Develop Reference

Plotting a new image without using the old one in matplotlib?

I'm new to python and matplotlib.
I have implemented the k means algorithm in order to compress and image to
clusters and then plotting the changed image.
my question is: I was not able to plot the new image without using
the old one as a base, I tried a few things but could not quite get the result I want. and it's bad programming if I pass the old image as argument when I can definitely not use it.
Can someone please help?
I tried to create a new ndarray but it did not work.
Here is my function:
def changePic(newPixelList, oldPixel, image_size):
index = 0
new_pixels = []
for pixel in newPixelList:
oldPixel[index] = pixel.classification
index+=1
l = oldPixel.reshape(image_size)
plt.imshow(l)
plt.grid(False)
plt.show()
As you can see I don't really use the oldPixel values, just its structure.
now I'll show you the type of oldPixel:
Here is my loadPic method where X.copy is the argument oldPixel:
def loadPic():
"""
Load pic to array
:return: copy of original X, new lisf of pixels, image size
"""
# data preperation (loading, normalizing, reshaping)
path = 'dog.jpeg'
A = imread(path)
A = A.astype(float) / 255.
img_size = A.shape
X = A.reshape(img_size[0] * img_size[1], img_size[2])
listOfPixel= []
for pixel in X:
listOfPixel.append(Pixel(pixel))
return X.copy(), listOfPixel,img_size

Try this:
def changePic(newPixelList, oldPixel, image_size, picture_num):
index = 0
new_pixels = []
for pixel in newPixelList:
oldPixel[index] = pixel.classification
index+=1
l = oldPixel.reshape(image_size)
plt.figure(picture_num)
plt.imshow(l)
plt.grid(False)
plt.show()
Every plot that you generate should have a different picture_num in order to have separate plots.

Faster implementation to quantize an image with an existing palette?

I am using Python 3.6 to perform basic image manipulation through Pillow. Currently, I am attempting to take 32-bit PNG images (RGBA) of arbitrary color compositions and sizes and quantize them to a known palette of 16 colors. Optimally, this quantization method should be able to leave fully transparent (A = 0) pixels alone, while forcing all semi-transparent pixels to be fully opaque (A = 255). I have already devised working code that performs this, but I wonder if it may be inefficient:
import math
from PIL import Image
# a list of 16 RGBA tuples
palette = [
(0, 0, 0, 255),
# ...
]
with Image.open('some_image.png').convert('RGBA') as img:
for py in range(img.height):
for px in range(img.width):
pix = img.getpixel((px, py))
if pix[3] == 0: # Ignore fully transparent pixels
continue
# Perform exhaustive search for closest Euclidean distance
dist = 450
best_fit = (0, 0, 0, 0)
for c in palette:
if pix[:3] == c: # If pixel matches exactly, break
best_fit = c
break
tmp = sqrt(pow(pix[0]-c[0], 2) + pow(pix[1]-c[1], 2) + pow(pix[2]-c[2], 2))
if tmp < dist:
dist = tmp
best_fit = c
img.putpixel((px, py), best_fit + (255,))
img.save('quantized.png')
I think of two main inefficiencies of this code:
Image.putpixel() is a slow operation
Calculating the distance function multiple times per pixel is computationally wasteful
Is there a faster method to do this?
I've noted that Pillow has a native function Image.quantize() that seems to do exactly what I want. But as it is coded, it forces dithering in the result, which I do not want. This has been brought up in another StackOverflow question. The answer to that question was simply to extract the internal Pillow code and tweak the control variable for dithering, which I tested, but I find that Pillow corrupts the palette I give it and consistently yields an image where the quantized colors are considerably darker than they should be.
Image.point() is a tantalizing method, but it only works on each color channel individually, where color quantization requires working with all channels as a set. It'd be nice to be able to force all of the channels into a single channel of 32-bit integer values, which seems to be what the ill-documented mode "I" would do, but if I run img.convert('I'), I get a completely greyscale result, destroying all color.
An alternative method seems to be using NumPy and altering the image directly. I've attempted to create a lookup table of RGB values, but the three-dimensional indexing of NumPy's syntax is driving me insane. Ideally I'd like some kind of code that works like this:
img_arr = numpy.array(img)
# Find all unique colors
unique_colors = numpy.unique(arr, axis=0)
# Generate lookup table
colormap = numpy.empty(unique_colors.shape)
for i, c in enumerate(unique_colors):
dist = 450
best_fit = None
for pc in palette:
tmp = sqrt(pow(c[0] - pc[0], 2) + pow(c[1] - pc[1], 2) + pow(c[2] - pc[2], 2))
if tmp < dist:
dist = tmp
best_fit = pc
colormap[i] = best_fit
# Hypothetical pseudocode I can't seem to write out
for iy in range(arr.size):
for ix in range(arr[0].size):
if arr[iy, ix, 3] == 0: # Skip transparent
continue
index = # Find index of matching color in unique_colors, somehow
arr[iy, ix] = colormap[index]
I note with this hypothetical example that numpy.unique() is another slow operation, since it sorts the output. Since I cannot seem to finish the code the way I want, I haven't been able to test if this method is faster anyway.
I've also considered attempting to flatten the RGBA axis by converting the values to a 32-bit integer and desiring to create a one-dimensional lookup table with the simpler index:
def shift(a):
return a[0] << 24 | a[1] << 16 | a[2] << 8 | a[3]
img_arr = numpy.apply_along_axis(shift, 1, img_arr)
But this operation seemed noticeably slow on its own.
I would prefer answers that involve only Pillow and/or NumPy, please. Unless using another library demonstrates a dramatic computational speed increase over any PIL- or NumPy-native solution, I don't want to import extraneous libraries to do something these two libraries should be reasonably capable of on their own.

