Xcode 12 introduced support for using Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG) image assets. It comes with a lot of benefits like smaller sizer, less management efforts, etc.
My question is: Does SVG also come with a sacrifice of compiling performance in the latest Xcode 13/14?
My quick test validates one’s intuition, namely that compilation is faster (though, only slightly) if you prepare the 1×, 2×, and 3× scale rasterized images yourself beforehand. For my test with twenty, trivial 1k SVG (the standard square.and.up.arrow icon), that was 0.3 seconds slower building than it was with the same number of sets of pre-prepared PNGs.
So, it depends upon the number of vector graphics, and the size/complexity of those vector files. But in my current project with ~100 vector assets, the compilation time of the assets has never been the concern. But my assets are, admittedly, relatively simple. Your mileage may vary.
You probably are going to just have to benchmark it with your collection of images to decide whether the compilation time difference warrants the time investment to create all the rasterized assets. So look at your build report and you can see how much time is taken at this step in the build.
As an aside, you mention the smaller size. The assets in your project might be smaller, but the resulting app might not be any smaller.
I don’t use vector graphics for size reductions, but for the other reasons you enumerated. Plus, by preserving vector data, I get nice renditions in the accessibility vision scenarios (e.g., where tab buttons become oversized).
Related
I am working on developing a shape descriptor module for crack clustering of binary cracks. Long story short, I have engineered several features. To arrange my feature vector for images that contain several cracks, as the biggest crack normally (not always) defines the crack type, I weigh the features based on the area each crack occupies (the number of pixels) and then, take the average.
Take as an example the below image:
enter image description here
The horizontal one decides that this crack image is a transverse crack and at the same time, I can't ignore the one in the corner.
My question is that what is the best way to deal with this? I feel like my feature vector should be multi-dimensional to be able to cover the multi-crack ones, but I haven't seen a problem like this.
Note 1: refining the images and removing the small ones is not an option cuz in some other types, their presence tells a different story. Example:
enter image description here
Here the little ones define that this crack is a meandering one.
Note 2: From an engineering point of view, the simpler the better.
Note 3: The number of cracks in one image can go up to 18, and at the same time, the majority of my data contain one crack.
Using Matlab, I am going to generate several data files and store them in H5 format as 20x1500xN, where N is an integer that can vary, but typically around 2300. Each file will have 4 different data sets with equal structure. Thus, I will quickly achieve a storage problem. My two questions:
Is there any reason not the split the 4 different data sets, and just save as 4x20x1500xNinstead? I would prefer having them split, since it is different signal modalities, but if there is any computational/compression advantage to not having them separated, I will join them.
Using Matlab's built-in compression, I set deflate=9 (and DataType=single). However, I have now realized that using deflate multiplies my computational time with 5. I realize this could have something to do with my ChunkSize, which I just put to 20x1500x5 - without any reasoning behind it. Is there a strategic way to optimize computational load w.r.t. deflation and compression time?
Thank you.
1- Splitting or merging? It won't make a difference in the compression procedure, since it is performed in blocks.
2- Your choice of chunkshape seems, indeed, bad. Chunksize determines the shape and size of each block that will be compressed independently. The bad is that each chunk is of 600 kB, that is much larger than the L2 cache, so your CPU is likely twiddling its fingers, waiting for data to come in. Depending on the nature of your data and the usage pattern you will use the most (read the whole array at once, random reads, sequential reads...) you may want to target the L1 or L2 sizes, or something in between. Here are some experiments done with a Python library that may serve you as a guide.
Once you have selected your chunksize (how many bytes will your compression blocks have), you have to choose a chunkshape. I'd recommend the shape that most closely fits your reading pattern, if you are doing partial reads, or filling in in a fastest-axis-first if you want to read the whole array at once. In your case, this will be something like 1x1500x10, I think (second axis being the fastest, last one the second fastest, and fist the slowest, change if I am mistaken).
Lastly, keep in mind that the details are quite dependant on the specific machine you run it: the CPU, the quality and load of the hard drive or SSD, speed of RAM... so the fine tuning will always require some experimentation.
I am using a startech capture card for capturing video from the source machine..I have encoded that video using matlab so every frame of that video will contain that marker...I run that video on the source computer(HDMI out) connected via HDMI to my computer(HDMI IN) once i capture the frame as bitmap(1920*1080) i re-size it to 1280*720 i send it for processing , the processing code checks every pixel for that marker.
The issue is my capture card is able to capture only at 1920*1080 where as the video is of 1280*720. Hence in order to retain the marker I am down scaling the frame captured to 1280*720 which in turn alters the entire pixel array I believe and hence I am not able to retain marker I fed in to the video.
