Manipulating subsections of an array - image

I am using R to plot trying to conditionally change parts of an array
based on the columns of the array.
I have worked out the following steps:
x<-array(1,dim=c(4,4,3))
r<-x[,,1]
g<-x[,,2]
b<-x[,,3]
r1<-apply(r[,2:3],1:2,function(f){return(0)})
g1<-apply(g[,2:3],1:2,function(f){return(0)})
b1<-apply(b[,2:3],1:2,function(f){return(0)})
r3<-cbind(r[,1],r1,r[,4])
g3<-cbind(g[,1],g1,g[,4])
b3<-cbind(b[,1],b1,b[,4])
# Pass to pixmapRGB
This works, but as I am new to R, I was wondering if
there was a more efficient way to manipulate parts
of an array.
For example, does apply know which element it is working on?
The bigger picture is that I want to graph a time-series scatter
plot over many pages.
I would like to have a thumbnail in the corner of the page that is
a graph of the whole series. I would like to color a portion of
that thumbnail a different color to indicate what range the
current page is examining.
There is alot of data, so it is not feasible to redraw a new plot
for the thumbnail on every page.
What I have done is to first write the thumbnail plot out to a tiff file.
Then I read the tiff file back in, used getChannels from pixmap
to break the picture into arrays, and used the above code to change
some of the pixels based on column.
Finally I then print the image to a viewport using
pixmapRGB/pixmapGrob/grid.draw
It seems like alot of steps. I would be grateful for any pointers
that would help me make this more efficient.

Maybe I don't understand your question, but if what you're trying to do is just "change some pixels based on column," why don't you just use the basic array indexing to do that?
This will do the same thing you have posted:
x<-array(1,dim=c(4,4,3))
r<-x[,,1]
g<-x[,,2]
b<-x[,,3]
r[,2:3]=0
g[,2:3]=0
b[,2:3]=0
Is that helpful?

Perhaps more of a comment than an answer, but when I try to plot over a number of pages I usually go left to right, breaking up the plots into quantiles and setting appropriate xlim (or ylim)
x <- rnorm(100000)
y <- rnorm(100000)
df <- data.frame(x,y)
seq1 <- quantile(df$x, probs = seq(0,1,0.1))
seq2 <- quantile(df$x, probs = seq(0,1,0.1))
for(x in 1:(length(seq1)-1)) {
plot(df, xlim=c(seq1[x],seq1[x+1]))
}
No idea how to overlay a thumbnail onto the graphs although I think you could do this with one of the rimage functions if you saved the thumbnail.

You could avoid having to read and paste a tiff thumbnail by actually replotting the whole chart at reduced scale. check out par(fig) , and then do something like
Rgames: plot(1:2,1:2)
Rgames: par(mar=c(.1,6,.1,.1),new=T,fig=c(0,.25,.5,.75))
Rgames: plot(1:2,1:2)
Rgames: polygon(c(1,2,2,1),c(1,1,2,2),col='red')
("Rgames:" is my prompt)
You'll have to play a bit with the margin values, but this will get your "mini-graph" set up.

Related

Matlab create image from array and save without displaying

Apologies if this is a dupe, I've been searching for over an hour but the search terms are all really broad and I just keep getting the same results. Also I'm fairly new to matlab so apologies for any misunderstandings.
Anywho, I have a matlab program which needs to frequently save an image generated from a matrix, but I just can't figure out how to do that without displaying it first. Basically I'm caught in between two functions, image and imwrite, both only do half of what I want.
image is able to take my matrix and create the desired output, but it just displays it to a figure window
imwrite is able to save an image to a file without displaying it, but the image is completely wrong and I can't find any parameters that would fix it.
Other questions I've seen deal with using imread and managing figures and stuff, but I'm just doing (for example)
matrix = rand(20);
colormap(winter);
image(matrix, 'CDataMapping', 'scaled');
or
matrix = rand(20);
imwrite(matrix, winter(256), 'filename.png');
Is there some way to call the image function such that it doesn't display a figure window and then gets saved to a file? Something analogous to calling imshow and then savefig in matplotlib.
Just do this:
matrix = rand(20);
f = figure('visible', 'off');
colormap(winter);
image(matrix, 'CDataMapping', 'scaled');
print(f, '-dpng', 'filename.png');

