Develop Reference

translate an image after rotation without using library

I try to rotate an image clockwise 45 degree and translate the image -50,-50.
Rotation process works fine:(I refer to this page:How do I rotate an image manually without using cv2.getRotationMatrix2D)
import numpy as np
import math
from scipy import ndimage
from PIL import Image
# inputs
img = ndimage.imread("A.png")
rotation_amount_degree = 45
# convert rotation amount to radian
rotation_amount_rad = rotation_amount_degree * np.pi / 180.0
# get dimension info
height, width, num_channels = img.shape
# create output image, for worst case size (45 degree)
max_len = int(math.sqrt(height*height + width*width))
rotated_image = np.zeros((max_len, max_len, num_channels))
#rotated_image = np.zeros((img.shape))
rotated_height, rotated_width, _ = rotated_image.shape
mid_row = int( (rotated_height+1)/2 )
mid_col = int( (rotated_width+1)/2 )
# for each pixel in output image, find which pixel
#it corresponds to in the input image
for r in range(rotated_height):
for c in range(rotated_width):
# apply rotation matrix, the other way
y = (r-mid_col)*math.cos(rotation_amount_rad) + (c-mid_row)*math.sin(rotation_amount_rad)
x = -(r-mid_col)*math.sin(rotation_amount_rad) + (c-mid_row)*math.cos(rotation_amount_rad)
# add offset
y += mid_col
x += mid_row
# get nearest index
#a better way is linear interpolation
x = round(x)
y = round(y)
#print(r, " ", c, " corresponds to-> " , y, " ", x)
# check if x/y corresponds to a valid pixel in input image
if (x >= 0 and y >= 0 and x < width and y < height):
rotated_image[r][c][:] = img[y][x][:]
# save output image
output_image = Image.fromarray(rotated_image.astype("uint8"))
output_image.save("rotated_image.png")
However, when I try to translate the image. I edited the above code to this:
if (x >= 0 and y >= 0 and x < width and y < height):
rotated_image[r-50][c-50][:] = img[y][x][:]
But I got something like this:
It seems the right and the bottom did not show the right pixel. How could I solve it?
Any suggestions would be highly appreciated.

The translation needs to be handled as a wholly separate step. Trying to translate the value from the source image doesn't account for newly created 0,0,0 (if RGB) valued pixels by the rotation.
Further, simply subtracting 50 from the rotated array index values, without validating them at that stage for positivity, is allowing for a negative valued index, which is fully supported by Python. That is why you are getting a "wrap" effect instead of a translation
You said your script rotated the image as intended, so while perhaps not the most efficient, the most intuitive is to simply shift the values of the image assembled after you rotate. You could test that the values for the new image remain positive after subtracting 50 and only saving the ones >= 0 or being cognizant of the fact that you are shifting the values downward by 50, any number less than 50 will be discarded and you get:
<what you in the block you said was functional then:>
translated_image = np.zeros((max_len, max_len, num_channels))
for i in range(0, rotated_height-50): # range(start, stop[, step])
for j in range(0, rotated_width-50):
translated_image[i+50][j+50][:] = rotated[i][j][:]
# save output image
output_image = Image.fromarray(translated_image.astype("uint8"))
output_image.save("rotated_translated_image.png")

Fastest way to create list of (X,Y) incrementing tuples with step value?

