I'm trying to view some images that are currently doubles. If I use imtool/imshow I get an image that looks like a binary with only the darkest portion of the image as black and the rest white. If I move the cursor over the image I see a wide range of double values. I can view the image fine if I use:
imtool(uint8(image))
but I'm concerned that I'm losing information doing this. Is there a way to display the double without converting it to a format where I loose info?
Related
I have grayscale satellite image which is processed from spectral data (band classifications). If i use jet colormap in imshow it will show absolute colormapped image. But if i try to imwrite in particular place it is saved like a bluish image. I saw one example in matlab central, but i didnt get. can anyone help me to write my image with colorscaled image.
Matlab central link: http://www.mathworks.in/matlabcentral/answers/25026-saving-grayscale-image-as-it-appears-in-jet-colormap-of-imagesc
there accepted answer link is : http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/7943
I have tried many times, this will show colormaped images in plots (imshow) they didnt write anywhere with colormaped. Now i want to write my image with colormaped.
example code:
I= imread('image path');
imshow(I,'colormap',jet);
imwrite(I,'path','jpg'); /not working
or
imwrite(I,jet,'path','jpg'); /not working
Please help to solve this issue.
When you use imshow the colormap is always adjusted to the range of values in your image. imwrite however assumes your image has a value range of [0,1] if you are using single or double data types. Try to scale your image to the range [0,1] before saving.
If you provide a colormap in the call to imwrite, MATLAB assumes you are using an indexed image. Thus you will have to convert the image to the indexed format first. The following snippet worked for a test image I of mine:
% scale to [0,1]
I = I - min(I(:));
I = I ./ max(I(:));
% Create indexed image
[J,~] = gray2ind(I);
% Save image
imwrite(J,jet,'path','jpg');
Solution by hbaderts worked well for me, but later I found out that some images were still scaled slightly different way from imshow.
However, I might found a reason of an original problem. Just after Matlab starts, its default colormaps (including 'jet') are set to 64 colors (64x3). Then, if any image is shown with a colormap, for example if imshow('cameraman.tif'), colormap('jet') is executed, all default colormaps become 256x3 (can be verified with jetMap=jet; before and after). Then it might happen that an image was written with a colormap different from the one applied to image figure (for example, if a figure called after imwrite).
Finally I found this solution (no image pre-scaling needed):
% Create indexed image, explicitly using 256 colors
imInd=gray2ind(im,256);
% Convert indexed image to RGB using 256-colors jet map
jetRGB=ind2rgb(imInd,jet(256));
% Save image
imwrite(jetRGB,'jet.png');
The images I used have the same color scale now, both the saved one and the one shown in figure.
We are using Crystal report XI, have to show image on the report, right now we are able to show the images. here my problem is we are cropping the image with a fixed width and height then converting the image into binary array (one way to display images on report) in this way images are blurred. Reason to do like this is we may have big size images also for that we are cropping images. Is there any way to display images with fixed size in the report.
Note: We may have small and big images also finally we need to display with a constant size on report.
Regards,
Chakradhar.
Why don't yo store the pictures as binary in the database and save yourself the conversion when inserting them into the report? You would need a BLOB column in your database in order to be able to insert the pictures into your database. Alternatively you could insert the images as OLE objects instead of pictures and also decreasing the color depth and using the bitmap format (.bmp) will help you keep the file size down.
I have a report that renders images (jpg) that have been collected from various sources. This works fine within the report viewer, and when exporting via Excel.
However, when exporting to PDF, about 5% of the images are rendered incorrectly as can be seen below, with the original on the left, and what is rendered on the right;
I find that if I open up one of these images in mspaint, and just click save, on the next report-run the image is now rendered correctly.
Are there any rules as to what image properties/format are valid for SSRS to render the image correctly within a PDF? Essentially I'd like to somehow find these images that will render incorrectly before the report is run and fix them prior...
Current Workaround
I never ended up getting SSRS to display the the problem images as they were, however, determining before running the report which images would be included in the non-displayable set so they could be converted to a supported format (automatically) was also a solution.
In my case, all images were supplied via users uploading to a website, so I was able to identify and convert images as they arrived. For all existing images, I was able to run a script that identified the problem images and convert them.
Identifying problem images
From the thousands of images I had, I was able to determine that the images that wouldn't render correctly had the following properties:
Image had CMYK colorspace or;
Image had extended color profiles or;
Both of the above
Converting an image
I was originally using the standard .NET GDI (System.Drawing) to manipulate images however the API is often prone to crashes (OutOfMemoryException) when dealing with images that have extra data. As such, I switched to using ImageMagick where for each of the identified images I:
Stripped the color profiles and;
Converted to RGB
Note that the conversion to RGB from CMYK without stripping the color profiles was not enough to get all images to render properly.
I ended up just doing those items on every image byte stream I received from users (without first identifying the problem) before saving an uploaded image to disk. After which, I never had the rendering problem again.
Because of the way the output looks I would say those JPEG images have CMYK colorspace but the SSRS assumes they use RGB colorspace and sets the wrong colorspace in PDF.
If you can post a JPEG image and a sample PDF I can give you more details.
I've had exactly the same problem with an image rendering correctly on screen but appearing like the one in the question when I exported the report to PDF. Here's how I solved it.