for loops should be avoided for speed.
I think you should make a tensor like:
d2[x,y,color_index,rgb] = distance_squared
where rgb = 0..2 (0 = r, 1 = g, 2 = b).
Then compute the distance:
d[x,y,color_index] =
sqrt(sum(rgb,d2))
Then select the color_index with the minimal distance:
c[x,y] = min_index(color_index, d)
Finally replace alpha as needed:
alpha = ceil(orig_image.alpha)
img = c,alpha

When plotting Mandelbrot using NumPy & Pillow, program outputs apparent noise

Previously, I had created a Mandelbrot generator in python using turtle. Now, I am re-writing the program to use the Python Imaging Library in order to increase speed and reduce limits on size of images.
However, the program below only outputs RGB nonsense, almost noise. I think it is something to do with a difference in the way NumPy and PIL deal with arrays, since saying l[x,y] = [1,1,1] where l = np.zeros((height,width,3)) doesn't just make 1 pixel white when img = Image.fromarray(l) and img.show() are performed.
def imagebrot(mina=-1.25, maxa=1.25, minb=-1.25, maxb=1.25, width=100, height=100, maxit=300, inf=2):
l,b = np.zeros((height,width,3), dtype=np.float64), minb
for y in range(0, height):
a = mina
for x in range(0, width):
ab = mandel(a, b, maxit, inf)
if ab[0] == maxit:
l[x,y:] = [1,1,1]
#if ab[0] < maxit:
#smoothit = mandelc(ab[0], ab[1], ab[2])
#l[x, y] = colorsys.hsv_to_rgb(smoothit, 1, 1)
a += abs(mina-maxa)/width
b += abs(minb-maxb)/height
img = Image.fromarray(l, "RGB")
img.show()
def mandel(re, im, maxit, inf):
z = complex(re, im)
c,it = z,0
for i in range(0, maxit):
if abs(z) > inf:
break
z,it = z*z+c,it+1
return it,z,inf
def mandelc(it,z,inf):
return (it+1-log(log(abs(z)))/log(2))
UPDATE 1:
I realised that one of the major errors in this program (I'm sure there are many) is the fact that I was using the x,y coords as the complex coefficients! So, 0 to 100 instead of -1.25 to 1.25! I have changed this so that the code now uses variables a,b to describe them, incremented in a manner I've stolen from some of my code in the turtle version. The code above has been updated accordingly. Since the Smooth Colouring Algorithm code is currently commented out for debugging, the inf variable has been reduced to 2 in size.
UPDATE 2:
I have edited the numpy index with help from a great user. The program now outputs this when set to 200 by 200:
As you can see, it definitely shows some mathematical shape and yet is filled with all these strange red, green and blue pixels! Why could these be here? My program can only set RGB values to [1,1,1] or leave it as a default [0,0,0]. It can't be [1,0,0] or anything like that - this must be a serious flaw...
UPDATE 3:
I think there is an error with NumPy and PIL's integration. If I make l = np.zeros((100, 100, 3)) and then state l[0,0,:] = 1 and finally img = Image.fromarray(l) & img.show(), this is what we get:
Here we get a series of coloured pixels. This calls for another question.
UPDATE 4:
I have no idea what was happening previously, but it seems with a np.uint8 array, Image.fromarray() uses colour values from 0-255. With this piece of wisdom, I move one step closer to understanding this Mandelbug!
Now, I do get something vaguely mathematical, however it still outputs strange things.
This dot is all there is... I get even stranger things if I change to np.uint16, I presume due to the different byte-shape and encoding scheme.

You are indexing the 3D array l incorrectly, try
l[x,y,:] = [1,1,1]
instead. For more details on how to access and modify numpy arrays have a look at numpy indexing
As a side note: the quickstart documentation of numpy actually has an implementation of the mandelbrot set generation and plotting.