I need a fast way to create a list of tuples representing image pixel coordinates (X, Y).
Where X is from 0 to size and Y is from 0 to size.
A step value of 1 results in X and Y values of (0, 1, 2, 3...) which is too many tuples. Using a step value greater than 1 will reduce processing time. For example, if the step value is 2 the values would be (0, 2, 4, 6...). If the step value is 4 the values would be (0, 4, 8, 12...).
In pure python range command might be used. However, NumPy is installed by default in my Linux distribution. In NumPy the arrange command might be used but I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around NumPy array syntax.
PS: After a list of tuples is created it will be randomly shuffled and then read in the loop.
Edit 1
Using this answer below:
Instead of the image fading in it's doing some kind of weird wipe left to right. Using the code from the answer with a slight modification:
step = 4
size = self.play_rotated_art.size[0] - step
self.xy_list = [
(x, y)
for x in range(0, size - step, step)
for y in range(0, size - step, step)
]
Bug Update
There was an error in my code, it's working fine now:
The updated code is:
self.step = 4
size = self.play_rotated_art.size[0] - self.step
self.xy_list = [
(x, y)
for x in range(0, size - self.step, self.step)
for y in range(0, size - self.step, self.step)
]
shuffle(self.xy_list)
# Convert numpy array into python list & calculate chunk size
self.current_chunk = 0
self.chunk_size = int(len(self.xy_list) / 100)
# Where we stop copying pixels for current 1% chunck
end = self.current_chunk + self.chunk_size
if end > len(self.xy_list) - 1:
end = len(self.xy_list) - 1
while self.current_chunk < end:
x0, y0 = self.xy_list[self.current_chunk]
x1 = x0 + self.step
y1 = y0 + self.step
box = (x0, y0, x1, y1)
region = self.play_rotated_art.crop(box)
self.fade.paste(region, box)
self.current_chunk += 1
self.play_artfade_count += 1
return self.fade
TL;DR
I already have code with step value 1 but this code is overly complex and inefficient to request a modification. The above generic question would help others more and, still help me, if it were answered.
Existing code with step value 1:
def play_artfade2(self):
''' PILLOW VERSION:
Fade in artwork in 100 chunks leaving loop after chunk and
reentering after Tkinter updates screen and pauses.
'''
if self.play_artfade_count == 100:
# We'have completed a full cycle. Force graphical effects exit
self.play_artfade_count = 0 # Reset art fade count
self.play_rotated_value = -361 # Force Spin Art
return None
# Initialize numpy arrays first time through
if self.play_artfade_count == 0:
# Create black image to fade into
self.fade = Image.new('RGBA', self.play_rotated_art.size, \
color='black')
# Generate a randomly shuffled array of the coordinates
im = np.array(self.play_rotated_art)
X,Y = np.where(im[...,0]>=0)
coords = np.column_stack((X,Y))
np.random.shuffle(coords)
# Convert numpy array into python list & calculate chunk size
self.xy_list = list(coords)
self.current_chunk = 0
self.chunk_size = int(len(self.xy_list) / 100)
# Where we stop copying pixels for current 1% chunck
end = self.current_chunk + self.chunk_size
if end > len(self.xy_list) - 1:
end = len(self.xy_list) - 1
while self.current_chunk < end:
x0, y0 = self.xy_list[self.current_chunk]
x1 = x0 + 1
y1 = y0 + 1
box = (x0, y0, x1, y1)
region = self.play_rotated_art.crop(box)
self.fade.paste(region, box)
self.current_chunk += 1
self.play_artfade_count += 1
return self.fade
Using Pillow's Image.crop() and Image.paste() is overkill for a single pixel but the initial working design was future focused to utilize "super pixels" with box size of 2x2, 3x3, 5x5, etc as image is resized from 200x200 to 333x333 to 512x512, etc.

I need fast way to create a list of tuples representing image pixel coordinates (X, Y).
Where X is from 0 to size and Y is from 0 to size
A list comprehension with range will work:
xsize = 10
ysize = 10
coords = [(x, y) for x in range(xsize) for y in range(ysize)]
# this verifies the shape is correct
assert len(coords) == xsize * ysize
If you wanted a step other than 1, this is setting the step argument:
coords = [(x, y) for x in range(0, xsize, 2) for y in range(0, ysize, 2)]

You can use a generator expression:
size = 16
step = 4
coords = (
(x, y)
for x in range(0, size, step)
for y in range(0, size, step)
)
Then you can iterate on that like you would do with a list
for coord in coords:
print(coord)
Using a generator instead of a list or tuple has the advantage of being more memory efficient.

How to vectorize tasks in python?

