I have a huge set of data of a timelapse of 2D laser scans of waves running up and down stairs (see fig.1fig.2fig.3).
There is a lot of noise in the scans, since the water splashes a lot.
Now I want to smoothen the scans.
I have 2 questions:
How do I apply a moving median filter (as recommended by another study dealing with a similar problem)? I can only find instructions for single e.g. (x,y) or (t,y) plots but not for x and y values that vary over time. Maybe an average filter would do it as well, but I do not have a clue on that either.
The scanner is at a fixed point (222m) so all the data spikes point towards that point at the ceiling. Is it possible or necessary to include this into the smoothing process?
This is the part of the code (I hope it's enough to get it):
% Plot data as real time profile
x1=data.x;y1=data.y;
t=data.t;
% add moving median filter here?
h1=plot(x1(1,:),y1(1,:));
axis([210 235 3 9])
ht=title('Scanner data');
for i=1:1:length(t);
set(h1,'XData',x1(i,:),'YData',y1(i,:));set(ht,'String',sprintf('t = %5.2f
s',data.t(i)));pause(.01);end
The data.x values are stored in a (mxn) matrix in which the change in time is arranged vertically and the x values i.e. "laser points" of the scanner are horizontally arranged. The data.y is stored in the same way. The data.t values are stored in a (mx1) matrix.
I hope I explained everything clearly and that somebody can help me. I am already pretty desperate about it... If there is anything missing or confusing, please let me know.
If you're trying to apply a median filter in the x-y plane, then consider using medfilt2 from the Image Processing Toolbox. Note that this function only accepts 2-D inputs, so you'll have to loop over the third dimension.
Also note that medfilt2 assumes that the x and y data are uniformly spaced, so if your x and y data don't fall onto a uniformly spaced grid you may have to manually loop over indices, extract the corresponding patches, and compute the median.
If you can/want to apply an averaging filter instead of a median filter, and if you have uniformly spaced data, then you can use convn to compute a k x k moving average by doing:
y = convn(x, ones(k,k)/(k*k), 'same');
Note that you'll get some bias on the boundaries because you're technically trying to compute an average of k^2 pixels when you have less than that number of values available.
Alternatively, you can use nested calls to movmean since the averaging operation is separable:
y = movmean(movmean(x, k, 2), k, 1);
If your grid is separable, but not uniform, you can still use movmean, just use the SamplePoints name-value pair:
y = movmean(movmean(x, k, 2, 'SamplePoints', yv), k, 1, 'SamplePoints', xv);
You can also control the endpoint handling in movmean with the Endpoints name-value pair.
Related
I have three variables, e.g., latitude, longitude and temperature. For each latitude and longitude, I have corresponding temperature value. I want to plot latitude v/s longitude plot in 5 degree x 5 degree grid , with mean temperature value inserted in that particular grid instead of occurring frequency.
Data= [latGrid,lonGrid] = meshgrid(25:45,125:145);
T = table(latGrid(:),lonGrid(:),randi([0,35],size(latGrid(:))),...
'VariableNames',{'lat','lon','temp'});
At the end, I need it somewhat like the following image:
Sounds to me like you want to scale your grid. The easiest way to do this is to smooth and downsample.
While 2d histograms also bin values into a grid, using a histogram is not the way to find the mean of datapoints in a smooth grid. A histogram counts the occurrence of values in a set of ranges. In a 2d example, a histogram would take the input measurements [1, 3, 3, 5] and count the number of ones, the number of threes, etc. A 2d histogram will count occurrences of pairs of numbers. (You might want to use histogram to help organize a measurements taken at irregular intervals, but that would be a different question)
How to smooth and downsample without the Image Processing Toolbox
Keep your data in the 2d matrix format rather than reshaping it into a table. This makes it easier to find the neighbors of each grid location.
%% Sample Data
[latGrid,lonGrid] = meshgrid(25:45,125:145);
temp = rand(size(latGrid));
There are many tools in Matlab for smoothing matrices. If you want to have the mean of a 5x5 window. You can write a for-loop, use a convolution, or use filter2. My example uses convolution. For more on convolutional filters, I suggest the wikipedia page.
%% Mean filter with conv2
M = ones(5) ./ 25; % 5x5 mean or box blur filter
C_temp = conv2(temp, M, 'valid');
C_temp is a blurry version of the original temperature variable with a slightly smaller size because we can't accurately take the mean of the edges. The border is reduced by a frame of 2 measurements. Now, we just need to take every fifth measurement from C_temp to scale down the grid.