Better image normalization with numpy

I already achieved the goal described in the title but I was wondering if there was a more efficient (or generally better) way to do it. First of all let me introduce the problem.
I have a set of images of different sizes but with a width/height ratio less than (or equal) 2 (could be anything but let's say 2 for now), I want to normalize each one, meaning I want all of them to have the same size. Specifically I am going to do so like this:
Extract the max height above all images
Zoom the image so that each image reaches the max height keeping its ratio
Add a padding to the right with just white pixels until the image has a width/height ratio of 2
Keep in mind the images are represented as numpy matrices of grey scale values [0,255].
This is how I'm doing it now in Python:
max_height = numpy.max([len(obs) for obs in data if len(obs[0])/len(obs) <= 2])
for obs in data:
if len(obs[0])/len(obs) <= 2:
new_img = ndimage.zoom(obs, round(max_height/len(obs), 2), order=3)
missing_cols = max_height * 2 - len(new_img[0])
norm_img = []
for row in new_img:
norm_img.append(np.pad(row, (0, missing_cols), mode='constant', constant_values=255))
norm_img = np.resize(norm_img, (max_height, max_height*2))
There's a note about this code:
I'm rounding the zoom ratio because it makes the final height equal to max_height, I'm sure this is not the best approach but it's working (any suggestion is appreciated here). What I'd like to do is to expand the image keeping the ratio until it reaches a height equal to max_height. This is the only solution I found so far and it worked right away, the interpolation works pretty good.
So my final questions are:
Is there a better approach to achieve what explained above (image normalization) ? Do you think I could have done this differently ? Is there a common good practice I'm not following ?
Thanks in advance for your time.

Instead of ndimage.zoom you could use
scipy.misc.imresize. This
function allows you to specify the target size as a tuple, instead of by zoom
factor. Thus you won't have to call np.resize later to get the size exactly as
desired.
Note that scipy.misc.imresize calls
PIL.Image.resize
under the hood, so PIL (or Pillow) is a dependency.
Instead of using np.pad in a for-loop, you could allocate space for the desired array, norm_arr, first:
norm_arr = np.full((max_height, max_width), fill_value=255)
and then copy the resized image, new_arr into norm_arr:
nh, nw = new_arr.shape
norm_arr[:nh, :nw] = new_arr
For example,
from __future__ import division
import numpy as np
from scipy import misc
data = [np.linspace(255, 0, i*10).reshape(i,10)
for i in range(5, 100, 11)]
max_height = np.max([len(obs) for obs in data if len(obs[0])/len(obs) <= 2])
max_width = 2*max_height
result = []
for obs in data:
norm_arr = obs
h, w = obs.shape
if float(w)/h <= 2:
scale_factor = max_height/float(h)
target_size = (max_height, int(round(w*scale_factor)))
new_arr = misc.imresize(obs, target_size, interp='bicubic')
norm_arr = np.full((max_height, max_width), fill_value=255)
# check the shapes
# print(obs.shape, new_arr.shape, norm_arr.shape)
nh, nw = new_arr.shape
norm_arr[:nh, :nw] = new_arr
result.append(norm_arr)
# visually check the result
# misc.toimage(norm_arr).show()

What is the difference between mat and matND?

I am trying to extract data from a binary mask. All goes well but changing to python will cause the data to shift a few pixels. It is enough so I cannot find the center. However saving the image will oldly enough display the pixels at the correct location
Here is my code. I basically create a normal mat to use as output. However a matnd is outputed according to the docs
Am I extracting the data properly? If so tell me. I am trying to find the center given points along the center. I kidda dont want my data to be shifted.
import cv2.cv as cv
def main():
imgColor = cv.LoadImage(OPTICIMAGE, cv.CV_LOAD_IMAGE_COLOR)
center, radius = centerandradus(imgColor)
def centerandradus(cvImg, ColorLower=None,ColorUpper=None):
lowerBound = cv.Scalar(130, 0, 130);
upperBound = cv.Scalar(171, 80, 171);
size = cv.GetSize(cvImg)
output = cv.CreateMat(size[0],size[1],cv.CV_8UC1)
cv.InRangeS(cvImg, lowerBound, upperBound,output)
mask = np.asarray( output[:,:] )
x,y = np.nonzero(mask)
x, y = np.array(x),np.array(y)
h,k = centerEstimate(x,y)
return np.array([h,k]), radius
def centerEstimate(xList,yList):
x_m = np.mean( np.r_[xList])
y_m = np.mean( np.r_[yList])
return x_m, y_m
Edit: I think it the problem with matND, since i notice the data is already shifted when I try to print out the data. If you need any more information please ask
Thank You for your time

It seems there is no more differences between Mat and MatND. MatND is now obsolete.
By looking at opencv2/core.hpp (version 2.4.8):
typedef Mat MatND;

I learn that the orientation of the data is different when I use findcontours or this matrix.
This matrix use height X width, while the contour put is as width X height. I hate reading apis.