I (will) have a list of coordinates; using python's pillow module, I want to save a series of (cropped) smaller images to disk. Currently, I am using a for loop to act to determine one coordinate at a time then crop/save the image before proceeding to the next coordinate.
Is there a way to divide this job up such that multiple images can be cropped/saved simultaneously? I understand that this would take up more RAM but would be decrease performance time.
I'm sure this is possible but I'm not sure if this is simple. I've heard terms like 'vectorization' and 'multi-threading' that sound vaguely appropriate to this situation. But these topics extend beyond my experience.
I've attached the code for reference. However, I'm simply trying to solicit recommended strategies. (i.e. what techniques should I learn about to better tailor my approach, take multiple crops at once, etc?)
def parse_image(source, square_size, count, captures, offset=0, offset_type=0, print_coords=False):
"""
Starts at top left corner of image. Iterates through image by square_size (width = height)
across x values and after exhausting the row, begins next row lower by function of
square_size. Offset parameter is available such that, with multiple function calls,
overlapping images could be generated.
"""
src = Image.open(source)
dimensions = src.size
max_down = int(src.height/square_size) * square_size + square_size
max_right = int(src.width/square_size) * square_size + square_size
if offset_type == 1:
tl_x = 0 + offset
tl_y = 0
br_x = square_size + offset
br_y = square_size
for y in range(square_size,max_down,square_size):
for x in range(square_size + offset,max_right - offset,square_size):
if (tl_x,tl_y) not in captures:
sample = src.crop((tl_x,tl_y,br_x,br_y))
sample.save(f"{source[:-4]}_sample_{count}_x{tl_x}_y{tl_y}.jpg")
captures.append((tl_x,tl_y))
if print_coords == True:
print(f"image {count}: top-left (x,y): {(tl_x,tl_y)}, bottom-right (x,y): {(br_x,br_y)}")
tl_x = x
br_x = x + square_size
count +=1
else:
continue
tl_x = 0 + offset
br_x = square_size + offset
tl_y = y
br_y = y + square_size
else:
tl_x = 0
tl_y = 0 + offset
br_x = square_size
br_y = square_size + offset
for y in range(square_size + offset,max_down - offset,square_size):
for x in range(square_size,max_right,square_size):
if (tl_x,tl_y) not in captures:
sample = src.crop((tl_x,tl_y,br_x,br_y))
sample.save(f"{source[:-4]}_sample_{count}_x{tl_x}_y{tl_y}.jpg")
captures.append((tl_x,tl_y))
if print_coords == True:
print(f"image {count}: top-left (x,y): {(tl_x,tl_y)}, bottom-right (x,y): {(br_x,br_y)}")
tl_x = x
br_x = x + square_size
count +=1
else:
continue
tl_x = 0
br_x = square_size
tl_y = y + offset
br_y = y + square_size + offset
return count

What you want to achieve here is to have a higher degree of parallelism, the first thing to do is to understand what is the minimum task that you need to do here, and from that, think in a way to better distribute it.
First thing to notice here is that there is two behaviour, first if you have offset_type 0, and another if you have offset_type 1, split that off into two different functions.
Second thing is: given an image, you're taking crops of a given size, at a given offset(x,y) for the whole image. You could for instance, simplify this function to take one crop of the image, given the image offset(x,y). Then, you could call this function for all the x and y of the image in parallel. That's pretty much what most image processing frameworks tries to achieve, even more the one's that run code inside the GPU, small blocks of code, that operates locally in the image.
So lets say your image has width=100, height=100, and you're trying to make crops of w=10,h=10. Given the simplistic function that I described, I will call it crop(img, x, y, crop_size_x, crop_size_y) All you have to do is create the image:
img = Image.open(source)
crop_size_x = 10
crop_size_y = 10
crops = [crop(img, x, y, crop_size_x, crop_size_y) for x, y in zip(range(img.width), range(img.height))]
later on, you can then replace the list comprehension for a multi_processing library that can actually spawn many processes, do real parallelism, or even write such code inside a GPU kernel/shader, and use the GPU parallelism to achieve high performance.