%% Subsample result
C_temp = C_temp(1:5:end, 1:5:end);
% Because we removed a border from C_temp, we also need to remove a border from latGrid and lonGrid
[h, w] = size(latGrid)
latGrid = latGrid(5:5:h-5, 5:5:w-5);
lonGrid = lonGrid(5:5:h-5, 5:5,w-5);
Here's what the steps look like
If you use a slightly more organized, temp variable. It's easier to see that the result is correct.
With Image Processing Toolbox
imresize has a box filter method option that is equivalent to a mean filter. However, you have to do a little calculation to find the scaling factor that is equivalent to using a 5x5 window.
C_temp = imresize(temp, scale, 'box');
I have an image of a cytoskeleton. There are a lot of small objects inside and I want to calculate the length between all of them in every axis and to get a matrix with all this data. I am trying to do this in matlab.
My final aim is to figure out if there is any axis with a constant distance between the object.
I've tried bwdist and to use connected components without any luck.
Do you have any other ideas?
So, the end goal is that you want to globally stretch this image in a certain direction (linearly) so that the distances between nearest pairs end up the closest together, hopefully the same? Or may you do more complex stretching ? (note that with arbitrarily complex one you can always make it work :) )
If linear global one, distance in x' and y' is going to be a simple multiplication of the old distance in x and y, applied to every pair of points. So, the final euclidean distance will end up being sqrt((SX*x)^2 + (SY*y)^2), with SX being stretch in x and SY stretch in y; X and Y are distances in X and Y between pairs of points.
If you are interested in just "the same" part, solution is not so difficult:
Find all objects of interest and put their X and Y coordinates in a N*2 matrix.
Calculate distances between all pairs of objects in X and Y. You will end up with 2 matrices sized N*N (with 0 on the diagonal, symmetric and real, not sure what is the name for that type of matrix).
Find minimum distance (say this is between A an B).
You probably already have this. Now:
Take C. Make N-1 transformations, which all end up in C->nearestToC = A->B. It is a simple system of equations, you have X1^2*SX^2+Y1^2*SY^2 = X2^2*SX^2+Y2*SY^2.
So, first say A->B = C->A, then A->B = C->B, then A->B = C->D etc etc. Make sure transformation is normalized => SX^2 + SY^2 = 1. If it cannot be found, the only valid transformation is SX = SY = 0 which means you don't have solution here. Obviously, SX and SY need to be real.
Note that this solution is unique except in case where X1 = X2 and Y1 = Y2. In this case, grab some other point than C to find this transformation.
For each transformation check the remaining points and find all nearest neighbours of them. If distance is always the same as these 2 (to a given tolerance), great, you found your transformation. If not, this transformation does not work and you should continue with the next one.
If you want a transformation that minimizes variations between distances (but doesn't require them to be nearly equal), I would do some optimization method and search for a minimum - I don't know how to find an exact solution otherwise. I would pick this also in case you don't have linear or global stretch.
If i understand your question correctly, the first step is to obtain all of the objects center of mass points in the image as (x,y) coordinates. Then, you can easily compute all of the distances between all points. I suggest taking a look on a histogram of those distances which may provide some information as to the nature of distance distribution (for example if it is uniformly random, or are there any patterns that appear).
Obtaining the center of mass points is not an easy task, consider transforming the image into a binary one, or some sort of background subtraction with blob detection or/and edge detector.
For building a histogram you can use histogram.
I want to evaluate the grid quality where all coordinates differ in the real case.
Signal is of a ECG signal where average life-time is 75 years.
My task is to evaluate its age at the moment of measurement, which is an inverse problem.
I think 2D approximation of the 3D case is hard (done here by Abo-Zahhad) with with 3-leads (2 on chest and one at left leg - MIT-BIT arrhythmia database):
where f is a piecewise continuous function in R^2, \epsilon is the error matrix and A is a 2D matrix.
Now, I evaluate the average grid distance in x-axis (time) and average grid distance in y-axis (energy).
I think this can be done by Matlab's Image Analysis toolbox.
However, I am not sure how complete the toolbox's approaches are.
I think a transform approach must be used in the setting of uneven and noncontinuous grids. One approach is exact linear time euclidean distance transforms of grid line sampled shapes by Joakim Lindblad et all.
The method presents a distance transform (DT) which assigns to each image point its smallest distance to a selected subset of image points.
This kind of approach is often a basis of algorithms for many methods in image analysis.