The Problem
The first clue was this article I came across on MSDN. It seems that regardless of the original image density, the PDF renderer in SSRS resizes all images to 96 DPI. If the original size of the image is larger than the size of the page (or container), then you will get this problem.
The Solution
The solution is to resize the source image such that it will fit on your page. The requires a little calculation depending on your page size and margin settings.
In my case, I'm using A4 paper size, which is 21cm by 29.7cm. However, my left margin is 1.5cm, and my right margin is 0.5cm, for a total inner width of 19cm. I allow an extra 0.5 cm as a margin of error, so I use an inner width of 18.5cm.
21 cm - 1.5 cm - 0.5 cm - 0.5 cm = 18.5 cm
As noted before, the resolution generated by the PDF renderer is 96 DPI (dots per inch). For those of us not in the United States or Republic of Liberia, that's 37.79 DPC (dots per centimetre). So, to get our width:
18.5 cm * 37.79 dpc = 699 pixels
Your result may be different depending on (1) the paper size you are using, and (2) the left and right margins.
As the page is higher than it is wide, we need only resize the width while keeping the image proportional. If you're using a paper size which is wider than it is tall, you'd use the length instead.
So now open the source image in Paint (or your image editor of choice), and proportionally resize the image to the desired width (or length) in pixels, save it, import it into your container, and size the image visually with respect to the container. It should look the same on screen, and now render correctly to PDF.
This is an issue reported to Microsoft Connect.
From SSRS 2008 How to get the best image quality possible?:
The image behavior you see in PDF is a result of some image conversions that the PDF renderer does, based on how the PDF specification requires that serialize images into PDF.
We know it's not ideal, and we classify the loss of image quality as a product issue. Therefore, it's difficult to really say what to do to get the best quality image.
Anecdotally, I have heard that customers have good results when the original image is a BMP
this question is in close relation to Firefox 3.5 color correction hack?
The situation I have is that there's a canvas game of mine, and the images that are used in it carry additional information about their shape, connection points etc. This information is stored in the PNG image itself, using meaningful colours (eg RGB(255,255,0) for connection point).
Loading element and painting on the canvas creates Image object, img.src is set, and in img.load function I preprocess image data reading the sensitive information (and removing sensitive pixels from the image data before painting to canvas).
The problem: In FF, the pixel which was supposed to be 255,255,0 is actually 255,254,0. I don't have problems with FF color correction (I don't care if the displayed image has right colors, or slightly modified), but I'd expect that getting image data gives me uncorrected data. I'm looking for a solution which would not involve changing images on the server. Is there some way? Eg.
img.setColorProfile(), or
img.disableColorCorrection(), or
img.getImageData(disableColorCorrection) or img.getImageData(colorProfile)?
The problem might have do more with image loading than image drawing.
I think the proper solution is to strip out color profile information from the images (which you seem to want to aovid). If possible server another image resources for Firefox if you cannot need to have the original data intact.
http://f6design.com/journal/2006/12/01/fixing-png-gamma/
Also, you could decode PNG immages in pure Javascript if the server is co-operate and allows CORS and AJAX loading of the images. You decode the image in Javascript using png.js and create a source <canvas> from the image data (instead of <img>). This way it's you in the control what RGB values comes out from each PNG pixel.
https://github.com/devongovett/png.js
Here is an image:
This image is a simple black-to-transparent gradient saved in full RGBA PNG.
Here is the same image, converted to indexed-alpha PNG by GIMP (Photoshop produces the same result)
As you can see, the gradient is now half-opaque, half-transparent.
Here is the same image again, only this time it was converted to indexed-alpha PNG by a PHP script I wrote:
So my question is: Why are GIMP and Photoshop unable to support partial transparency in indexed images, when the PHP script clearly shows that such an image can be created with no problems?
Is there anything "wrong" with an image whose pallette contains alpha information?
A more programming-related question: Does this transparency in the last image work in Internet Explorer 6?
I've finally found the actual answer: There is a metadata entry that allows you to define the alpha value of each colour in the colour table. Most graphics programs don't make use of this, but it does exist and can be used, in particular by GD.
Another option besides fireworks is pngquant, a command line application that will convert a rgba png into an indexed png with transparency.
I found this post which talks some more about how to use it.
IE6 and earlier in windows does not support variable transparency PNGs without annoying workarounds. An indexed PNG will only show the fully opaque parts which usually works pretty well. A drop shadow would disappear but the opaque parts of the logo or icon would continue to show.
This page has a better explanation and instructions with more png compression and quantization tools: http://calendar.perfplanet.com/2010/png-that-works/
For the record, PNG does not literally support indexed images with an alpha channel. What is really happening is that PNG allows you to add additional colors to the color table (i.e. index) with alpha values in those colors... not a complete alpha channel. FWIW...
Yeah I know what you mean. Fireworks is the only image editing program that I know of that can create and edit PNG8+Alpha without problems. I wish more paint programs would support this format cause Fireworks is expensive!
I found a way in GIMP to create or convert an image with reduced color palette and alpha channel.
The trick is to add a mask to the layer.
Full steps to reproduce:
Have your image in one layer
Add a mask to the layer. Select Transfer layer's alpha channel.
Convert to Indexed (Image -> Mode -> Indexed...)
Save as PNG
Now your image has reduced colors and reduced size, but it keeps your smooth transparency.