I have to apply prewit filter to an image in the frequency domain.Here is the procedure I am following.
1) Convert the NxN matrix of image to 2*Nx2*N matrix by padding zeros
2) Center the image transform by multiplying image with (-1)^(x+y)
3) Compute DFT of image matrix
4) Create the filter of dimensions 2Nx2N and the center at coordinates (N,N)
5) Multiply image matrix with filter matrix
6) Calculate inverse DFT of it and extract the real part of result.
7) Decentralize the result by multiplying with (-1)^(x+y)
8) Finally extract the upper left NxN part of the resultant matrix
My code is below:
% mask=[-1,0,1;-1,0,1;-1,0,1];
%read image
signal=imread('cman.pgm');
signal=double(signal);
% image has NxN dimensions
l=size(signal,1);
pad_signal=zeros(2*l,2*l);
pad_signal(1:l,1:l)=signal;
m=size(mask,1);
mask_f=zeros(2*l,2*l);
for i=-1:1
mask_f(l+i,l-1)=-1;
mask_f(l+i,l+1)=1;
end
x=1:2*l;
[x y]=meshgrid(x,x);
% Multiply each pixel f(x,y) with (-1)*(x+y)
pad_signal=pad_signal.*((-1).^(x+y));
mask_f=myDFT(mask_f);
%find the DFT of image
signal_dft=myDFT(pad_signal);
%multiply the filter with image
res=mask_f*signal_dft;
% find the inverse DFT of real values of result
res=real(myIDFT(res));
res=res.*((-1).^(x+y));
%extract the upper left NxN portion of the result
res=res(1:l,1:l);
imshow(uint8(res));
The method above is from an image processing book. What I am confused about is should I be using a window of 3x3 as prewitt filter is of 3x3 or is my current way of using the filter correct? (i.e. by placing the filter values at centre of 2Nx2N filter matrix and setting all other index values to 0) .
If not either of them, then how should the filter be formed to be multiplied with the dft of image.
Your current way of padding the filter to be the same size as the image is basically correct. We often speak loosely about filtering a length M signal with a length 3 filter, but the implicit assumption is that we are padding both to length M, or maybe length M+3-1.
Some details of your approach complicate things:
1) The multiplication by (-1)^(x+y) just translates the DFT and isn't needed. (See Foundations of Signal Processing Table 3.7 "Circular shift in frequency" for the 1D case. In that notation, you are letting k_0 be N/2, so the W_N term in the left column is just toggling between -1 and 1.)
2) Because the Prewitt filter only has a 3x3 non-zero support, your output only needs to be of size N+2 by N+2. The formula to remember here is length(signal) + length(filter) - 1.
Here's how I would approach this:
clear
x = im2double(imread('cameraman.tif'));
[M, N] = size(x);
h = [-1 0 1;
-1 0 1;
-1 0 1];
P = M + size(h,1) - 1;
Q = N + size(h,2) - 1;
xPadded = x;
xPadded(P, Q) = 0;
hPadded = h;
hPadded(P,Q) = 0;
hShifted = circshift(hPadded, [-1 -1]);
H = fft2(hShifted);
X = fft2(xPadded);
Y = H .* X;
y = ifft2(Y);
yCropped = y(1:M, 1:N);
imshow(yCropped,[]);
Here is how I have solved my problem. I first removed step 2 and 7 from the algorithm. Then centered the transform by swapping the first half of the indices with the second half, in both horizontal and vertical direction. I did this to center the transform of the image. Then I undid this after calculating the inverse DFT of the resultant matrix. I am not sure why my above method does not work but it does so now.
1) Convert the NxN matrix of image to 2*Nx2*N matrix by padding zeros
2) Compute DFT of image matrix
3) Centre the transform of the image by swapping the first and second half of rows and columns.
4) Create the filter of dimensions 2Nx2N and the center at coordinates (N,N)
5) Multiply image matrix with filter matrix
6) Calculate inverse DFT of it and extract the real part of result.
7) Decentralize the result by reapplying step 3 on the resultant matrix
8) Finally extract the upper left NxN part of the resultant matrix
The above is the modified version of steps that I have followed when applying my filtering.
