I saw many Q&A here about squeezing space out of Matlab figures. However I want to squeeze space resulted from a possibly fixed aspect, i.e. to choose proper paper size for figure printing when aspect is fixed.
Quite often I work with DEM/map/image thus I use axis image. Now if I want to produce a high resolution image I do something like
set(gcf,'PaperUnits','inches','PaperPosition',[0 0 4 3])
print('-dpng','-r300','somefile.png')
as described in Matlab KB.
The problem here is to determine a proper aspect such that I can specify proper paper size that would leave no white/background stripes on either sides.
Apparently if I have a map (let's say 1000x2000 cells) with aspect ratio of 0.5, and I'm printing it on 4"x3" paper, I'll get background stripes on the sides. This is quite annoying as I'd prefer 1.5"x3" paper + axes & labels or so. Right now I have to manually adjust paper size.
This is inconvenient as I'd like a universal solution. For instance I may print a plot into file that I expect to occupy 4"x3" as well that has no fixed aspect. Or I may want to print a 3D figure. I'm aware of daspect and pbaspect, but how can I know how it is currently drawn?
Perhaps I can derive current 2D aspect from get(gca,'Position') and then scale it to my maximum allowed desired size (e.g., 4"x3") while respecting whether DataAspectRatioMode (?) property is set to manual. Is it the way to proceed or is there a better way?
I am not exactly sure if I understand your problem exactly, but I have used the following commands to create pdf images that are sized exactly to the size of the figure. I have used this for both 2D and 3D figures. The "handle" variable is simply your figure handle.
set(handle,'Units','inches');
set(handle,'PaperUnits','Inches','PaperPositionMode','auto');
P = get(handle,'Position');
set(handle,'PaperSize', [P(3),P(4)]);
Related
I have generated several plots in MATLAB and I haven't set the ( width or height) to any of them. I save them as pdf to place them in LaTeX but each figure appear with different size. I can change each figure size in LaTeX but I wonder if there is an easy way in MATLAB to get same size for all figures.
Can I reset the figure size after generating in MATLAB or I have to regenerate each figure with specific size?
What is the best way to export figures in MATLAB to use them in LaTeX?
Exporting figures from MATLAB to LaTeX is best done via .eps or directly to PDF. MATLAB's saveas() functionality supports both. The benefit of these file-types is that thy are vector files, meaning, loosely, that coordinates of corners in the lines are saved, as opposed to a bunch of fixed pixels such as with PNG or JPG figures. Using then these figures in LaTeX gives infinite scalability (theoretically, usefulness of highly-zoomed figures may vary).
If you need different aspect ratios, i.e. one figure taller than broad, the other broader than tall, You'd have to set the proper aspect ratio for each figure independently, then save using one of the aforementioned vector file types.
One of the best ways to export pretty figures is the export_fig() functionality written by Oliver Woodford and currently maintained by Yair Altman and freely available on the FileExchange.
Answering your first question: yes you can resize figures after generating them. Either by hand (change the window size), or programatically: you can make a figure handle (h=figure();, where h is your handle), which has several options to control figure size; h.position being the most prominent: [upper-left, lower-left, upper-right, lower-right] being its content in terms of corner coordinates. Changing those changes the figure size.
I have scanned copies of currency notes from which I need to extract only the rectangular notes.
Although the scanned copies have a very blank background, the note itself can be rotated or aligned correctly. I'm using matlab.
Example input:
Example output:
I have tried using thresholding and canny/sobel edge detection to no avail.
I also tried the solution given here but it detects the entire image for cropping and it would not work for rotated images.
PS: My primary objective is to determine the denomination of the currency. There are a couple of methods I thought I could use:
Color based, since all currency notes have varying primary colors.
The advantage of this method is that it's independent of the
rotation or scale of the input image.
Detect the small black triangle on the lower left corner of the note. This shape is unique
for each denomination.
Calculating the difference between 2 images. Since this is a small project, all input images will be of the same dpi and resolution and hence, once aligned, the difference between the input and the true images can give a rough estimate.
Which method do you think is the most viable?
It seems you are further advanced than you looked (seeing you comments) which is good! Im going to show you more or less the way you can go to solve you problem, however im not posting the whole code, just the important parts.
You have an image quite cropped and segmented. First you need to ensure that your image is without holes. So fill them!
