are without text.
Examples:
1) a. Solve the following equation: (x+1)*(x-1) = 5
b. Find the x: x^2 - 1 = 5
They are the same equation but with a different expression. So, I don't want to mark them as duplicates.
2) a. Solve the following equation: 3x + 7 = 12
b. Find the solution: 7 + 3x = 12
c. Find the x: 3x = 12 - 7
a and b should be duplicate whereas the c will not be.
You could try using MathJax to convert the LaTeX equation into MathML an XML format. You could then use tools to examine that structure. There are probably a few other tools which can convert your equation into some kind of tree structure.
Equality of mathematical expressions is a complex problem. There are question that should you treat (x+1)*(x-1) as being equal to x^2-1, algebraically they are the same.
You might want to investigate computer algebra systems which have a lot of sophisticated features for manipulating expressions.
One technique is to evaluate the expression at a number of points. If the values agree then its a good indication that the expressions are the same.
It might be easier to give a better answer if there was some idea of the type of problems you are working with, polynomials, integrals etc.?
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I was wondering if there is a package to plot a 2D representation of the outline of a human body? Being in 2D, plotting either the front/back/side at any one time would presumably be the easiest way to accomplish this. The output would be something similar to this (though this is not the best use of such a diagram):
Source: http://emj.bmj.com/content/20/5/434.full
Ideally, plotting a subset of data as is done for the world with map(regions="Australia") would be possible in the form body.map(regions="left.hand"). In that respect, would it be appropriate to base such a model on the maps package?
I just had a look on clker.com for vector body graphics, and if you search for 'body' you see a lot of possible SVG files you could read in and plot.
Then I spotted this one:
http://www.clker.com/clipart-29915.html
which also links to a lot of 'Derived cliparts' showing similar bodies with other parts outlines. It only seems to be the upper torso, but its a nicely-layered SVG file where all the bits could be drawable individually.
There's also plenty of outline body figures (including, I just found, the male figure that went on the Voyager or Pioneer space probe plaques!) and skeletons, including some very well labelled skeletons impressed.
Organising all this into some kind of "body.map" function should be possible - read in from SVG file, select components, plot - but requires some careful thinking and more specification according to requirements.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Suppose I have an Arabic character hand-drawn in Thuluth font, as in:
http://arabicletters.info/wp-content/uploads/1.jpg
I was thinking of a way I can recreate the same shape but at a much greater height, whilst leaving the other characteristics intact (stroke width, thickness, the relation of where the curving starts to happen to the height) which then got me curious about a way of finding its mathematical representation and play with it until I can get what I want or any other shape for that matter. Is there a math sub-specialty that can help with this? and for this particular problem, can it be solved using programs like Adobe Illustrator or AutoCAD?
Forgive the noobness.
I don't think deduce is the right word.
You can get what you want if you add sufficient points and do Bezier spline fits to match the letters.
There might be a way to automate the process of adding points, but the "sufficient" criterion is tricky. And then you'd have to tell how to connect points with splines.
Sounds like you're trying to reproduce optical character recognition in Arabic.