I am attempting to bring two images together in Autocad. In a nutshell, I am attempting to see how many of the smaller object I can fit into the larger one. When I copy the smaller pieces drawing, into the larger one, the smaller object appears way bigger in the viewport.
I need to know how to match the settings so that the when the images come on the same page, they are in correct proportion to one another.
This is typically done by comparing each drawing file to find out what units each is in. Then by using the xref command to import on drawing on top of the other at origin specified or 0,0,0 on can scale the xref to match the units of one drawing or easier still just make sure the units in both drawings are the same such as Imperial default units to feet or inches.
Related
I have this 2d raster upon which are layered from 1 to say 20 other 2d rasters (with random size and offset). I'm searching for fast way to access a sub-rectangle view (with random size and offset). The view should return all the layered pixels for each X and Y coordinate.
I guess this is kind of how say, GIMP or other 2d paint apps draw layers upon each other, with the exception that I want to have all the pixels upon each other, and not just projection where the top pixel hides the other ones below it.
I have met this problem and before and I still do now, spend already a lot time to search around internet and here about similar issues, but can't find any. I will describe two possible solution, both from which I'm not satisfied:
Have a basically 3d array of pre-allocated size. This is easy to manage but the storage wasted and memory overhead is really big. For 4k raster of say 16 slots, 4 bytes each, is like 1 GiB of memory? And in application case, most of that space will be wasted, not used.
My solution which I made before. Have two 2d arrays, one is with indices, the other with actual values. Each "pixel" of the first one says in which range of pixels in the second array you can find the actual pixels contributed from all layers. This is well compressed on size, but any request is bouncing between two memory regions and is a bit hassle to setup, not to mention update (a nice to have feature, but not mandatory).
So... any know-how on such kind of problem? Thank you in advance!
Forgot to add that I'm targeting self-sufficient, preferably single thread, CPU solution. The layers, will be most likely greyscale with alpha (that is, certain pixel data will not existent). Lookup operation is priority, updates like adding/removing a layer can be more slow.
Added by Mark (see comment):
In that image, if taking top-left corner of the red rectangle, a lookup should report red, green, blue and black. If the bottom-right corner is taken, it should report red and black only.
I would store the offsets and size in a data-structure separate from the pixel-data. This way you do not jump around in the memory while you calculate the relative coordinates for each layer (or even if you can ignore some layers).
If you want to access single pixels or small areas rather than iterating big areas a Quad-Tree might be a good idea to store your data with more local memory access while accessing pixels or areas which are near each other (in x or y direction).
I don't know much about image processing so please bear with me if this is not possible to implement.
I have several sets of aerial images of the same area originating from different sources. The pictures have been taken during different seasons, under different lighting conditions etc. Unfortunately some images look patchy and suffer from discolorations or are partially obstructed by clouds or pix-elated, as par example picture1 and picture2
I would like to take as an input several images of the same area and (by some kind of averaging them) produce 1 picture of improved quality. I know some C/C++ so I could use some image processing library.
Can anybody propose any image processing algorithm to achieve it or knows any research done in this field?
I would try with a "color twist" transform, i.e. a 3x3 matrix applied to the RGB components. To implement it, you need to pick color samples in areas that are split by a border, on both sides. You should fing three significantly different reference colors (hence six samples). This will allow you to write the nine linear equations to determine the matrix coefficients.
Then you will correct the altered areas by means of this color twist. As the geometry of these areas is intertwined with the field patches, I don't see a better way than contouring the regions by hand.
In the case of the second picture, the limits of the regions are blurred so that you will need to blur the region mask as well and perform blending.
In any case, don't expect a perfect repair of those problems as the transform might be nonlinear, and completely erasing the edges will be difficult. I also think that colors are so washed out at places that restoring them might create ugly artifacts.
For the sake of illustration, a quick attempt with PhotoShop using manual HLS adjustment (less powerful than color twist).
The first thing I thought of was a kernel matrix of sorts.
Do a first pass of the photo and use an edge detection algorithm to determine the borders between the photos - this should be fairly trivial, however you will need to eliminate any overlap/fading (looks like there's a bit in picture 2), you'll see why in a minute.
Do a second pass right along each border you've detected, and assume that the pixel on either side of the border should be the same color. Determine the difference between the red, green and blue values and average them along the entire length of the line, then divide it by two. The image with the lower red, green or blue value gets this new value added. The one with the higher red, green or blue value gets this value subtracted.
On either side of this line, every pixel should now be the exact same. You can remove one of these rows if you'd like, but if the lines don't run the length of the image this could cause size issues, and the line will likely not be very noticeable.
This could be made far more complicated by generating a filter by passing along this line - I'll leave that to you.
The issue with this could be where there was development/ fall colors etc, this might mess with your algorithm, but there's only one way to find out!
I am currently working on OCR software and my idea is to use templates to try to recognize data inside invoices.
However scanned invoices can have several 'flaws' with them:
Not all invoices, based on a single template, are correctly aligned under the scanner.
People can write on invoices
etc.
Example of invoice: (Have to google it, sadly cannot add a more concrete version as client data is confidential obviously)
I find my data in the invoices based on the x-values of the text.
However I need to know the scale of the invoice and the offset from left/right, before I can do any real calculations with all data that I have retrieved.
What have I tried so far?
1) Making the image monochrome and use the left and right bounds of the first appearance of a black pixel. This fails due to the fact that people can write on invoices.
2) Divide the invoice up in vertical sections, use the sections that have the highest amount of black pixels. Fails due to the fact that the distribution is not always uniform amongst similar templates.
I could really use your help on (1) how to identify important points in invoices and (2) on what I should focus as the important points.
I hope the question is clear enough as it is quite hard to explain.
