Scaling down each page when printing using PostScript - scale

I have a pdf file which needs to be converted to postscript ( using pdf2ps ) and sent to an old ( Lanier 2145 ) printer. This file has a code at the very bottom of one of the pages, which unfortunately is being cut off.
After spending a long time mucking about with CUPS trying to get it to scale, we have given up and starting to manipulate the actual ps file.
I can scale the pages using
<</Install { .80 .80 scale } bind >> setpagedevice
However, the scaling is being locked to the bottom left hand corner rather than scaling from the center. This means that the very bottom of the page is still cut off, no matter what the scale.
How can you set where the scaling is done from? I would prefer to scale from the center, but could live with scaling from the top.
Thanks

You can do a translate in the procedure and move the origin. For example:
<</Install { 18 18 translate .80 .80 scale } bind >> setpagedevice

Related

Why are the transparent pixels not blending correctly in WebGL

Result of my code:
Basically, what the issue is, the transparent part of my image are not blending correctly with what is drawn before it. I know I can do a
if(alpha<=0){discard;}
in the fragment shader, the only issue is I plan on having a ton of fragments and don't want the if statement for each fragment on mobile devices.
Here is my code related to alpha, and depth testing:
var gl = canvas.getContext("webgl2",
{
antialias : false,
alpha : false,
premultipliedAlpha: false,
}
);
gl.enable(gl.BLEND);
gl.blendFunc(gl.SRC_ALPHA, gl.ONE_MINUS_SRC_ALPHA);
gl.enable(gl.DEPTH_TEST);
gl.depthFunc(gl.GREATER);
Also, these are textured gl.POINTS I am drawing. If I change the order the two images are drawn in the buffer, the problem doesn't exist. They will be dynamically rotating during the program's runtime so this is not an option.
It's not clear what your issue is without more code but it looks like a depth test issue.
Assuming I understand correctly you're drawing 2 rectangles? If you draw the red one before the blue one then depending on how you have the depth test setup the blue one will fail the depth test when the X area is drawn.
You generally solve this by sorting what you draw, making sure to draw things further away first.
For a grid of "tiles" you can generally sort by walking the grid itself in the correct direction instead of "sorting"
On the other hand, if all of your transparency is 100% draw or not draw then discard has its advantages and you can draw front to back. The reason is because in that case drawing front to back, the pixel drawn (not discarded) by the red quad will be rejected when drawing the blue quad by the depth test. The depth test is usually optimized to happen before running the fragment shader for a certain pixel. If the depth test says the pixel will not be drawn then no reason to even run the fragment shader for that pixel, time saved. Unfortunately as soon as you have any transparency that is not 100% opaque or 100% transparent then you need to sort and draw back to front. Some of these issues are covered in this article
A few notes:
you mentioned mobile devices and you mentioned WebGL2 in your code sample. There is no WebGL2 on iOS
you said you're drawing with POINTS. The spec says only POINTS of 1 pixel in size are required. It looks like you're safe up to points of size 60 but to be safe it's generally best to draw with triangles as there are other isses with points
you might also be interested in sprites with depth

How can I find the minimum printer margins?