Iinv=I==0; % you want 1 in money, 0 in not-money;
Ifill=imfill(Iinv,8,'holes'); % Fill holes
After that, you want to get only the boundary of the image:
Iedge=edge(Ifill);
And in the end you want to get the corners of that square:
C=corner(Iedge);
Now that you have 4 corners, you should be able to know the angle of this rotated "square". Once you get it do:
Irotate=imrotate(Icroped,angle);
Once here you may want to crop it again to end up just with the money! (aaah money always as an objective!)
Hope this helps!
I have 42 variables and I have calculated the correlation matrix for them in Matlab. Now I would like to visualize it with a schemaball. Does anyone have any suggestions / experiences how this could be done in Matlab? The following pictures will explain my point better:
In the pictures each parabola between variables would mean the strength of correlation between them. The thicker the line is, the more correlation. I prefer the style of picture 1 more than the style in picture 2 where I have used different colors to highlight the strength of correlation.
Kinda finished I guess.. code can be found here at github.
Documentation is included in the file.
The yellow/magenta color (for positive/negative correlation) is configurable, as well as the fontsize of the labels and the angles at which the labels are plotted, so you can get fancy if you want and not distribute them evenly along the perimeter/group some/...
If you want to actually print these graphs or use them outside matlab, I suggest using vector formats (eg eps). It's also annoying that the text resizes when you zoom in/out, but I don't know of any way to fix that without hacking the zoom function :/
schemaball % demo
schemaball(arrayfun(#num2str,1:10,'uni',false), rand(10).^8,11,[0.1587 0.8750],[0.8333 1],2*pi*sin(linspace(0,pi/2-pi/20,10)))
schemaball(arrayfun(#num2str,1:50,'uni',false), rand(50).^50,9)
I finished and submitted my version to the FEX: schemaball and will update the link asap.
There are a some differences with Gunther Struyf's contribution:
You can return the handles to the graphic object for full manual customization
Labels are oriented to allow maximum left-to-rigth readability
The figure stretches to fit labels in, leaving the axes unchanged
Syntax requires only correlations matrix (but allows optional inputs)
Optimized for performance.
Follow examples of demo, custom labels and creative customization.
Note: the first figure was exported with saveas(), all others with export_fig.
schemaball
x = rand(10).^3;
x(:,3) = 1.3*mean(x,2);
schemaball(x, {'Hi','how','is','your','day?', 'Do','you','like','schemaballs?','NO!!'})
h = schemaball;
set(h.l(~isnan(h.l)), 'LineWidth',1.2)
set(h.s, 'MarkerEdgeColor','red','LineWidth',2,'SizeData',100)
set(h.t, 'EdgeColor','white','LineWidth',1)
The default colormap:
To improve on screen rendering you can launch MATLAB with the experimental -hgVersion 2 switch which produces anti/aliased graphics by default now (source: HG2 update | Undocumented Matlab). However, if you try to save the figure, the file will have the usual old anti-aliased rendering, so here's a printscreen image of Gunther's schemaball:
Important update:
You can do this in Matlab now with the FileExchange submission:
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/48576-circulargraph
There is an exmample by Matlab in here:
http://uk.mathworks.com/examples/matlab/3859-circular-graph-examples
Which gives this kind of beautiful plots:
Coincidentally, Cleve Moler (MathWorks Chief Mathematician) showed an example of just this sort of plot on his most recent blog post (not nearly as beautiful as the ones in your example, and the connecting lines are straight rather than parabolic, but it looks functional). Unfortunately he didn't include the code directly, but if you leave him a comment on the post he's usually very willing to share things.
What might be even nicer for you is that he also applies (and this time includes) code to permute the rows/columns of the array in order to maximize the spatial proximity of highly connected nodes, rather than randomly ordering them around the circumference. You end up with a 'crescent'-shaped envelope of connecting lines, with the thick bit of the crescent representing the most highly connected nodes.
Unfortunately however, I suspect that if you need to enhance his code to get the very narrow, high-resolution lines in your example plots, then MATLAB's currently non-anti-aliased graphics aren't quite up to it yet.
I've recently been experimenting with MATLAB data and the D3 visualization library for similar graphs - there are several related types of circular visualizations you may be interested in and many of them are interactive. Another helpful, well-baked, and freely available option is Circos which is probably responsible for most of the prettier versions of these graphs you've seen in popular press.
This question is related to my previous post Image Processing Algorithm in Matlab in stackoverflow, which I already got the results that I wanted to.
But now I am facing another problem, and getting some artefacts in the process images. In my original images (stack of 600 images) I can't see any artefacts, please see the original image from finger nail:
But in my 10 processed results I can see these lines:
I really don't know where they come from?