Detecting rotation
I would suggest you start by detecting straight lines.
Look (perhaps randomly) for small areas with high contrast, i.e. mostly white but a fair amount of very black pixels as well. Then try to fit a line to these black pixels, e.g. using least squares method. Drop the outliers, and fit another line to the remaining points. Iterate this as required. Evaluate how good that fit is, i.e. how many of the pixels in the observed area are really close to the line, and how far that line extends beyond the observed area. Do this process for a number of regions, and you should get a weighted list of lines.
For each line, you can compute the direction of the line itself and the direction orthogonal to that. One of these numbers can be chosen from an interval [0°, 90°), the other will be 90° plus that value, so storing one is enough. Take all these directions, and find one angle which best matches all of them. You can do that using a sliding window of e.g. 5°: slide accross that (cyclic) region and find a value where the maximal number of lines are within the window, then compute the average or median of the angles within that window. All of this computation can be done taking the weights of the lines into account.
Once you have found the direction of lines, you can rotate your image so that the lines are perfectly aligned to the coordinate axes.
Detecting translation
Assuming the image wasn't scaled at any point, you can then try to use a FFT-based correlation of the image to match it to the template. Convert both images to gray, pad them with zeros till the originals take up at most 1/2 the edge length of the padded image, which preferrably should be a power of two. FFT both images in both directions, multiply them element-wise and iFFT back. The resulting image will encode how much the two images would agree for a given shift relative to one another. Simply find the maximum, and you know how to make them match.
Added text will cause no problems at all. This method will work best for large areas, like the company logo and gray background boxes. Thin lines will provide a poorer match, so in those cases you might have to blur the picture before doing the correlation, to broaden the features. You don't have to use the blurred image for further processing; once you know the offset you can return to the rotated but unblurred version.
Now you know both rotation and translation, and assumed no scaling or shearing, so you know exactly which portion of the template corresponds to which portion of the scan. Proceed.
If rotation is solved already, I'd just sum up all pixel color values horizontally and vertically to a single horizontal / vertical "line". This should provide clear spikes where you have horizontal and vertical lines in the form.
p.s. Generated a corresponding horizontal image with Gimp's scaling capabilities, attached below (it's a bit hard to see because it's only one pixel high and may get scaled down because it's > 700 px wide; the url is http://i.stack.imgur.com/Zy8zO.png ).
I have a large set of google maps api v3 polylines and markers that need to be rendered as transparent PNG's (implemented as ImageMapType). I've done all the math/geometry regarding transformations from latLng to pixel and tile coordinates.
The problem is: at the maximum allowable zoom for my app, that is 18, the compound image would span at least 80000 pixels both in width and height. So rendering it in one piece, then splitting it into tiles becomes impossible.
I tried the method of splitting polylines beforehand and placing the parts into tiles, then rendering each tile alone, which up until now works almost fine. But it will become very difficult when I will need to draw stylized markers / text and other fancy stuff, etc.
So far I used C# GDI+ as the drawing methods (the ol' Bitmap / Graphics pair).
Many questions here are about splitting an already existing image, storing, and linking it to the API. I already know how to do that.
My problem is how do I draw the initial very large image then split it up? It doesn't really need to be a true image/bitmap/call it whatever you want solution. A friend suggested me to use SVG but I don't know any good rendering solutions to suit my needs.
To make it a little easier to comprehend, think it in terms of input/output. My input is the data that I need to draw (lines, circles, text, etc) that spreads across tens of thousands of pixels, and the output must be the tiles. I really don't care what the 'magic box' is, and I don't even care what the platform is.
I ran into the same problem when creating custom tiles, and you are on the right track with your solution of creating one tile at a time. You just need to add some strategy to the process. What I do is like this:
Pseudo code:
for each tile {
- determine the lat/lon corners of the tile.
- query the database and load the objects that are within this tile.
for each object{
- calculate the tile pixels on which the object should be painted. [*A*]
- draw the object on the tile.
- Save the tile. (you're done with this tile).
}
}
alternatively:
Pseudo code:
- for each object to be drawn {
- determine what tile the object should be painted on.
- calculate the tile pixels on which the object should be painted.[*A*]
- get that tile, if it doesn't yet exist create a new one.
- draw the object on the tile.
- Save the tile. (you might need to draw more on this tile later)
}
I do this with Perl and the GD library.
[*A*] When painting objects that span more than one tile, if the object begins on the current tile then part of it will be left out automatically because you'll be attempting to paint outside the tile, while if the object began on the previous tile and you're drawing the second part then the pixel numbers should be negative, meaning that it began on the neighbor tile.
This is a bit hard to explain in a written post so please feel free to ask for further clarification if you need it and I'll edit the answer.
I'd recommend getting to know GDAL (http://gdal.org) and it's libraries. It has libraries for rasterization, tiling, data conversion, projections, warping, and much more.
I realize there might be a better place to ask this, but I think you all will have some valuable feedback.
People are asked to draw a shape in black on a white cavas. Then their drawing is added to the running average. I'd like to have the parts that the images mostly have in common be shown, and the parts of the drawing that are unlike most of the other drawings disappear.
My two problems are that I'm using ImageMagick to process the images, which means that I can only create a composite of two images at once. So I have the running total image, and the newest one to add. I cannot get a real average this way.
Secondly, I do not fully understand blending modes particularly when different opacities are involved. I'm not sure which is the best to use.
When you add the first two images you blend them equally. But then when you add the 3rd image to the mix you have to change the weight of each image. The two image composite should be blended at 66.6% while the new image should contribute just 33.3%. For the 4th image you will blend at 75% and 25% respectively. In general, if you have n images in the composite, then the new image should contribute 100/(n+1) percent when added.
As you see, the more images you have the less an individual image affects the composite result.