Here is my code (edited/new version)
function res=myFreqConv(signal,mask)
signal=double(signal);
l=size(signal,1);
% padding the image matrix with zeros and making it's size equal to
% 2Nx2N
pad_signal=zeros(2*l,2*l);
pad_signal(1:l,1:l)=signal;
m=size(mask,1);
mask_f=zeros(2*l,2*l);
% Creating a mask of 2Nx2N dims where the prewitt filter values are
at
% the center of the mask i.e. the indices are like this
% [(N-1,N-1), (N-1,N), (N-1,N+1);(N,N-1), (N,N), (N,N+1); (N+1,N-1),
(N+1,N), (N+1,N+1)]
for i=-1:1
mask_f(l+i,l-1)=-1;
mask_f(l+i,l+1)=1;
end
% calculate DFT of mask
mask_f=myDFT(mask_f);
signal_dft=myDFT(pad_signal);
% shifting the image transform to center
indices=cell(1,2);
indices{1}=[2*l/2+1:2*l 1:2*l/2];
indices{2}=[2*l/2+1:2*l 1:2*l/2];
signal_dft=signal_dft(indices{:});
%multiply mask with image
res=mask_f.*signal_dft;
res=real(myIDFT(res));
% shifting the image transform back to original
res=res(indices{:});
res=res(1:l,1:l);
end
Related
The function to perform an N-dimensional convolution of arrays A and B in matlab is shown below:
C = convn(A,B) % returns the N-dimensional convolution of arrays A and B.
I am interested in a 3-D convolution with a Gaussian filter.
If A is a 3 x 5 x 6 matrix, what do the dimensions of B have to be?
The dimensions of B can be anything you want. There is no set restriction in terms of size. For the Gaussian filter, it can be 1D, 2D or 3D. In 1D, what will happen is that each row gets filtered independently. In 2D, what will happen is that each slice gets filtered independently. Finally, in 3D you will be doing what is expected in 3D convolution. I am assuming you would like a full 3D convolution, not just 1D or 2D.
You may be interested in the output size of convn. If you refer to the documentation, given the two N dimensional matrices, for each dimension k of the output and if nak is the size of dimension k for the matrix A and nbk is the size of dimension k for matrix B, the size of dimension of the output matrix C or nck is such that:
nck = max([nak + nbk - 1, nak, nbk])
nak + nbk - 1 is straight from convolution theory. The final output size of a dimension is simply the sum of the two sizes in dimension k subtracted by 1. However should this value be smaller than either of nak or nbk, we need to make sure that the output size is compatible so that any of the input matrices can fit in the final output. This is why you have the final output size and bounded by both A and B.
To make this easier, you can set the size of the filter guided by the standard deviation of the distribution. I would like to refer you to my previous Stack Overflow post: By which measures should I set the size of my Gaussian filter in MATLAB?
This determines what the output size of a Gaussian filter should be given a standard deviation.
In 2D, the dimensions of the filter are N x N, such that N = ceil(6*sigma + 1) with sigma being the desired standard deviation. Therefore, you would allocate a 3D matrix of size N x N x N with N = ceil(6*sigma + 1);.
Therefore, the code you would want to use to create a 3D Gaussian filter would be something like this:
% Example input
A = rand(3, 5, 6);
sigma = 0.5; % Example
% Find size of Gaussian filter
N = ceil(6*sigma + 1);
% Define grid of centered coordinates of size N x N x N
[X, Y, Z] = meshgrid(-N/2 : N/2);
% Compute Gaussian filter - note normalization step
B = exp(-(X.^2 + Y.^2 + Z.^2) / (2.0*sigma^2));
B = B / sum(B(:));
% Convolve
C = convn(A, B);
One final note is that if the filter you provide has any of its dimensions that are beyond the size of the input matrix A, you will get a matrix using the constraints of each nck value, but then the border elements will be zeroed due to zero-padding.
I have a n channel image and I have a 100x2 matrix of points (in my case n is 20 but perhaps it is more clear to think of this as a 3 channel image). I need to sample the image at each point and get an nx100 array of these image points.