Also if they belong to the camera's sensor why can't I see them in my original images? Any idea?
Edit:
I have added the following code suggested by #Jonas. It reduces the artefact, but does not completely remove them.
%averaging of images
im = D{1}(:,:);
for i = 2:100
im = imadd(im,D{i}(:,:));
end
im = im/100;
imshow(im,[]);
for i=1:100
SD{i}(:,:)=imsubtract(D{i}(:,:),im(:,:))
end
#belisarius has asked for more images, so I am going to upload 4 images from my finger with speckle pattern and 4 images from black background size( 1280x1024 ):
And here is the black background:
Your artifacts are in fact present in your original image, although not visible.
Code in Mathematica:
i = Import#"http://i.stack.imgur.com/5hM3u.png"
EntropyFilter[i, 1]
The lines are faint, but you can see them by binarization with a very low level threshold:
Binarize[i, .001]
As for what is causing them, I can only speculate. I would start tracing from the camera output itself. Also, you may post two or three images "as they come straight from the camera" to allow us some experimenting.
The camera you're using is most likely has a CMOS chip. Since they have independent column (and possibly row) amplifiers, which may have slightly different electronic properties, you can get the signal from one column more amplified than from another.
Depending on the camera, these variability in column intensity can be stable. In that case, you're in luck: Take ~100 dark images (tape something over the lens), average them, and then subtract them from each image before running the analysis. This should make the lines disappear. If the lines do not disappear (or if there are additional lines), use the post-processing scheme proposed by Amro to remove the lines after binarization.
EDIT
Here's how you'd do the background subtraction, assuming that you have taken 100 dark images and stored them in a cell array D with 100 elements:
% take the mean; convert to double for safety reasons
meanImg = mean( double( cat(3,D{:}) ), 3);
% then you cans subtract the mean from the original (non-dark-frame) image
correctedImage = rawImage - meanImg; %(maybe you need to re-cast the meanImg first)
Here is an answer that in opinion will remove the lines more gently than the above mentioned methods:
im = imread('image.png'); % Original image
imFiltered = im; % The filtered image will end up here
imChanged = false(size(im));% To document the filter performance
% 1)
% Compute the histgrams for each column in the lower part of the image
% (where the columns are most clear) and compute the mean and std each
% bin in the histogram.
histograms = hist(double(im(501:520,:)),0:255);
colMean = mean(histograms,2);
colStd = std(histograms,0,2);
% 2)
% Now loop though each gray level above zero and...
for grayLevel = 1:255
% Find the columns where the number of 'graylevel' pixels is larger than
% mean_n_graylevel + 3*std_n_graylevel). - That is columns that contains
% statistically 'many' pixel with the current 'graylevel'.
lineColumns = find(histograms(grayLevel+1,:)>colMean(grayLevel+1)+3*colStd(grayLevel+1));
% Now remove all graylevel pixels in lineColumns in the original image
if(~isempty(lineColumns))
for col = lineColumns
imFiltered(:,col) = im(:,col).*uint8(~(im(:,col)==grayLevel));
imChanged(:,col) = im(:,col)==grayLevel;
end
end
end
imshow(imChanged)
figure,imshow(imFiltered)
Here is the image after filtering
And this shows the pixels affected by the filter
You could use some sort of morphological opening to remove the thin vertical lines:
img = imread('image.png');
SE = strel('line',2,0);
img2 = imdilate(imerode(img,SE),SE);
subplot(121), imshow(img)
subplot(122), imshow(img2)
The structuring element used was:
>> SE.getnhood
ans =
1 1 1
Without really digging into your image processing, I can think of two reasons for this to happen:
The processing introduced these artifacts. This is unlikely, but it's an option. Check your algorithm and your code.
This is a side-effect because your processing reduced the dynamic range of the picture, just like quantization. So in fact, these artifacts may have already been in the picture itself prior to the processing, but they couldn't be noticed because their level was very close to the background level.
As for the source of these artifacts, it might even be the camera itself.
This is a VERY interesting question. I used to deal with this type of problem with live IR imagers (video systems). We actually had algorithms built into the cameras to deal with this problem prior to the user ever seeing or getting their hands on the image. Couple questions:
1) are you dealing with RAW images or are you dealing with already pre-processed grayscale (or RGB) images?
2) what is your ultimate goal with these images. Is the goal to simply get rid of the lines regardless of the quality in the rest of the image that results, or is the point to preserve the absolute best image quality. Are you to perform other processing afterwards?
