I am writing a mesh editor where I have manipulators with the help of which I change the vertices of the mesh. The task is to render the manipulators with constant dimensions, which would not change when changing the camera and viewport parameters. The projection matrix is perspective. I will be grateful for ideas how to implement the invariant scale geometry.
If I got it right you want to render some markers (for example vertex drag editation area) with the same visual size for any depth they are rendered to.
There are 2 approaches for this:
scale with depth
compute perpendicular distance to camera view (simple dot product) and scale the marker size so it has the same visual size invariant on the depth.
So if P0 is your camera position and Z is your camera view direction unit vector (usually Z axis). Then for any position P compute the scale like this:
depth = dot(P-P0,Z)
Now the scale depends on wanted visual size0 at some specified depth0. Now using triangle similarity we want:
size/dept = size0/depth0
size = size0*depth/depth0
so render your marker with size or scale depth/depth0. In case of using scaling you need to scale around your target position P otherwise your marker would shift to the sides (so translate, scale, translate back).
compute screen position and use non perspective rendering
so you transform target coordinates the same way as the graphic pipeline does until you got the screen x,y position. Remember it and in pass that will render your markers just use that instead of real position. For this rendering pass either use some constant depth (distance from camera) or use non perspective view matrix.
For more info see Understanding 4x4 homogenous transform matrices
[Edit1] pixel size
you need to use FOVx,FOVy projection angles and view/screen resolution (xs,ys) for that. That means if depth is znear and coordinate is at half of the angle then the projected coordinate will go to edge of screen:
tan(FOVx/2) = (xs/2)*pixelx/znear
tan(FOVy/2) = (ys/2)*pixely/znear
---------------------------------
pixelx = 2*znear*tan(FOVx/2)/xs
pixely = 2*znear*tan(FOVy/2)/ys
Where pixelx,pixely is size (per axis) representing single pixel visually at depth znear. In case booth sizes are the same (so pixel is square) you have all you need. In case they are not equal (pixel is not square) then you need to render markers in screen axis aligned coordinates so approach #2 is more suitable for such case.
So if you chose depth0=znear then you can set size0 as n*pixelx and/or n*pixely to get the visual size of n pixels. Or use any dept0 and rewrite the computation to:
pixelx = 2*depth0*tan(FOVx/2)/xs
pixely = 2*depth0*tan(FOVy/2)/ys
Just to be complete:
size0x = size_in_pixels*(2*depth0*tan(FOVx/2)/xs)
size0y = size_in_pixels*(2*depth0*tan(FOVy/2)/ys)
-------------------------------------------------
sizex = size_in_pixels*(2*depth0*tan(FOVx/2)/xs)*(depth/depth0)
sizey = size_in_pixels*(2*depth0*tan(FOVy/2)/ys)*(depth/depth0)
---------------------------------------------------------------
sizex = size_in_pixels*(2*tan(FOVx/2)/xs)*(depth)
sizey = size_in_pixels*(2*tan(FOVy/2)/ys)*(depth)
---------------------------------------------------------------
sizex = size_in_pixels*2*depth*tan(FOVx/2)/xs
sizey = size_in_pixels*2*depth*tan(FOVy/2)/ys
I have an image
I have obtained its phase only reconstructed image using fftn function.
My aim is
Using phase only reconstruction of the given image,i will get only edges and lines
Then i want to color these lines and edges say with red or blue color in the phase only reconstructed image.
Then i want to put this "colored" image on original image so that edges and lines from the original images can be high-lightened with respective red or blue color.
But when i run the code, i get following error
'Subscript indices must either be real positive integers or logicals.
Error in sagar_image (line 17)
superimposing(ph) = 255;'
So what should I do?
clc;
close all;
clear all;
img=imread('D:\baby2.jpg');
figure,imshow(img);
img=rgb2gray(img);
fourier_transform=fftn(img);%take fourier transform of gray scale image
phase=exp(1j*angle(fourier_transform));
phase_only=ifftn(phase);%compute phase only reconstruction
figure,imshow(phase_only,[]);
ph=im2uint8(phase_only);%convert image from double to uint8
superimposing = img;
superimposing(ph) = 255;
figure,
imshow(superimposing,[]),
superimposing(ph) = 255 could mean -
1. ph contains indices of superimposing that you wish to paint white(255).
2. ph is a 'logical' image of the same size as superimposing, every pixel that evaluates to 'true' in ph would be painted white in superimposing.
What you meant was probably:
threshold = 0.2;
superimposing(real(phase_only) > threshold) = 255;
If you want to fuse the two images and see them one on top of the other use imfuse:
imshow(imfuse(real(phase_only), img, 'blend'))
I know this thread about converting black color to white and white to black simultaneously.
I would like to convert only black to white.
I know this thread about doing this what I am asking but I do not understand what goes wrong.