I know how to do this with a for loop:
for j = 1:100
samples(j,:) = image(points(j,1),points(j,2),:);
end
How would I vectorize this? I have tried
samples = image(points);
but this gives 200 samples of 20 channels. And if I try
samples = image(points,:);
this gives me 200 samples of 4800 channels. Even
samples = image(points(:,1),points(:,2));
gives me 100 x 100 samples of 20 (one for each possible combination of x in X and y in Y)
A concise way to do this would be to reshape your image so that you force your image that was [nRows, nCols, nChannels] to be [nRows*nCols, nChannels]. Then you can convert your points array into a linear index (using sub2ind) which will correspond to the new "combined" row index. Then to grab all channels, you can simply use the colon operator (:) for the second dimension which now represents the channels.
% Determine the new row index that will correspond to each point after we reshape it
sz = size(image);
inds = sub2ind(sz([1, 2]), points(:,2), points(:,1));
% Do the reshaping (i.e. flatten the first two dimensions)
reshaped_image = reshape(image, [], size(image, 3));
% Grab the pixels (rows) that we care about for all channels
newimage = reshaped_image(inds, :);
size(newimage)
100 20
Now you have the image sampled at the points you wanted for all channels.
I am implementing a simple algorithm to do in-painting on a "damaged" image. I have a predefined mask that specifies the area which needs to be fixed. My strategy is to start at the border of the masked area and in-paint each pixel with the central mean of its neighboring non-zero pixels, repeating until there's no unknown pixels left.
function R = inPainting(I, mask)
H = [1 2 1; 2 0 2; 1 2 1];
R = I;
n = 1;
[row,col,~] = find(~mask); %Find zeros in mask (area to be inpainted)
unknown = horzcat(row, col)';
while size(unknown,2) > 0
new_unknown = [];
new_R = R;
for u = unknown
r = u(1);
c = u(2);
nb = R(max((r-n), 1):min((r+n), end), max((c-n),1):min((c+n),end));
nz = nb~=0;
nzs = sum(nz(:));
if nzs ~= 0 %We have non-zero neighbouring pixels. In-paint with average.
new_R(r,c) = sum(nb(:)) / nzs;
else
new_unknown = horzcat(new_unknown, u);
end
end
unknown = new_unknown;
R = new_R;
end
This works well, but it's not very efficient. Is it possible to vectorize such an approach, using mostly matrix operations? Does someone know of a more efficient way to implement this algorithm?
If I understand your problem statement, you are given a mask and you wish to fill in these pixels in this mask with the mean of the neighbourhood pixels that surround each pixel in the mask. Another constraint is that the image is defined such that any pixels that belong to the mask in the same spatial locations are zero in this mask. You are starting from the border of the mask and are propagating information towards the innards of the mask. Given this algorithm, there is unfortunately no way you can do this with standard filtering techniques as the current time step is dependent on the previous time step.
Image filtering mechanisms, like imfilter or conv2 can't work here because of this dependency.
As such, what I can do is help you speed up what is going on inside your loop and hopefully this will give you some speed up overall. I'm going to introduce you to a function called im2col. This is from the image processing toolbox, and given that you can use imfilter, we can use this function.
im2col creates a 2D matrix such that each column is a pixel neighbourhood unrolled into a single vector. How it works is that each pixel neighbourhood in column major order is grabbed, so we get a pixel neighbourhood at the top left corner of the image, then move down one row, and another row and we keep going until we reach the last row. We then move one column over and repeat the same process. For each pixel neighbourhood that we have, it gets unrolled into a single vector, and the output would be a MN x K matrix where you have a neighbourhood size of M x N for each pixel neighbourhood and there are K neighbourhoods.
Therefore, at each iteration of your loop, we can unroll the current inpainted image's pixel neighbourhoods into single vectors, determine which pixel neighborhoods are non-zero and from there, determine how many zero values there are for each of these selected pixel neighbourhood. After, we compute the mean for these non-zero columns disregarding the zero elements. Once we're done, we update the image and move to the next iteration.