Optimizing by translation to map one x,y set of points onto another

I have a list of x,y ideal points, and a second list of x,y measured points. The latter has some offset and some noise.
I am trying to "fit" the latter to the former. So, extract the x,y offset of the latter relative to the former.
I'm following some examples of scipy.optimize.leastsq, but having trouble getting it working. Here is my code:
import random
import numpy as np
from scipy import optimize
# Generate fake data. Goal: Get back dx=0.1, dy=0.2 at the end of this exercise
dx = 0.1
dy = 0.2
# "Actual" (ideal) data.
xa = np.array([0,0,0,1,1,1])
ya = np.array([0,1,2,0,1,2])
# "Measured" (non-ideal) data. Add the offset and some randomness.
xm = map(lambda x: x + dx + random.uniform(0,0.01), xa)
ym = map(lambda y: y + dy + random.uniform(0,0.01), ya)
# Plot each
plt.figure()
plt.plot(xa, ya, 'b.', xm, ym, 'r.')
# The error function.
#
# Args:
# translations: A list of xy tuples, each xy tuple holding the xy offset
# between 'coords' and the ideal positions.
# coords: A list of xy tuples, each xy tuple holding the measured (non-ideal)
# coordinates.
def errfunc(translations, coords):
sum = 0
for t, xy in zip(translations, coords):
dx = t[0] + xy[0]
dy = t[1] + xy[1]
sum += np.sqrt(dx**2 + dy**2)
return sum
translations, coords = [], []
for xxa, yya, xxm, yym in zip(xa, ya, xm, ym):
t = (xxm-xxa, yym-yya)
c = (xxm, yym)
translations.append(t)
coords.append(c)
translation_guess = [0.05, 0.1]
out = optimize.leastsq(errfunc, translation_guess, args=(translations, coords), full_output=1)
print out
I get the error:
errfunc() takes exactly 2 arguments (3 given)"
I'm not sure why it says 3 arguments as I only gave it two. Can anyone help?
====
ANSWER:
I was thinking about this wrong. All I have to do is to take the average of the dx and dy's -- that gives the correct result.
n = xa.shape[0]
dx = -np.sum(xa - xm) / n
dy = -np.sum(ya - ym) / n
print dx, dy

The scipy.optimize.leastsq assumes that the function you are using already has one input, x0, the initial guess. Any other additional inputs are then listed in args.
So you are sending three arguments: translation_guess, transactions, and coords.
Note that here it specifies that args are "extra arguments."
Okay, I think I understand now. You have the actual locations and the measured locations and you want to figure out the constant offset, but there is noise on each pair. Correct me if I'm wrong:
xy = tuple with coordinates of measured point
t = tuple with measured offset (constant + noise)
The actual coordinates of a point are (xy - t) then?
If so, then we think it should be measured at (xy - t + guess).
If so, then our error is (xy - t + guess - xy) = (guess - t)
Where it is measured doesn't even matter! We just want to find the guess that is closest to all of the measured translations:
def errfunc(guess, translations):
errx = 0
erry = 0
for t in translations:
errx += guess[0] - t[0]
erry += guess[1] - t[1]
return errx,erry
What do you think? Does that make sense or did I miss something?

Generate random number outside of range in python

I'm currently working on a pygame game and I need to place objects randomly on the screen, except they cannot be within a designated rectangle. Is there an easy way to do this rather than continuously generating a random pair of coordinates until it's outside of the rectangle?
Here's a rough example of what the screen and the rectangle look like.
______________
| __ |
| |__| |
| |
| |
|______________|
Where the screen size is 1000x800 and the rectangle is [x: 500, y: 250, width: 100, height: 75]
A more code oriented way of looking at it would be
x = random_int
0 <= x <= 1000
and
500 > x or 600 < x
y = random_int
0 <= y <= 800
and
250 > y or 325 < y

Partition the box into a set of sub-boxes.
Among the valid sub-boxes, choose which one to place your point in with probability proportional to their areas
Pick a random point uniformly at random from within the chosen sub-box.
This will generate samples from the uniform probability distribution on the valid region, based on the chain rule of conditional probability.

