Stair plot to vertical bar plot in Matlab - matlab

I want to create a vertical bar plot. This is my code:
bar (x, sensiv);
title ('Promedio X')
xlabel('Nm')
ylabel('Refl.')
The problem is it looks like a stair plot. I've tried to add (x,sensiv, 'stacked') but it doesn't work. It looks grouped, as you can see in the next image:
graph http://imageshack.us/a/img689/9449/capturawv.jpg
I think it's because of x-axis but I couldn't change it. How can I do it? Does somebody knows how can I do it?
EDIT
Thanks Colin! I've tried to zoom and I understand what you mean and I've tried with different values, as slayton and you said.
I think that maybe it's the way I've code the plot, it is possible?
abc=0;
for p=(61:201)
abc(p)=out1_c;
end
for p=(151:301)
abc(p)=out2_c;
end
for p=(231:380)
abc(p)=out3_c;
end
for p=(381:596)
abc(p)=out4_c;
end
for p=(1152:1531)
abc(p)=out5_c;
end
for p=(1651:2051)
abc(p)=out7_c;
end
for p=(2052:2151)
abc(p)= 0;
end

The default value for the width of the bars in a bar plot is 0.8, so given that you're not currently specifying the width, you should have gaps in between each bar. This is going to sound really obvious, but have you tried zooming in on the bar plot that is created? For some datasets, the bar function will return a plot that looks like a stair plot, but in fact has gaps if you zoom in far enough. If this is the case, then you should be able to get the gaps you want by tinkering with the width parameter as suggested by slayton.
EDIT
Okay. First things first. If you want to post additional information, you should add it to your question, NOT post it as a new answer! You can do this by clicking the edit button just below where your question is on the page. To make things more readable, you might preface your edit with a capitalized bold-face heading "EDIT" as I have done here. If you are able, try now to move the additional information you've given back into your question, and then delete the answer.
Second, I have to be honest, the additional information you posted was somewhat confusing. However, I think I understand what you want now. You want 7 bars coming up to the heights out1_c, out2_c, ..., out7_c (variable names taken from your additional information) with a small gap between each bar, and the x-axis to reflect (approximately) the intervals 450-550, 550-650, etc.
Well, if you want 7 bars, then you want your input to only have seven elements. Set:
y = [out1_c; out2_c; out3_c; out4_c; out5_c; out6_c; out7_c];
y now gives you the heights your bars will come up to on the y-axis. To locate the bars on the x-axis, define a vector x that also has seven elements, where each element gives the midpoint of where you want the bar to be on the x-axis. For example:
x = [100; 200; 300; 400; 500; 600; 700];
Then just use bar(x, y). This should get you started.
A final point on the code you posted, you can actually completely avoid the loops: read up on vectorization. But if you are going to insist on loops, the first and most important rule is to preallocate your vectors/matrices. In your code abc starts out as a scalar (a 1 by 1 matrix), but then for every p, you are adding an element at index p. What is actually happening in the background is for every p, matlab is scrapping the current abc you have in memory, and building it again from scratch with the additional element. As you might expect, this will slow down your code by many orders of magnitude.

You can set the width of the individual bars by passing a value between 0 and 1 to bar. Passing 1 indicates that there should be no space between the bars
bar(x,y,1)
Passing anything less than 1 will reduce the bar sizes and introduce spacing between the individual bars
bar(x,y,.5)