What we're going to need to do first is pad the image with a 1 pixel border so that we're able to grab neighbourhoods that extend beyond the borders of the image. You can use padarray, also from the image processing toolbox.
Therefore, we can simply do this:
function R = inPainting(I, mask)
R = double(I); %// For precision
n = 1;
%// Change - column major indices
unknown = find(~mask); %Find zeros in mask (area to be inpainted)
%// Until we have searched all unknown pixels
while numel(unknown) ~= 0
new_R = R;
%// Change - take image at current iteration and
%// create columns of pixel neighbourhoods
padR = padarray(new_R, [n n], 'replicate');
cols = im2col(padR, [2*n+1 2*n+1], 'sliding');
%// Change - Access the right pixel neighbourhoods
%// denoted by unknown
nb = cols(:,unknown);
%// Get total sum of each neighbourhood
nbSum = sum(nb, 1);
%// Get total number of non-zero elements per pixel neighbourhood
nzs = sum(nb ~= 0, 1);
%// Replace the right pixels in the image with the mean
new_R(unknown(nzs ~= 0)) = nbSum(nzs ~= 0) ./ nzs(nzs ~= 0);
%// Find new unknown pixels to look at
unknown = unknown(nzs == 0);
%// Update image for next iteration
R = new_R;
end
%// Cast back to the right type
R = cast(R, class(I));
I have noticed a shift of -1 when doing convolution in MatLab (R2011b) using the conv function and I don't understand why. I am using the 'same' option to the convolution function because my signal and the function I am convolving with are the same N pixels in length and I want my result to also be N pixels.
This shift only happens when I have my value of N as even number.
I wrote this short script to illustrate the problem. It convolves a rectangle pulse with an impulse response, so I dont expect any shift in my result.
%% Set up rectangle pulse
N = 21;
signal = zeros(N, 1);
% Designate some pixels in the signal as 1's to make rectangle pulse
signal(9:11) = 1;
%% Set up impulse for convolution
impulse = zeros(N, 1);
impulse(round(N/2)) = 1;
%% Convolution
convolutionResult = conv(signal, impulse, 'same');
%% Plot Results - not shown
When N is odd the result looks OK, i.e. the rectangle pulse has values of 1 at pixels 9, 10 and 11, as expected, the same as before convolution.
But if N is odd, then the rectangle pulse has values of 1 at pixels 8, 9 and 10, so a shift of -1 which I don't get. Thanks in advance.
Does anybody understand why this happens?
For w = conv(u,v,'same');, It says,
same : Returns the central part of the convolution of the same size as u.
when N is even and same for both signals the result of convolution has 2N - 1 samples, which is odd, so when trying to select the center of that with an even length, N, the expression central part looses its meaning.
If time axis is important for you, don't use same option.
I'm performing texture synthesis on images using the Efros and Leung Algorithm. My goal is to grow the size of my current textured image and, to do it, I'd like to pad the current image matrix with zeros on all sides.
My current plan given an original image matrix of size MxN and a desired growth size of P:
(1) Create a target matrix of size (M+2P)x(N+2P)
(2) Set the value of target(i+P,j+P) = original(i,j)
(3) Run Efros and Leung
Is there a way I can eliminate (1) and (2) and just operate on the original image to pad it in all directions with P zeros?
If you have access to the Image Processing Toolbox, you can use the function PADARRAY:
imgPadded = padarray(img, [p p], 0, 'both');
Otherwise you can simply use matrix indexing:
sz = size(img);
imgPadded = zeros([sz(1:2)+2*p size(img,3)], class(img));
imgPadded((1:sz(1))+p, (1:sz(2))+p, :) = img;
This should work for both grayscale and RGB images.
>> y = [zeros(P,N+2*P) ; [zeros(M,P), x, zeros(M,P)] ; zeros(P,N+2*P)];
where x is the original image matrix and y is the output should work. If the matrix has 3 planes, adjust to:
>> y = [zeros(P,N+2*P,3) ; [zeros(M,P,3), x, zeros(M,P,3)] ; zeros(P,N+2*P,3)];
Use padarray:
y = padarray(x, [P P]);