This offers an O(1) approach in terms of both time and memory.
Rationale
The accepted answer along with some other answers seem to hinge on the necessity to generate lists of all possible coordinates, or recalculate until there is an acceptable solution. Both approaches take more time and memory than necessary.
Note that depending on the requirements for uniformity of coordinate generation, there are different solutions as is shown below.
First attempt
My approach is to randomly choose only valid coordinates around the designated box (think left/right, top/bottom), then select at random which side to choose:
import random
# set bounding boxes
maxx=1000
maxy=800
blocked_box = [(500, 250), (100, 75)]
# generate left/right, top/bottom and choose as you like
def gen_rand_limit(p1, dim):
x1, y1 = p1
w, h = dim
x2, y2 = x1 + w, y1 + h
left = random.randrange(0, x1)
right = random.randrange(x2+1, maxx-1)
top = random.randrange(0, y1)
bottom = random.randrange(y2, maxy-1)
return random.choice([left, right]), random.choice([top, bottom])
# check boundary conditions are met
def check(x, y, p1, dim):
x1, y1 = p1
w, h = dim
x2, y2 = x1 + w, y1 + h
assert 0 <= x <= maxx, "0 <= x(%s) <= maxx(%s)" % (x, maxx)
assert x1 > x or x2 < x, "x1(%s) > x(%s) or x2(%s) < x(%s)" % (x1, x, x2, x)
assert 0 <= y <= maxy, "0 <= y(%s) <= maxy(%s)" %(y, maxy)
assert y1 > y or y2 < y, "y1(%s) > y(%s) or y2(%s) < y(%s)" % (y1, y, y2, y)
# sample
points = []
for i in xrange(1000):
x,y = gen_rand_limit(*blocked_box)
check(x, y, *blocked_box)
points.append((x,y))
Results
Given the constraints as outlined in the OP, this actually produces random coordinates (blue) around the designated rectangle (red) as desired, however leaves out any of the valid points that are outside the rectangle but fall within the respective x or y dimensions of the rectangle:
# visual proof via matplotlib
import matplotlib
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
from matplotlib.patches import Rectangle
X,Y = zip(*points)
fig = plt.figure()
ax = plt.scatter(X, Y)
p1 = blocked_box[0]
w,h = blocked_box[1]
rectangle = Rectangle(p1, w, h, fc='red', zorder=2)
ax = plt.gca()
plt.axis((0, maxx, 0, maxy))
ax.add_patch(rectangle)
Improved
This is easily fixed by limiting only either x or y coordinates (note that check is no longer valid, comment to run this part):
def gen_rand_limit(p1, dim):
x1, y1 = p1
w, h = dim
x2, y2 = x1 + w, y1 + h
# should we limit x or y?
limitx = random.choice([0,1])
limity = not limitx
# generate x, y O(1)
if limitx:
left = random.randrange(0, x1)
right = random.randrange(x2+1, maxx-1)
x = random.choice([left, right])
y = random.randrange(0, maxy)
else:
x = random.randrange(0, maxx)
top = random.randrange(0, y1)
bottom = random.randrange(y2, maxy-1)
y = random.choice([top, bottom])
return x, y
Adjusting the random bias
As pointed out in the comments this solution suffers from a bias given to points outside the rows/columns of the rectangle. The following fixes that in principle by giving each coordinate the same probability:
def gen_rand_limit(p1, dim):
x1, y1 = p1Final solution -
w, h = dim
x2, y2 = x1 + w, y1 + h
# generate x, y O(1)
# --x
left = random.randrange(0, x1)
right = random.randrange(x2+1, maxx)
withinx = random.randrange(x1, x2+1)
# adjust probability of a point outside the box columns
# a point outside has probability (1/(maxx-w)) v.s. a point inside has 1/w
# the same is true for rows. adjupx/y adjust for this probability
adjpx = ((maxx - w)/w/2)
x = random.choice([left, right] * adjpx + [withinx])
# --y
top = random.randrange(0, y1)
bottom = random.randrange(y2+1, maxy)
withiny = random.randrange(y1, y2+1)
if x == left or x == right:
adjpy = ((maxy- h)/h/2)
y = random.choice([top, bottom] * adjpy + [withiny])
else:
y = random.choice([top, bottom])
return x, y
The following plot has 10'000 points to illustrate the uniform placement of points (the points overlaying the box' border are due to point size).
Disclaimer: Note that this plot places the red box in the very middle such thattop/bottom, left/right have the same probability among each other. The adjustment thus is relative to the blocking box, but not for all areas of the graph. A final solution requires to adjust the probabilities for each of these separately.
Simpler solution, yet slightly modified problem
It turns out that adjusting the probabilities for different areas of the coordinate system is quite tricky. After some thinking I came up with a slightly modified approach:
Realizing that on any 2D coordinate system blocking out a rectangle divides the area into N sub-areas (N=8 in the case of the question) where a valid coordinate can be chosen. Looking at it this way, we can define the valid sub-areas as boxes of coordinates. Then we can choose a box at random and a coordinate at random from within that box:
def gen_rand_limit(p1, dim):
x1, y1 = p1
w, h = dim
x2, y2 = x1 + w, y1 + h
# generate x, y O(1)
boxes = (
((0,0),(x1,y1)), ((x1,0),(x2,y1)), ((x2,0),(maxx,y1)),
((0,y1),(x1,y2)), ((x2,y1),(maxx,y2)),
((0,y2),(x1,maxy)), ((x1,y2),(x2,maxy)), ((x2,y2),(maxx,maxy)),
)
box = boxes[random.randrange(len(boxes))]
x = random.randrange(box[0][0], box[1][0])
y = random.randrange(box[0][1], box[1][1])
return x, y
Note this is not generalized as the blocked box may not be in the middle hence boxes would look different. As this results in each box chosen with the same probability, we get the same number of points in each box. Obviously the densitiy is higher in smaller boxes:
If the requirement is to generate a uniform distribution among all possible coordinates, the solution is to calculate boxes such that each box is about the same size as the blocking box. YMMV