In that capturing process the image is going through up-scaling which in turn changes the pixel values.
I am going through few research papers on Steganography but it hasn't helped so far. Is there any technique that could survive image resizing and I could retain pixel values.
Any suggestions or pointers will be really appreciated.
My advice is to start with searching for an alternative software that doesn't rescale, compress or otherwise modify any extracted frames before handing them to your control. It may save you many headaches and days worth of time. If you insist on implementing, or are forced to implement a steganography algorithm that survives resizing, keep on reading.
I can't provide a specific solution because there are many ways this can be (possibly) achieved and they are complex. However, I'll describe the ingredients a solution will most likely involve and your limitations with such an approach.
Resizing a cover image is considered an attack as an attempt to destroy the secret. Other such examples include lossy compression, noise, cropping, rotation and smoothing. Robust steganography is the medicine for that, but it isn't all powerful; it may be able to provide resistance to only specific types attacks and/or only small scale attacks at that. You need to find or design an algorithm that suits your needs.
For example, let's take a simple pixel lsb substitution algorithm. It modifies the lsb of a pixel to be the same as the bit you want to embed. Now consider an attack where someone randomly applies a pixel change of -1 25% of the time, 0 50% of the time and +1 25% of the time. Effectively, half of the time it will flip your embedded bit, but you don't know which ones are affected. This makes extraction impossible. However, you can alter your embedding algorithm to be resistant against this type of attack. You know the absolute value of the maximum change is 1. If you embed your secret bit, s, in the 3rd lsb, along with setting the last 2 lsbs to 01, you guarantee to survive the attack. More specifically, you get xxxxxs01 in binary for 8 bits.
Let's examine what we have sacrificed in order to survive such an attack. Assuming our embedding bit and the lsbs that can be modified all have uniform probabilities, the probability of changing the original pixel value with the simple algorithm is
change | probability
-------+------------
0 | 1/2
1 | 1/2
and with the more robust algorithm
change | probability
-------+------------
0 | 1/8
1 | 1/4
2 | 3/16
3 | 1/8
4 | 1/8
5 | 1/8
6 | 1/16
That's going to affect our PSNR quite a bit if we embed a lot of information. But we can do a bit better than that if we employ the optimal pixel adjustment method. This algorithm minimises the Euclidean distance between the original value and the modified one. In simpler terms, it minimises the absolute difference. For example, assume you have a pixel with binary value xxxx0111 and you want to embed a 0. This means you have to make the last 3 lsbs 001. With a naive substitution, you get xxxx0001, which has a distance of 6 from the original value. But xxx1001 has only 2.
Now, let's assume that the attack can induce a change of 0 33.3% of the time, 1 33.3% of the time and 2 33.3%. Of that last 33.3%, half the time it will be -2 and the other half it will be +2. The algorithm we described above can actually survive a +2 modification, but not a -2. So 16.6% of the time our embedded bit will be flipped. But now we introduce error correcting codes. If we apply such a code that has the potential to correct on average 1 error every 6 bits, we are capable of successfully extracting our secret despite the attack altering it.
Error correction generally works by adding some sort of redundancy. So even if part of our bit stream is destroyed, we can refer to that redundancy to retrieve the original information. Naturally, the more redundancy you add, the better the error correction rate, but you may have to double the redundancy just to improve the correction rate by a few percent (just arbitrary numbers here).
Let's appreciate here how much information you can hide in a 1280x720 (grayscale) image. 1 bit per pixel, for 8 bits per letter, for ~5 letters per word and you can hide 20k words. That's a respectable portion of an average novel. It's enough to hide your stellar Masters dissertation, which you even published, in your graduation photo. But with a 4 bit redundancy per 1 bit of actual information, you're only looking at hiding that boring essay you wrote once, which didn't even get the best mark in the class.
There are other ways you can embed your information. For example, specific methods in the frequency domain can be more resistant to pixel modifications. The downside of such methods are an increased complexity in coding the algorithm and reduced hiding capacity. That's because some frequency coefficients are resistant to changes but make embedding modifications easily detectable, then there are those that are fragile to changes but they are hard to detect and some lie in the middle of all of this. So you compromise and use only a fraction of the available coefficients. Popular frequency transforms used in steganography are the Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) and Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT).
In summary, if you want a robust algorithm, the consistent themes that emerge are sacrificing capacity and applying stronger distortions to your cover medium. There have been quite a few studies done on robust steganography for watermarks. That's because you want your watermark to survive any attacks so you can prove ownership of the content and watermarks tend to be very small, e.g. a 64x64 binary image icon (that's only 4096 bits). Even then, some algorithms are robust enough to recover the watermark almost intact, say 70-90%, so that it's still comparable to the original watermark. In some case, this is considered good enough. You'd require an even more robust algorithm (bigger sacrifices) if you want a lossless retrieval of your secret data 100% of the time.