Matplotlib Plots Lose Transparency When Saving as .ps/.eps

I'm having an issue with attempting to save some plots with transparent ellipsoids on them if I attempt to save them with .ps/.eps extensions.
Here's the plot saved as a .png:
If I choose to save it as a .ps/.eps here is what it looks like:
How I got around this, was to use ImageMagick to convert the original png to a ps. The only problem is that the image in png format is about 90k, and it becomes just under 4M after conversion. This is not good since I have a lot of these images, and it will take too much time to compile my latex document. Does anyone have a solution to this?
The problem is that eps does not support transparencies natively.
There are few options:
rasterize the image and embed in a eps file (like #Molly suggests) or exporting to pdf and converting with some external tool (like gs) (which usually relies as well on rasterization)
'mimic' transparency, giving a colour that looks like the transparent one on a given background.
I discussed this for sure once on the matplotlib mailing list, and I got the suggestion to rasterize, which is not feasible as you get either pixellized or huge figures. And they don't scale very nicely when put into, e.g., a publication.
I personally use the second approach, and although not ideal, I found it good enough. I wrote a small python script that implements the algorithm from this SO post to obtain a solid RGB representation of a colour with a give transparency
EDIT
In the specific case of your plot try to use the zorder keyword to order the parts plotted. Try to use zorder=10 for the blue ellipse, zorder=11 for the green and zorder=12 for the hexbins.
This way the blue should be below everything, then the green ellipse and finally the hexbins. And the plot should be readable also with solid colors. And if you like the shades of blue and green that you have in png, you can try to play with mimic_alpha.py.
EDIT 2
If you are 100% sure that you have to use eps, there are a couple of workarounds that come to my mind (and that are definitely uglier than your plot):
Just draw the ellipse borders on top of the hexbins.
Get centre and amplitude of each hexagon, (possibly discard all zero bins) and make a scatter plot using the same colour map as in hexbin and adjusting the marker size and shape as you like. You might want to redraw the ellipses borders on top of that
Another alternative would be to save them to pdf
savefig('myfigure.pdf')
That works with pdflatex, if that was the reason why you needed to use eps and not svg.
You can rasterize the figure before saving it to preserve transparency in the eps file:
ax.set_rasterized(True)
plt.savefig('rasterized_fig.eps')
I had the same problem. To avoid rasterizing, you can save the image as a pdf and then run (on unixish systems at least) in a terminal:
pdftops -eps my.pdf my.eps
Which gives a .eps file as output.
I solved this by:
1) adding a set_rasterization_zorder(1) when defining the figure area:
fxsize=16
fysize=8
f = figure(num=None, figsize=(fxsize, fysize), dpi=180, facecolor='w',
edgecolor='k')
plt.subplots_adjust(
left = (18/25.4)/fxsize,
bottom = (13/25.4)/fysize,
right = 1 - (8/25.4)/fxsize,
top = 1 - (8/25.4)/fysize)
subplots_adjust(hspace=0,wspace=0.1)
#f.suptitle('An overall title', size=20)
gs0 = gridspec.GridSpec(1, 2)
gs11 = gridspec.GridSpecFromSubplotSpec(1, 1, subplot_spec=gs0[0])
ax110 = plt.Subplot(f, gs11[0,0])
f.add_subplot(ax110)
ax110.set_rasterization_zorder(1)
2) a zorder=0 in each alpha=anynumber in the plot:
ax110.scatter(xs1,ys1 , marker='o', color='gray' , s=1.5,zorder=0,alpha=0.3)#, label=label_bg)
and
3) finally a rasterized=True when saving:
P.savefig(str(PLOTFILENAME)+'.eps', rasterized=True)
Note that this may not work as expected with the transparent keyword to savefig because an RGBA colour with alpha<1 on transparent background will be rendered the same as the RGB colour with alpha=1.
As mentioned above, the best and easiest choice (if you do not want to loose resolution) is to rasterized the figure
f = plt.figure()
f.set_rasterized(True)
ax = f.add_subplot(111)
ax.set_rasterized(True)
f.savefig('figure_name.eps',rasterized=True,dpi=300)
This way, you can manage the size by dpi option as well. In fact, you can also play with the zorder below you want to apply the rasterization:
ax.set_rasterization_zorder(0)
Note: It is important to keep f.set_rasterized(True) when you use plt.subplot and plt.subplot2grid functions. Otherwise, label and tick area will not appear in the .eps file
My solution is to export the plot as .eps, load it up to Inkscape for example, then Ungroup the plot, select the object that I want to set the transparency and just edit the Opacity of the Fill in the "Fill and Stroke" tab.
You can save the file as .svg if you want to tweak it later, or export the image for a publication.
If you are writing the academic paper in latex, I would recommend you export the .pdf file rather than .eps. The .pdf format supports transparency perfectly and has good compression efficiency, and most importantly, can be easily edited in Adobe Illustrator.
If you wanna further edit the graph (NOT EDITING DATA! I MEAN, FOR GOOD-LOOKING), you could open the exported graph, in Adobe Acrobat - Edit - Copy elements into Adobe Illustrator. The two software can handle everything perfectly.
I work happily with this method. Everything clear, editable and small-size. Hope can help.