I agree that those lines are most likely in ALL of your images. There are 2 reasons for those lines ever showing up in an image, one would be in a bright scene where OP AMPs for columns get saturated, thus causing whole columns of your image to get the brightest value camera can output. Another reason could be bad OP AMPs or ADCs (Analog to Digital Converters) themselves (Most likely not an ADC as normally there is essentially 1 ADC for th whole sensor, which would make the whole image bad, not your case). The saturation case is actually much more difficult to deal with (and I don't think this is your problem). Note: Too much saturation on a sensor can cause bad pixels and columns to arise in your sensor (which is why they say never to point your camera at the sun). The bad column problem can be dealt with. Above in another answer, someone had you averaging images. While this may be good to find out where the bad columns (or bad single pixels, or the noise matrix of your sensor) are (and you would have to average pointing the camera at black, white, essentially solid colors), it isn't the correct answer to get rid of them. By the way, what I am explaining with the black and white and averaging, and finding bad pixels, etc... is called calibrating your sensor.
OK, so saying you are able to get this calibration data, then you WILL be able to find out which columns are bad, even single pixels.
If you have this data, one way that you could erase the columns out is to:
for each bad column
for each pixel (x, y) on the bad column
pixel(x, y) = Average(pixel(x+1,y),pixel(x+1,y-1),pixel(x+1,y+1),
pixel(x-1,y),pixel(x-1,y-1),pixel(x-1,y+1))
What this essentially does is replace the bad pixel with a new pixel which is the average of the 6 remaining good pixels around it. The above is an over-simplified version of an algorithm. There are certainly cases where a singly bad pixel could be right next the bad column and shouldn't be used for averaging, or two or three bad columns right next to each other. One could imagine that you would calculate the values for a bad column, then consider that column good in order to move on to the next bad column, etc....
Now, the reason I asked about the RAW versus B/W or RGB. If you were processing a RAW, depending on the build of the sensor itself, it could be that only one sub-pixel (if you will) of the bayer filtered image sensor has the bad OP AMP. If you could detect this, then you wouldn't necessarily have to throw out the other good sub-pixel's data. Secondarily, if you are using an RGB sensor, to take a grayscale photo, and you shot it in RAW, then you may be able to calculate your own grayscale pixels. Many sensors when giving back a grayscale image when using an RGB sensor, will simply pass back the Green pixel as the overall pixel. This is due to the fact that it really serves as the luminescence of an image. This is why most image sensors implement 2 green sub-pixels for every r or g sub-pixel. If this is what they are doing (not ALL sensors do this) then you may have better luck getting rid of just the bad channel column, and performing your own grayscale conversion using.
gray = (0.299*r + 0.587*g + 0.114*b)
Apologies for the long winded answer, but I hope this is still informational to someone :-)
Since you can not see the lines in the original image, they are either there with low intensity difference in comparison with original range of image, or added by your processing algorithm.
The shape of the disturbance hints to the first option... (Unless you have an algorithm that processes each row separately.)
It seems like your sensor's columns are not uniform, try taking a picture without the finger (background only) using the same exposure (and other) settings, then subtracting it from the photo of the finger (prior to other processing). (Make sure the background is uniform before taking both images.)
I would like to check whether an image has a lot of homogeneous areas. Therefore I would like to get some kind of value of an image that declares a ratio for images depending on the amount/size of homogeneous areas (e.g. that value could have a range from 0 to 5).
Instead of a value there could be some kind of classification as well.
[many homogeneous areas -> value/class 5 ; few homogeneous areas -> value/class 0]
I would like to do that in perl. Is there a package/function or something like that?
What you want seems to be an area of image processing research which I am not familiar with. However, GraphicsMagick's mogrify utility has a -segment option:
Use -segment to segment an image by analyzing the histograms of the color components and identifying units that are homogeneous with the fuzzy c-means technique. The scale-space filter analyzes the histograms of the three color components of the image and identifies a set of classes. The extents of each class is used to coarsely segment the image with thresholding. The color associated with each class is determined by the mean color of all pixels within the extents of a particular class. Finally, any unclassified pixels are assigned to the closest class with the fuzzy c-means technique.
I don't know if this is any use to you. You might have to hit the library on this one, and read some research. You do have access to this through PerlMagick as well. However, it does not look like it gives access to the internals, but just produces an image based on parameters.
In my tests (without really understanding what the parameters do), photos turned entirely black, whereas PNG images with large areas of similar colors were reduced to a sort of an average color. Whether you can use that fact to develop a measure is an open question I am not going to investigate ;-)