Picture
Code
rgbImage = imread('ecg.png');
grayImage = rgb2gray(rgbImage); % for non-indexed images
level = graythresh(grayImage); % threshold for converting image to binary,
binaryImage = im2bw(grayImage, level);
% Extract the individual red, green, and blue color channels.
redChannel = rgbImage(:, :, 1);
greenChannel = rgbImage(:, :, 2);
blueChannel = rgbImage(:, :, 3);
% Make the black parts pure red.
redChannel(~binaryImage) = 255;
greenChannel(~binaryImage) = 0;
blueChannel(~binaryImage) = 0;
% Now recombine to form the output image.
rgbImageOut = cat(3, redChannel, greenChannel, blueChannel);
imshow(rgbImageOut);
Which gives
Where seems to be something wrong in red color channel.
The Black color is just (0,0,0) in RGB so its removal should mean to turn every (0,0,0) pixel to white (255,255,255).
Doing this idea with
redChannel(~binaryImage) = 255;
greenChannel(~binaryImage) = 255;
blueChannel(~binaryImage) = 255;
Gives
So I must have misunderstood something in Matlab. The blue color should not have any black. So this last image is strange.
How can you turn only black color to white?
I want to keep the blue color of the ECG.
If I understand you properly, you want to extract out the blue ECG plot while removing the text and axes. The best way to do that would be to examine the HSV colour space of the image. The HSV colour space is great for discerning colours just like the way humans do. We can clearly see that there are two distinct colours in the image.
We can convert the image to HSV using rgb2hsv and we can examine the components separately. The hue component represents the dominant colour of the pixel, the saturation denotes the purity or how much white light there is in the pixel and the value represents the intensity or strength of the pixel.
Try visualizing each channel doing:
im = imread('http://i.stack.imgur.com/cFOSp.png'); %// Read in your image
hsv = rgb2hsv(im);
figure;
subplot(1,3,1); imshow(hsv(:,:,1)); title('Hue');
subplot(1,3,2); imshow(hsv(:,:,2)); title('Saturation');
subplot(1,3,3); imshow(hsv(:,:,3)); title('Value');
Hmm... well the hue and saturation don't help us at all. It's telling us the dominant colour and saturation are the same... but what sets them apart is the value. If you take a look at the image on the right, we can tell them apart by the strength of the colour itself. So what it's telling us is that the "black" pixels are actually blue but with almost no strength associated to it.
We can actually use this to our advantage. Any pixels whose values are above a certain value are the values we want to keep.
Try setting a threshold... something like 0.75. MATLAB's dynamic range of the HSV values are from [0-1], so:
mask = hsv(:,:,3) > 0.75;
When we threshold the value component, this is what we get:
There's obviously a bit of quantization noise... especially around the axes and font. What I'm going to do next is perform a morphological erosion so that I can eliminate the quantization noise that's around each of the numbers and the axes. I'm going to make it the mask a bit large to ensure that I remove this noise. Using the image processing toolbox:
se = strel('square', 5);
mask_erode = imerode(mask, se);
We get this:
Great, so what I'm going to do now is make a copy of your original image, then set any pixel that is black from the mask I derived (above) to white in the final image. All of the other pixels should remain intact. This way, we can remove any text and the axes seen in your image:
im_final = im;
mask_final = repmat(mask_erode, [1 1 3]);
im_final(~mask_final) = 255;
I need to replicate the mask in the third dimension because this is a colour image and I need to set each channel to 255 simultaneously in the same spatial locations.
When I do that, this is what I get:
Now you'll notice that there are gaps in the graph.... which is to be expected due to quantization noise. We can do something further by converting this image to grayscale and thresholding the image, then filling joining the edges together by a morphological dilation. This is safe because we have already eliminated the axies and text. We can then use this as a mask to index into the original image to obtain our final graph.
Something like this:
im2 = rgb2gray(im_final);
thresh = im2 < 200;
se = strel('line', 10, 90);
im_dilate = imdilate(thresh, se);
mask2 = repmat(im_dilate, [1 1 3]);
im_final_final = 255*ones(size(im), class(im));
im_final_final(mask2) = im(mask2);
I threshold the previous image that we got without the text and axes after I convert it to grayscale, and then I perform dilation with a line structuring element that is 90 degrees in order to connect those lines that were originally disconnected. This thresholded image will contain the pixels that we ultimately need to sample from the original image so that we can get the graph data we need.
I then take this mask, replicate it, make a completely white image and then sample from the original image and place the locations we want from the original image in the white image.
This is our final image:
Very nice! I had to do all of that image processing because your image basically has quantization noise to begin with, so it's going to be a bit harder to get the graph entirely. Ander Biguri in his answer explained in more detail about colour quantization noise so certainly check out his post for more details.