Related

How to adjust bar absolute width in MATLAB

I'm confused with the bar with adjustment in MATLAB, for example, when use bar like:
bar(randsample(0:0.0001:1,100),randn(100,1))
I get an image like this:
It seems like the bar is too thin to have a good look. After searching for help, I can use the code like:
bar(randsample(0:0.0001:1,100),randn(100,1),50)
and I get this:
Seems much better. But if I change the sample number from 100 to 10, the same code won't work.
bar(randsample(0:0.0001:1,10),randn(10,1),50)
I hope I have explained my issue clear. It seems like the third parameter of the bar function is a relative width, which correlates to the input size of the first and second parameter. Can I fix the absolute bar width no matter how many data points input? or there is a better function to draw figures like this? Thanks a lot for any help!
user #am304 is right about the width parameter
What happened in your code is that you set x values to results from randsample(0:0.0001:1,10)
If you give your plot a width of 1 it means that 2 bars which are directly next to each other would touch each other with an equally spaced x.
In your case, you have an irregular x spacing.
The width of the bar is determined by the minimum distance between two x values (which you get from randsample()). Sometimes this space - and therefore the width of your bar - is very tiny. Sometimes it is broader.
Change the with to 1 and make multiple plots. You will notice that two are always touching each other and no one is overlapping and all the others have spaces in between. If you change the width to 50 the plots will somethimes overlap heavily (depending on the randomness from randsample) because your bars are 50 times bigger then the minimum width between two x values.
In case of your randsample(0:0.0001:1,100) example it is just more likely that two values are close to each other, therefore increasing the width helps you see something (because the bars overlap).
From the documentation:
bar(___,width) sets the relative bar width, which controls the
separation of bars within a group. Specify width as a scalar value.
Use this option with any of the input argument combinations in the
previous syntaxes.
The example provided is as follows:
Set the width of each bar to 40 percent of the total space available
for each bar.
y = [75 91 105 123.5 131 150 179 203 226 249 281.5];
bar(y,0.4)
So bottom line is: the width is specified as a % of the total space available for each bar. Yoru problem comes from the fact that you have far too many bars, so the space available for each bar is tiny. Setting the width to 50 or 5000% of the space available just means that each bar will overlap quite substantially on the neighbouring bars. Because you have so many, the middle plot looks "reasonable" as I suspect a lot of the bars are overlapped and a lot of them are at zero, so you just can't see them. If you go down to a sensible number of bars, as in your last example, then setting the width to 5000% looks ridiculous as you found out.
So to summarise: reduce the number of bars and specify the bar width between >0 and 1 (1 being no gap, all the bars touching each other).
A better way to plot things with random x locations is to use stem. By default, it draws a line from the zero line to the datum, with a circle representing each datum. But this can be modified. For example:
stem(randsample(0:0.0001:1,100),randn(100,1), 'Marker','none', 'LineWidth',4)
creates a plot similar to your second attempt, but with bars of a fixed width (4 points).

Matlab Increase thickness of lines of 3d bars

I have a 3D bar chart. Let me clarify, I do not want to edit the width of the bar graph as I have already done that. However, there are black lines that outline each bar. Is there a way to make these thicker?
Everything I have search pays reference to the width of the bars themselves, not the black lines enclosing them.
At last, I found the answer to my own question the minute after I ask it.
Simply:
set(j,'LineWidth',1.5)
EDIT: As Luis mentioned, j is the handle such that j = bar3(...)
Sorry should have included that.

Location based segmentation of objects in an image (in Matlab)

I've been working on an image segmentation problem and can't seem to get a good idea for my most recent problem.
This is what I have at the moment:
Click here for image. (This is only a generic example.)
Is there a robust algorithm that can automatically discard the right square as not belonging to the group of the other four squares (that I know should always be stacked more or less on top of each other) ?
It can sometimes be the case, that one of the stacked boxes is not found, so there's a gap or that the bogus box is on the left side.
Your input is greatly appreciated.
If you have a way of producing BW images like your example:
s = regionprops(BW, 'centroid');
centroids = cat(1, s.Centroid);
xpos = centroids(:,1); should then be the x-positions of the boxes.
From here you have multiple ways to go, depending on whether you always have just one separated box and one set of grouped boxes or not. For the "one bogus box far away, rest closely grouped" case (away from Matlab, so this is unchecked) you could even do something as simple as:
d = abs(xpos-median(xpos));
bogusbox = centroids(d==max(d),:);
imshow(BW);
hold on;
plot(bogusbox(1),bogusbox(2),'r*');
Making something that's robust for your actual use case which I am assuming doesn't consist of neat boxes is another matter; as suggested in comments, you need some idea of how close together the positioning of your good boxes is, and how separate the bogus box(es) will be.
For example, you could use other regionprops measurements such as 'BoundingBox' or 'Extrema' and define some sort of measurement of how much the boxes overlap in x relative to each other, then group using that (this could be made to work even if you have multiple stacks in an image).