If you want such an algorithm, you want to comb the literature for one and test any possible candidates to see if they meet your needs. But don't expect anything that takes only 15 lines to code and 10 minutes of reading to understand. Here is a paper that looks like a good start: Mali et al. (2012). Robust and secured image-adaptive data hiding. Digital Signal Processing, 22(2), 314-323. Unfortunately, the paper is not open domain and you will either need a subscription, or academic access in order to read it. But then again, that's true for most of the papers out there. You said you've read some papers already and in previous questions you've stated you're working on a college project, so access for you may be likely.
For this specific paper, table 4 shows the results of resisting a resizing attack and section 4.4 discusses the results. They don't explicitly state 100% recovery, but only a faithful reproduction. Also notice that the attacks have been of the scale 5-20% resizing and that only allows for a few thousand embedding bits. Finally, the resizing method (nearest neighbour, cubic, etc) matters a lot in surviving the attack.
I have designed and implemented ChromaShift: https://www.facebook.com/ChromaShift/
If done right, steganography can resiliently (i.e. robustly) encode identifying information (e.g. downloader user id) in the image medium while keeping it essentially perceptually unmodified. Compared to watermarks, steganography is a subtler yet more powerful way of encoding information in images.
The information is dynamically multiplexed into the Cb Cr fabric of the JPEG by chroma-shifting pixels to a configurable small bump value. As the human eye is more sensitive to luminance changes than to chrominance changes, chroma-shifting is virtually imperceptible while providing a way to encode arbitrary information in the image. The ChromaShift engine does both watermarking and pure steganography. Both DRM subsystems are configurable via a rich set of of options.
The solution is developed in C, for the Linux platform, and uses SWIG to compile into a PHP loadable module. It can therefore be accessed by PHP scripts while providing the speed of a natively compiled program.
Over the years I've often asked myself why game developers place many small images into a big one. But not only game developers do that. I also remember the good old Winamp MP3 player had a user interface design file which was just one huge image containing lots of small ones.
I have also seen some big javascript GUI libraries like ext.js using this technique. In ext.js there is a big image containing many small ones.
One thing I noticed is this: No matter how small my PNG image is, the Finder on the Mac always tells me it consumes at least 4kb. Which is heck of a lot if you have just 10 pixels.
So is this done because storing 20 or more small images into a big one is much more memory efficient versus having 20 separate files, each of them probably with it's own header and metadata?
Is it because locating files on the file system is expensive and slow, and therefore much faster to simply locate only one big image and then split it up into smaller ones, once it is loaded into memory?
Or is it lazyness, because it is tedious to think of so many file names?
Is ther a name for this technique? And how are those small images separated from the big one at runtime?
This is called spriting - and there are various reasons to do it in different situations.
For web development, it means that only one web request is required to fetch the image, which can be a lot more efficient than several separate requests. That's more efficient in terms of having less overhead due to the individual requests, and the final image file may well be smaller in total than it would have been otherwise.
The same sort of effect may be visible in other scenarios - for example, it may be more efficient to store and load a single large image file than multiple small ones, depending on the file system. That's entirely aside from any efficiencies gained in terms of the raw "total file size", and is due to the per file overhead (a directory entry, block size etc). It's a bit like the "per request" overhead in the web scenario, but due to slightly different factors.
None of these answers are right. The reason we pack multiple images into one big "sprite sheet" or "texture atlas" is to avoid swapping textures during rendering.
OpenGL and Direct-X take a performance hit when you draw from one image (texture) and the switch to another, so we pack multiple images into one big image and then we can draw several (or hundreds) of images and never switch textures. It has nothing to do with the 4K file size (or hasn't in 15 years).
Also, up until very recently, textures had to by powers of 2 (64, 128, 256) and if your game had lots of odd sized images, that's a lot of wasted memory. Packing them in a single texture could save a lot of space.
The 4kb usage is a side effect of how files are stored on disk. The smallest possible addressable bit of storage in a filesystem is a block, which is usually a fixed size of 512, 1024, 2048, etc... bytes. In your Mac's case, it's using 4k blocks. That means that even a 1-byte file will require at least 4kbytes worth of physical space to store, as it's not possible for the file system to address any storage unit SMALLER than 4k.
The reasons for these "large" blocks vary, but the big one is that the more "granular" your addressing gets (the small the blocks), the more space you waste on indexes to list which blocks are assigned to which files. If you had 1-byte sized blocks, then for every byte of data you store in a file, you'd also need to store 1+ bytes worth of usage information in the file system's metadata, and you'd end up wasting at least HALF of your storage on nothing but indexes.