However, as a qualitative measure, we can subtract this image from the original image and see what is remaining:
imshow(rgb2gray(abs(double(im) - double(im_final_final))));
We get:
So it looks like the axes and text are removed fine, but there are some traces in the graph that we didn't capture from the original image and that makes sense. It all has to do with the proper thresholds you want to select in order to get the graph data. There are some trouble spots near the beginning of the graph, and that's probably due to the morphological processing that I did. This image you provided is quite tricky with the quantization noise, so it's going to be very difficult to get a perfect result. Also, these thresholds unfortunately are all heuristic, so play around with the thresholds until you get something that agrees with you.
Good luck!
What's the problem?
You want to detect all black parts of the image, but they are not really black
Example:
Your idea (or your code):
You first binarize the image, selecting the pixels that ARE something against the pixels that are not. In short, you do: if pixel>level; pixel is something
Therefore there is a small misconception you have here! when you write
% Make the black parts pure red.
it should read
% Make every pixel that is something (not background) pure red.
Therefore, when you do
redChannel(~binaryImage) = 255;
greenChannel(~binaryImage) = 255;
blueChannel(~binaryImage) = 255;
You are doing
% Make every pixel that is something (not background) white
% (or what it is the same in this case, delete them).
Therefore what you should get is a completely white image. The image is not completely white because there has been some pixels that were labelled as "not something, part of the background" by the value of level, in case of your image around 0.6.
A solution that one could think of is manually setting the level to 0.05 or similar, so only black pixels will be selected in the gray to binary threholding. But this will not work 100%, as you can see, the numbers have some very "no-black" values.
How would I try to solve the problem:
I would try to find the colour you want, extract just that colour from the image, and then delete outliers.
Extract blue using HSV (I believe I answered you somewhere else how to use HSV).
rgbImage = imread('ecg.png');
hsvImage=rgb2hsv(rgbImage);
I=rgbImage;
R=I(:,:,1);
G=I(:,:,2);
B=I(:,:,3);
th=0.1;
R((hsvImage(:,:,1)>(280/360))|(hsvImage(:,:,1)<(200/360)))=255;
G((hsvImage(:,:,1)>(280/360))|(hsvImage(:,:,1)<(200/360)))=255;
B((hsvImage(:,:,1)>(280/360))|(hsvImage(:,:,1)<(200/360)))=255;
I2= cat(3, R, G, B);
imshow(I2)
Once here we would like to get the biggest blue part, and that would be our signal. Therefore the best approach seems to first binarize the image taking all blue pixels
% Binarize image, getting all the pixels that are "blue"
bw=im2bw(rgb2gray(I2),0.9999);
And then using bwlabel, label all the independent pixel "islands".
% Label each "blob"
lbl=bwlabel(~bw);
The label most repeated will be the signal. So we find it and separate the background from the signal using that label.
% Find the blob with the highes amount of data. That will be your signal.
r=histc(lbl(:),1:max(lbl(:)));
[~,idxmax]=max(r);
% Profit!
signal=rgbImage;
signal(repmat((lbl~=idxmax),[1 1 3]))=255;
background=rgbImage;
background(repmat((lbl==idxmax),[1 1 3]))=255;
Here there is a plot with the signal, background and difference (using the same equation as #rayryang used)
Here is a variation on #rayryeng's solution to extract the blue signal:
%// retrieve picture
imgRGB = imread('http://i.stack.imgur.com/cFOSp.png');
%// detect axis lines and labels
imgHSV = rgb2hsv(imgRGB);
BW = (imgHSV(:,:,3) < 1);
BW = imclose(imclose(BW, strel('line',40,0)), strel('line',10,90));
%// clear those masked pixels by setting them to background white color
imgRGB2 = imgRGB;
imgRGB2(repmat(BW,[1 1 3])) = 255;
%// show extracted signal
imshow(imgRGB2)
To get a better view, here is the detected mask overlayed on top of the original image (I'm using imoverlay function from the File Exchange):
figure
imshow(imoverlay(imgRGB, BW, uint8([255,0,0])))
Here is a code for this:
rgbImage = imread('ecg.png');
redChannel = rgbImage(:, :, 1);
greenChannel = rgbImage(:, :, 2);
blueChannel = rgbImage(:, :, 3);
black = ~redChannel&~greenChannel&~blueChannel;
redChannel(black) = 255;
greenChannel(black) = 255;
blueChannel(black) = 255;
rgbImageOut = cat(3, redChannel, greenChannel, blueChannel);
imshow(rgbImageOut);
black is the area containing the black pixels. These pixels are set to white in each color channel.
In your code you use a threshold and a grayscale image so of course you have much bigger area of pixels that is set to white resp. red color. In this code only pixel that contain absolutly no red, green and blue are set to white.