Problems:
I am printing custom size scenes, the printing must work on a variety of printers, standard or with custom sizes, or roll-fed (particularly this). Some of the custom printers are edge-to-edge.
The user-defined canvas may or may not match the printer paper size.... If the image is smaller than the paper, some printers will center it, others (like HP) print it on top left.
On some printers I can set "Custom" paper, others do not support it.
If the printer has minimum margins, some printers seem to clip, others to render from the top-left margin, and ma or may not clip on image size.
I would like to handle the clipping and margins myself and send to the printer the image as it should fit on "page".
m_printer->setPaperSize(QPrinter::Custom); //gives
QPrinter::setPaperSize: Illegal paper size 30
Assuming that the following works,
m_printer->setPaperSize(canvasRectangle.size(), QPrinter::Point);
getting the marked paper size in cups still returns the default marked in the ppd (Letter, w4h4, ...) (though I can print or cut that size)
What I need:
I need to find, for the (selected/custom) paper/page, the minimum margins.
I thought I could get the margins by just asking for them
qreal left, right, top, bottom;
m_printer->getPageMargins(&left, &top, &right, &bottom, QPrinter::Point);
qDebug() << left << right << top << bottom;
But regardless of printer (I tried HP, PDF and a custom edge-to-edge printer) I got 10 10 10 10.
I thought I would set them to 0 first... I got back 0. (but printing still used some tiny margins, which it either clipped or moved over depending on device, except for the edge-to-edge printers - so while I got no error setting margins to 0 when 0 is impossible, QPrinter told me it set margin to 0 successfully.)
Right now I am trying to make this work in Linux, using cups (and Qt 4.8) - I looked in the ppd of the various printers, but what I see, as ImageableArea for different provided sizes, is that each size has different margins - so that defies the minimum margins idea.
I imagined that the minimum margins (for maximum printable area) should not depend on the paper chosen, but on the printer geometry.
I considered getting the cups ppd option values for ImageableArea - but getting it for the "default" paper size doesn't seem useful if I am not using that paper size - and for custom paper size, there is a range so I don't know what I can get from it.
Also - I can't even seem able to get the cups option for ImageableArea:
const cups_dest_t* pDest = &m_pPrinters[iPrinterNumber];
for (int i = 0; i < pDest->num_options; ++i)
if (strcmp(pDest->options[i].name, pName) == 0)
// I can show options like "PageSize", "PageRegion" but not "ImageableArea"
I am struggling to understand this...
How can I find, using either Qt or cups, the minimum possible printer margins ?

QPainter::drawImage prints different size than QImage::save and print from Photoshop

I'm scaling a QImage, currently as so (I understand there may be more elegant ways):
img.setDotsPerMeterX(img.dotsPerMeterX() * 2);
img.setDotsPerMeterY(img.dotsPerMeterY() * 2);
When I save:
img.save("c:\\users\\me\\desktop\\test.jpg");
and subsequently open and print the image from Photoshop, it is, as expected, half of the physical size of the same image without the scaling applied.
However, when I simply print the scaled QImage, directly from code:
myQPainter.drawImage(0,0,img);
the image prints at the original physical size - not scaled to half the physical size.
I'm using the same printer in each case; and, as far as I can tell, the settings are consistent between both print cases.
Am I misunderstanding something? The end goal is to successfully scale and print the scaled image directly from code.
If we look at the documentation for setDotsPerMeterX it states: -
Together with dotsPerMeterY(), this number defines the intended scale and aspect ratio of the image, and determines the scale at which QPainter will draw graphics on the image. It does not change the scale or aspect ratio of the image when it is rendered on other paint devices.
I expect that the reason for the latter case being the original size is that the image has already been drawn before the call to the functions to set the dots per meter. Or alternatively, set the dots per meter on the original image, before loading its content.
In contrast, when saving, it appears that the device which you save to is copying the values you have set for the dots per meter on the image, then drawing to that device.
I would expect creating a second QImage, setting its dots per meter, then copying from the original to that second image, it would achieve the result you're looking for. Alternatively, you may just be able to set the dots per meter before loading the content on the original QImage.

DirectShow: IVMRWindowlessControl::SetVideoPosition stride(?)