Morphological separation of two connected boundaries

I've got a question regarding the following scenario.
As I post-process an image, I gained a contour, which is unfortunately twice connected as you can see at the bottom line. To make it obvious what I want is just the outter line.
Therefore I zoomed in and marked the line, i want of the large image.
What I want from this selection is only the outter part, which I've marked as green in the next picture. Sorry for my bad drawing skills. ;)
I am using MatLab with the IPT. So I also tried to make out with bwmorph and the hbreak option, but it threw an error.
How do I solve that problem?
If you were successful could you please tell me a bit more about it?
Thank you in advance!
Sincerely
It seems your input image is a bit different than the one you posted, since I couldn't directly collect the branch points (there were too many of them). So, to start handling your problem I considering a thinning followed by branch point detection. I also dilate them and remove from the thinned image, this guarantees that in fact there is no connection (4 or 8) between the different segments in the initial image.
f = im2bw(imread('http://i.imgur.com/yeFyF.png'), 0);
g = bwmorph(f, 'thin', 'Inf');
h = g & ~bwmorph(bwmorph(g, 'branchpoints'), 'dilate');
Since h holds disconnected segments, the following operation collects the end points of all the segments:
u = bwmorph(h, 'endpoints');
Now to actually solve your problem I did some quick analysis on what you want to discard. Consider two distinct segments, a and b, in h. We say a and b overlap if the end points of one is contained in the other. By contained I simply mean if the starting x point of one is smaller or equal to the other, and the ending x point is greater or equal too. In your case, the "mountain" overlaps with the segment that you wish to remove. To determine each of them you remove, consider their area. But, since these are segments, area is a meaningless term. To handle that, I connected the end points of a segment, and used as area simply the interior points. As you can clearly notice, the area of the overlapped segment at bottom is very small, so we say it is basically a line and discard it while keeping the "mountain" segment. To do this step the image u is of fundamental importance, since with it you have a clear indication of where to start and stop tracking a contour. If you used the image has is , you would have trouble determining where to start and stop collecting the points of a contour (i.e., the raster order would give you incorrect overlapping indication).
To reconstruct the segment as a single one (currently you have three of them), consider the points you discarded from g in h, and use those that doesn't belong to the now removed bottom segment.
I'd also use bwmorph
%# find the branch point
branchImg = bwmorph(img,'branchpoints');
%# grow the pixel to 3x3
branchImg = imdilate(branchImg,ones(3));
%# hide the branch point
noBranchImg = img & ~branchImg;
%# label the three lines
lblImg = bwlabel(noBranchImg);
%# in the original image, mask label #3
%# note that it may not always be #3 that you want to mask
finalImg = img;
finalImg(lblImg==3) = 0;
%# show the result
imshow(finalImg)

Sigmaplot: How to scale x-axis for correctly displaying boxplots

I want to display overlapping boxplots using Sigmaplot 12. When I choose the scale for the x-axis as linear then the boxes do indeed overlap but are much too thin. See figure below. Of course they should be much wider.
When I choose the scale of the x-axis to be "category", then the boxes have the right width, but are arranged along each single x-value.
I want the position as in figure 1 and the width as in figure 2. I tried to resize the box in figure 1 but when I choose 100% in "bar width" than it still looks like Figure 1.
many thanks!
okay, I found the answer myself. In Sigmaplot, there is often the need to prepare "style"-columns, for example if you want to color your barcharts, you need a column that holds the specific color names.
For my boxplot example I needed a column that has the values for "width". These had to be quite large (2000) in order to have an effect. Why ? I have no idea. First I thought it would be because of the latitude values and that the program interprets the point as "1.000"s, but when I changed to values without decimals, it didnĀ“t get better.
Well, here is the result in color.
Have fun !