The following code does the same with a threshold for each color channel:
rgbImage = imread('ecg.png');
redChannel = rgbImage(:, :, 1);
greenChannel = rgbImage(:, :, 2);
blueChannel = rgbImage(:, :, 3);
black = (redChannel<150)&(greenChannel<150)&(blueChannel<150);
redChannel(black) = 255;
greenChannel(black) = 255;
blueChannel(black) = 255;
rgbImageOut = cat(3, redChannel, greenChannel, blueChannel);
imshow(rgbImageOut);
Explanation
I have a semi-transparent color of unknown value.
I have a sample of this unknown color composited over a black background and another sample over a white background.
How do I find the RGBA value of the unknown color?
Example
Note: RGB values of composites are calculated using formulas from the Wikipedia article on alpha compositing
Composite over black:
rgb(103.5, 32.5, 169.5)
Composite over white:
rgb(167.25, 96, 233.25)
Calculated value of unknown color will be:
rgba(138, 43, 226, 0.75)
What I've Read
Manually alpha blending an RGBA pixel with an RGB pixel
Calculate source RGBA value from overlay
It took some experimentation, but I think I figured it out.
Subtracting any of the color component values between the black and white composite should give you the inverse of the original color's alpha value, eg:
A_original = 1 - ((R_white_composite - R_black_composite) / 255) // in %, 0.0 to 1.0
It should yield the same value whether you use the R, G, or B component. Now that you have the original alpha, finding the new components is as easy as:
R_original = R_black_composite / A_original
G_original = G_black_composite / A_original
B_original = B_black_composite / A_original
Though I have found a lot of topics on color tint and temperature, but till now I have not seen any definite solution, which is the reason I am creating this post..My apologies for that.
I am interested in adjusting color temp and tint in images from RGB values, somewhat similar to the iPhoto application found in iOS where it can be adjusted with a slider bar from left to right.
Whatever I have found, temp and tint are orthogonal properties, where temp adjustment is along the blue (left; cool colors)--yellow(right; warm colors) and tint along the green (left) -- magenta (right) axis.
How do I adjust them using formulas from RGB values i.e., uderlying implementation of the color temp and tint slider bars.
I can convert them to HSV space and then I can rotate the hue wheel channel towards those (blue, yello, green, magenta) angles, but how to do them in a systematic fashion similar to the slider bar implementation by changing gradually from low level (middle of the slider bar) to high level (right/left ends of the slider bar).
Thanks!
You should try using HSL instead of HSV. HSL saturation separates itself from the hue and luminosity has very definitive range when it comes to mathematical calculation.
In HSL, to add tint you move the L factor between 50-100 and to add shade the L factor varies between 0-50. Also saturation for HSL controls the tone directly unlike HSV.
For temperature, you have to devise your own stratagy changing the color between red and blue but one golden hint that I can give you is "every pure RGB color has one of 3 color values as zero, second fixed to 255 and 3rd varies with the factor of 255/60.
Hope this helps-
Whereas color temparature is a physical value, its expression
in terms of RGB values
not
trivial. If all you need is a pair of orthogonal axes in the RGB colorspace for the visual adjustment of white balance, they can be defined with relative ease in such a way as to resemble the true color temperature and its derivative the tint.
Let us name our RGB temperature BY—for the balance between blue and yellow, and our RGB tint GR—for the balance balance between green and red. Now, these functions must satisfy the following obvious requirements:
They shall not depend on brightness, or be invariant to multiplication of all the RGB components by the same factor:
BY(r,g,b) = BY(kr, kg, kb),
GR(r,g,b) = GR(kr, kg, kb).
They shall be zero for neutral gray:
BY(0,0,0) = 0,
GR(0,0,0) = 0.
They shall belong the to same range, symmetrical around zero point. I will use [-1..+1]
Any combination of BY and GR shall define a valid color.
Now, one of the ways to define them could be:
BY = (r + g - 2b)/(r + g + 2b),
GR = (r - g )/(r + g) .
so that each pair of BY and GR determines a specific proportion
r:g:b = (1 + BY)(1 + GR)
(1 + BY)(1 - GR)
1 - BY
The following image shows the colors of maximum brightness on our BY-GR plane. BY is directed right, GR down, and the neutral point (0,0) is at the center:
Proper
adjustment of white balance consists of multiplication of the linear RGB values by individual factors:
r_new = wb_r * r_old
g_new = wb_g * g_old
b_new = wb_b * b_old
It happens to work on gamma-compressed RGB too, but not so well on sRGB, because of a
piece-wise
definition of its transfer function, but the distortion will be small and often unnoticeable. If you want a perfect adjustment, however, make sure to work in linear RGB.
Once a BY-GR pair is chosen and the corresponding RGB proportion calculated, only one degree of freedom remains—the overall multiplier (see req. 1). Choose it so that no pixels become clipped.