I have my own video source and using VMR7. When I use 24 color depth, my graph contains Color Space Converter filter which converts 24 bits to ARGB32. Everything works fine. When I use 32 bit color depth, my image looks desintegrated. In this case my source produces RGB32 images and passes them directly to VMR7 without color conversion. During window sizing I noticed that when destination height is changing the image becomes "integrated" (normal) in some specific value of destination height. I do not know where is the problem. Here are the example photos: http://talbot.szm.com/desintegrated.jpg and http://talbot.szm.com/integrated.jpg
Thank you for your help.
You need to check for a MediaType change in your FillBuffer method.
HRESULT hr = pSample->GetMediaType((AM_MEDIA_TYPE**)&pmt);
if (S_OK == hr)
{
SetMediaType(pmt);
DeleteMediaType(pmt);
}
Depending on your graphic you get different width for your buffer. This means, you connect with an image width of 1000 pixels but with the first sample you get a new width for your buffer. In my example it was 1024px.
Now you have the new image size in the BitmapInfoHeader.biWidth and got the old size in the VideoInfoHeader.rcSource. So one line of your image has a size of 1024 pixels and not 1000 pixels. If you don't remember this you can sometimes get pictures like you.

Matlab Bwareaopen equivalent function in OpenCV

I'm trying to find similar or equivalent function of Matlabs "Bwareaopen" function in OpenCV?
In MatLab Bwareaopen(image,P) removes from a binary image all connected components (objects) that have fewer than P pixels.
In my 1 channel image I want to simply remove small regions that are not part of bigger ones? Is there any trivial way to solve this?
Take a look at the cvBlobsLib, it has functions to do what you want. In fact, the code example on the front page of that link does exactly what you want, I think.
Essentially, you can use CBlobResult to perform connected-component labeling on your binary image, and then call Filter to exclude blobs according to your criteria.
There is not such a function, but you can
1) find contours
2) Find contours area
3) filter all external contours with area less then threshhold
4) Create new black image
5) Draw left contours on it
6) Mask it with a original image
I had the same problem and came up with a function that uses connectedComponentsWithStats():
def bwareaopen(img, min_size, connectivity=8):
"""Remove small objects from binary image (approximation of
bwareaopen in Matlab for 2D images).
Args:
img: a binary image (dtype=uint8) to remove small objects from
min_size: minimum size (in pixels) for an object to remain in the image
connectivity: Pixel connectivity; either 4 (connected via edges) or 8 (connected via edges and corners).
Returns:
the binary image with small objects removed
"""
# Find all connected components (called here "labels")
num_labels, labels, stats, centroids = cv2.connectedComponentsWithStats(
img, connectivity=connectivity)
# check size of all connected components (area in pixels)
for i in range(num_labels):
label_size = stats[i, cv2.CC_STAT_AREA]
# remove connected components smaller than min_size
if label_size < min_size:
img[labels == i] = 0
return img
For clarification regarding connectedComponentsWithStats(), see:
How to remove small connected objects using OpenCV
https://www.programcreek.com/python/example/89340/cv2.connectedComponentsWithStats
https://python.hotexamples.com/de/examples/cv2/-/connectedComponentsWithStats/python-connectedcomponentswithstats-function-examples.html
The closest OpenCV solution to your question is the morphological closing or opening.
Say you have white regions in your image that you need to remove. You can use morphological opening. Opening is erosion + dilation, in that order. Erosion is when the white regions in your image are shrunk. Dilation is (the opposite) where white regions in your image are enlarged. When you perform an opening operation, your small white region is eroded until it vanishes. Larger white features will not vanish but will be eroded from the boundary. The subsequent dilation step restores their original size. However, since the small element(s) vanished during the erosion step, they will not appear in the final image after dilation.
For example consider this image where we want to remove the small white regions but retain the 3 large white ellipses. Running the following code removes the white regions and displays the clean image
import cv2
im = cv2.imread('sample.png')
clean = cv2.morphologyEx(im, cv2.MORPH_OPEN, np.ones((10, 10)))
cv2.imshwo("Clean image", clean)
The clean image output would be like this.
The command above uses a square block of size 10 as the kernel. You can modify this to suit your requirement. You can even generate a more advanced kernel using the function getStructuringElement().
Note that if your image is inverted, i.e., with black noise on a white background, you simply need to use the morphological closing operation (cv2.MORPH_CLOSE method) instead of opening. This reverses the order of operation - first the image is eroded and then dilated.

Resources