The converse is true - the bigger the blocks, the more space is wasted for every smaller-than-one-block sized file you store, so in the end it comes down to what tradeoff you're willing to live with.
The reasons are a bit different in different environments.
On the web the main reason is to reduce the number of requests to the web server. Each requests creates overhead, most notably a separate round trip over the network.
When fetching from good ol' mechanical hard drives good read performance requires contiguous data. If you save data in lots of files you get extra seek-time for each file. There is also the block size to consider. Files are made out of blocks, in your case 4kB. When reading a file of one byte you need to read a whole block anyway. If you have many small images you can stuff a whole bunch of them in a single disk block and get them all in the same time as if you had only one small image in the block.
Another reason from days of yore was palletes.
If you did one image you could theme it with one pallete Colour = 14 = light grey with a hint of green.
If you did lots of little images you had to make sure you used the same pallet for every one while designing them, or you got all sort of artifacts.
Given you had one pallete then you could manipulate that, so everything currently green could be made red, by flipping one value in the palletes instead of trawling through every image.
Lots of simple animations like fire, smoke, running water are still done with this method.
Is there an efficient way to get a fingerprint of an image for duplicate detection?
That is, given an image file, say a jpg or png, I'd like to be able to quickly calculate a value that identifies the image content and is fairly resilient to other aspects of the image (eg. the image metadata) changing. If it deals with resizing that's even better.
[Update] Regarding the meta-data in jpg files, does anyone know if it's stored in a specific part of the file? I'm looking for an easy way to ignore it - eg. can I skip the first x bytes of the file or take x bytes from the end of the file to ensure I'm not getting meta-data?
Stab in the dark, if you are looking to circumvent meta-data and size related things:
Edge Detection and scale-independent comparison
Sampling and statistical analysis of grayscale/RGB values (average lum, averaged color map)
FFT and other transforms (Good article Classification of Fingerprints using FFT)
And numerous others.
Basically:
Convert JPG/PNG/GIF whatever into an RGB byte array which is independent of encoding
Use a fuzzy pattern classification method to generate a 'hash of the pattern' in the image ... not a hash of the RGB array as some suggest
Then you want a distributed method of fast hash comparison based on matching threshold on the encapsulated hash or encoding of the pattern. Erlang would be good for this :)
Advantages are:
Will, if you use any AI/Training, spot duplicates regardless of encoding, size, aspect, hue and lum modification, dynamic range/subsampling differences and in some cases perspective
Disadvantages:
Can be hard to code .. something like OpenCV might help
Probabilistic ... false positives are likely but can be reduced with neural networks and other AI
Slow unless you can encapsulate pattern qualities and distribute the search (MapReduce style)
Checkout image analysis books such as:
Pattern Classification 2ed
Image Processing Fundamentals
Image Processing - Principles and Applications
And others
If you are scaling the image, then things are simpler. If not, then you have to contend with the fact that scaling is lossy in more ways than sample reduction.
Using the byte size of the image for comparison would be suitable for many applications. Another way would be to:
Strip out the metadata.
Calculate the MD5 (or other suitable hashing algorithm) for the
image.
Compare that to the MD5 (or whatever) of the potential dupe
image (provided you've stripped out
the metadata for that one too)
You could use an algorithm like SIFT (Scale Invariant Feature Transform) to determine key points in the pictures and match these.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-invariant_feature_transform
It is used e.g. when stitching images in a panorama to detect matching points in different images.
You want to perform an image hash. Since you didn't specify a particular language I'm guessing you don't have a preference. At the very least there's a Matlab toolbox (beta) that can do it: http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~bevans/projects/hashing/toolbox/index.html. Most of the google results on this are research results rather than actual libraries or tools.
The problem with MD5ing it is that MD5 is very sensitive to small changes in the input, and it sounds like you want to do something a bit "smarter."
Pretty interesting question. Fastest and easiest would be to calculate crc32 of content byte array but that would work only on 100% identical images. For more intelligent compare you would probably need some kind of fuzy logic analyzis...
I've implemented at least a trivial version of this. I transform and resize all images to a very small (fixed size) black and white thumbnail. I then compare those. It detects exact, resized, and duplicates transformed to black and white. It gets a lot of duplicates without a lot of cost.
The easiest thing to do is to do a hash (like MD5) of the image data, ignoring all other metadata. You can find many open source libraries that can decode common image formats so it's quite easy to strip metadata.
But that doesn't work when image itself is manipulated in anyway, including scaling, rotating.
To do exactly what you want, you have to use Image Watermarking but it's patented and can be expensive.
This is just an idea: Possibly low frequency components present in the DCT of the jpeg could be used as a size invariant identifier.