I've already posted a different answer that I still like, as it is simple and
clear, and not necessarily slow... at any rate it's not exactly what the OP asked for.
I thought about it and I devised an algorithm for solving the OP's problem within their constraints:
partition the screen in 9 rectangles around and comprising the "hole".
consider the 8 rectangles ("tiles") around the central hole"
for each tile, compute the origin (x, y), the height and the area in pixels
compute the cumulative sum of the areas of the tiles, as well as the total area of the tiles
for each extraction, choose a random number between 0 and the total area of the tiles (inclusive and exclusive)
using the cumulative sums determine in which tile the random pixel lies
using divmod determine the column and the row (dx, dy) in the tile
using the origins of the tile in the screen coordinates, compute the random pixel in screen coordinates.
To implement the ideas above, in which there is an initialization phase in which we compute static data and a phase in which we repeatedly use those data, the natural data structure is a class, and here it is my implementation
from random import randrange
class make_a_hole_in_the_screen():
def __init__(self, screen, hole_orig, hole_sizes):
xs, ys = screen
x, y = hole_orig
wx, wy = hole_sizes
tiles = [(_y,_x*_y) for _x in [x,wx,xs-x-wx] for _y in [y,wy,ys-y-wy]]
self.tiles = tiles[:4] + tiles[5:]
self.pixels = [tile[1] for tile in self.tiles]
self.total = sum(self.pixels)
self.boundaries = [sum(self.pixels[:i+1]) for i in range(8)]
self.x = [0, 0, 0,
x, x,
x+wx, x+wx, x+wx]
self.y = [0, y, y+wy,
0, y+wy,
0, y, y+wy]
def choose(self):
n = randrange(self.total)
for i, tile in enumerate(self.tiles):
if n < self.boundaries[i]: break
n1 = n - ([0]+self.boundaries)[i]
dx, dy = divmod(n1,self.tiles[i][0])
return self.x[i]+dx, self.y[i]+dy
To test the correctness of the implementation, here it is a rough check that I
run on python 2.7,
drilled_screen = make_a_hole_in_the_screen((200,100),(30,50),(20,30))
for i in range(1000000):
x, y = drilled_screen.choose()
if 30<=x<50 and 50<=y<80: print "***", x, y
if x<0 or x>=200 or y<0 or y>=100: print "+++", x, y
A possible optimization consists in using a bisection algorithm to find the relevant tile in place of the simpler linear search that I've implemented.