I tested unsuccessfully the case with bwdist (Distance transform of binary image) with chessboard (returns empty square matrix), cityblock, euclidean and quasi-euclidean where the last three options return full matrix.
Another pseudocode
% https://stackoverflow.com/a/29956008/54964
%// retrieve picture
imgRGB = imread('dummy.png');
%// detect lines
imgHSV = rgb2hsv(imgRGB);
BW = (imgHSV(:,:,3) < 1);
BW = imclose(imclose(BW, strel('line',40,0)), strel('line',10,90));
%// clear those masked pixels by setting them to background white color
imgRGB2 = imgRGB;
imgRGB2(repmat(BW,[1 1 3])) = 255;
%// show extracted signal
imshow(imgRGB2)
where I think the approach will not work here because the grids are not necessarily continuous and not necessary ideal.
pdist based on the Lumbreras' answer
In the real examples, all coordinates differ such that pdist hamming and jaccard are always 1 with real data.
The options euclidean, cytoblock, minkowski, chebychev, mahalanobis, cosine, correlation, and spearman offer some descriptions of the data.
However, these options make me now little sense in such full matrices.
I want to estimate how long the signal can live.
Sources
J. Müller, and S. Siltanen. Linear and nonlinear inverse problems with practical applications.
EIT with the D-bar method: discontinuous heart-and-lungs phantom. http://wiki.helsinki.fi/display/mathstatHenkilokunta/EIT+with+the+D-bar+method%3A+discontinuous+heart-and-lungs+phantom Visited 29-Feb 2016.
There is a function in Matlab defined as pdist which computes the pairwisedistance between all row elements in a matrix and enables you to choose the type of distance you want to use (Euclidean, cityblock, correlation). Are you after something like this? Not sure I understood your question!
cheers!
Simply, do not do it in the post-processing. Those artifacts of the body can be about about raster images, about the viewer and/or ... Do quality assurance in the signal generation/processing step.
It is much easier to evaluate the original signal than its views.
this is my problem:
I have the next data "A", which looks like:
As you can see, I have drawn with red circles the apparently peaks, the most defined are 2 and 7, I say that they are defined because its standard deviation is low in comparison with the other peaks (especially the second one).
What I need is a way (anyway) to get the values and the standard deviation of n peaks in a numeric array.
I have tried with "clusters", but I got no good results:
First of all, I used "kmeans" MATLAB function, and I realize that this algorithm doesn't group peaks as I need. As you can see in the picture above, in the red circle, that cluster has at less 3 or 4 peaks. And kmeans need that you set the number of clusters, and I need to identify it automatically.
I hope that anyone can give me some ideas, or a way to get better results, thanks.
Pd: I leave the data "A" in the next link.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4WGV21GqSL5a2EyQ2l0SHZURzA/edit?usp=sharing
The problem is that your axes have very different meaning.
K-means optimizes variance. But variance in X is something entirely different than variance in Y, isn't it? Furthermore, each of these methods will split your data in both X and Y, whereas I assume you want the data to be partitioned on the X axis only.
I suggest the following: consider the Y axis to be a weight, and X axis to be a position.
Then perform weighted density estimation, and look for low density to separate your clusters.
I can't help you with MATLAB. I don't use it.
Mathematically, what you want to do is place a Gaussian at each point, with area Y and center X. Then find minima and maxima on the sum of these Gaussians. See Wikipedia, Kernel Density Estimation for details; except that you want to use the Y axis as weights. You could maybe also use 1/Y as standard deviation, if you don't want to use weights.
I have a 3d matrix of 100x100x100. Each point of that matrix has assigned a value that corresponds to a certain signal strength. If I plot all the points the result is incomprehensible and requires horsepower to compute, due to the large amount of points that are painted.
The next picture examplify the problem (in that case the matrix was 50x50x50 for reducing the computation time):
[x,y,z] = meshgrid(1:50,1:50,1:50);
scatter3(x(:),y(:),z(:),5,strength(:),'filled')
I would like to plot only the highest values (for example, the top 10). How can I do it?
One simple solution that came up in my mind is to asign "nan" to the values higher than the treshold.
Even the results are nice I think that it must be a most elegant solution to fix it.
Reshape it into an nx1 vector. Sort that vector and take the first ten values.
num_of_rows = size(M,1)
V = reshape(M,num_of_rows,1);
sorted_V = sort(V,'descend');
ind = sorted_V(1:10)
I am assuming that M is your 3D matrix. This will give you your top ten values in your matrix and the respective index. The you can use ind2sub() to get the x,y,z.