It requires a bit of thought to generate a uniformly random point with these constraints. The simplest brute force way I can think of is to generate a list of all valid points and use random.choice() to select from this list. This uses a few MB of memory for the list, but generating a point is very fast:
import random
screen_width = 1000
screen_height = 800
rect_x = 500
rect_y = 250
rect_width = 100
rect_height = 75
valid_points = []
for x in range(screen_width):
if rect_x <= x < (rect_x + rect_width):
for y in range(rect_y):
valid_points.append( (x, y) )
for y in range(rect_y + rect_height, screen_height):
valid_points.append( (x, y) )
else:
for y in range(screen_height):
valid_points.append( (x, y) )
for i in range(10):
rand_point = random.choice(valid_points)
print(rand_point)
It is possible to generate a random number and map it to a valid point on the screen, which uses less memory, but it is a bit messy and takes more time to generate the point. There might be a cleaner way to do this, but one approach using the same screen size variables as above is here:
rand_max = (screen_width * screen_height) - (rect_width * rect_height)
def rand_point():
rand_raw = random.randint(0, rand_max-1)
x = rand_raw % screen_width
y = rand_raw // screen_width
if rect_y <= y < rect_y+rect_height and rect_x <= x < rect_x+rect_width:
rand_raw = rand_max + (y-rect_y) * rect_width + (x-rect_x)
x = rand_raw % screen_width
y = rand_raw // screen_width
return (x, y)
The logic here is similar to the inverse of the way that screen addresses are calculated from x and y coordinates on old 8 and 16 bit microprocessors. The variable rand_max is equal to the number of valid screen coordinates. The x and y co-ordinates of the pixel are calculated, and if it is within the rectangle the pixel is pushed above rand_max, into the region that couldn't be generated with the first call.
If you don't care too much about the point being uniformly random, this solution is easy to implement and very quick. The x values are random, but the Y value is constrained if the chosen X is in the column with the rectangle, so the pixels above and below the rectangle will have a higher probability of being chosen than pizels to the left and right of the rectangle:
def pseudo_rand_point():
x = random.randint(0, screen_width-1)
if rect_x <= x < rect_x + rect_width:
y = random.randint(0, screen_height-rect_height-1)
if y >= rect_y:
y += rect_height
else:
y = random.randint(0, screen_height-1)
return (x, y)
Another answer was calculating the probability that the pixel is in certain regions of the screen, but their answer isn't quite correct yet. Here's a version using a similar idea, calculate the probability that the pixel is in a given region and then calculate where it is within that region:
valid_screen_pixels = screen_width*screen_height - rect_width * rect_height
prob_left = float(rect_x * screen_height) / valid_screen_pixels
prob_right = float((screen_width - rect_x - rect_width) * screen_height) / valid_screen_pixels
prob_above_rect = float(rect_y) / (screen_height-rect_height)
def generate_rand():
ymin, ymax = 0, screen_height-1
xrand = random.random()
if xrand < prob_left:
xmin, xmax = 0, rect_x-1
elif xrand > (1-prob_right):
xmin, xmax = rect_x+rect_width, screen_width-1
else:
xmin, xmax = rect_x, rect_x+rect_width-1
yrand = random.random()
if yrand < prob_above_rect:
ymax = rect_y-1
else:
ymin=rect_y+rect_height
x = random.randrange(xmin, xmax)
y = random.randrange(ymin, ymax)
return (x, y)

If it's the generation of random you want to avoid, rather than the loop, you can do the following:
Generate a pair of random floating point coordinates in [0,1]
Scale the coordinates to give a point in the outer rectangle.
If your point is outside the inner rectangle, return it
Rescale to map the inner rectangle to the outer rectangle
Goto step 3
This will work best if the inner rectangle is small as compared to the outer rectangle. And it should probably be limited to only going through the loop some maximum number of times before generating new random and trying again.