Plot time series and image in R so that x axis labels line up perfectly

I am trying to plot a time series (a seismograph) with a corresponding spectrogram in R.
Since I would like to compare the time series with the spectrogram, the X axis labels on the time series need to line up with the X axis labels on the spectrogram. However, I'm having a lot of trouble with this. The best I've been able to do so far is use
par(mar=c(0,10,0,8))
and try to manually force the spectrogram labels to line up with the time series labels by tweaking the spectrogram margin. Of course this is only approximate and they still do not line up perfectly. Is there a way to make the axes generated by the code below match up with each other?
par(mfcol=c(2,1))
plot(seq_len(1000)*0.01, sin(2*pi*seq_len(1000)*0.01), type="l",xlab="Time",
ylab="Amplitude", main="Time Series", xlim=c(1,10))
image(seq_len(1000)*0.01,seq_len(100)*0.1,array(runif(1000000),dim=c(1000,100)),
xlab="Time", ylab="Frequency", main="Spectrogram", xlim=c(1,10))
Thanks in advance!
This seems to work:
par(mfcol=c(2,1))
plot(seq_len(1000)*0.01, sin(2*pi*seq_len(1000)*0.01), type="l", xaxs="i")
image(seq_len(1000)*0.01,seq_len(100)*0.1,array(runif(1000000),dim=c(1000,100)),
xlab="Time", ylab="Frequency", main="Spectrogram")
Just drop the xlim= arguments and use xaxs="i" in the plot() function to match the default for image().
You can either add xaxs='i' to the call to plot (this removes the extra padding so it lines up with the image plot), or you could use par('usr') after the 1st plot to see what the x limits are and use those values in the xlim call in image.
It turns out that this is way easier than it looked initially. The secret is to make a "dummy plot" and then add the image to the plot. So here's how the new, working code looks:
par(mfcol=c(2,1))
plot(seq_len(1000)*0.01, sin(2*pi*seq_len(1000)*0.01),
type="l",xlab="Time",ylab="Amplitude", main="Time Series")
plot(c(0,10), c(0,10), type="n") #Dummy plot with axis limits for our spectrogram
image(seq_len(1000)*0.01,seq_len(100)*0.1,array(runif(1000000),dim=c(1000,100)),
xlab="Time", ylab="Frequency", main="Spectrogram",add=TRUE)
Similar, but conversely, to Greg Snow's answer, you could add xaxs='r' to the call to image as follows:
par(mar=c(0,10,0,8))
par(mfcol=c(2,1))
plot(seq_len(1000)*0.01, sin(2*pi*seq_len(1000)*0.01), type="l",xlab="Time",
ylab="Amplitude", main="Time Series", xlim=c(1,10))
image(seq_len(1000)*0.01,seq_len(100)*0.1,array(runif(1000000),dim=c(1000,100)),
xlab="Time", ylab="Frequency", main="Spectrogram", xlim=c(1,10), xaxs="r")
Don't forget to save your par() setting first.
(maybe I should have put that above)

Embedding matlab plot in pdf for printing: Sizes

I'm currently creating my figures in matlab to embed themvia latex into a pdf for later printing. I save the figures and save them via the script export_fig! Now I wonder which is the best way to go:
Which size of the matlab figure window to chose
Which -m option to take for the script? It will change the resolution and the size of the image...
I'm wondering about those points in regards to the following two points:
When chosing the figure-size bigger, there are more tickmarks shown and the single point markers are better visible
When using a small figure and using a big -m option, I still have only some tickmarks
When I generate a image which is quite huge (e.g. resolution 300 and still 2000*2000px) and than embed it into the document: Does this than look ugly? Will this be embedded in a nice scaling mode or is it the same ugliness as if you upload a 1000*1000px image onto a homepage and embed it via the widht and height tags in html -> the browser displays it quite ugly because the browser doesn't do a real resize. So it looks unsharp and ugly.
Thanks in advance!
The MATLAB plots are internally described as vector graphics, and PDF files are also described using vector graphics. Rendering the plot to a raster format is a bad idea, because you end up having to choose resolution and end up with bigger files.
Just save the plot to EPS format, which can be directly embedded into a PDF file using latex. I usually save my MATLAB plots for publication using:
saveas(gcf, 'plot.eps', 'epsc');
and embed them directly into my latex file using:
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{plot.eps}
Then, you only need to choose the proportion of the line the image is to take (in this case, 70%).
Edit: IrfanView and others (XnView) don't display EPS very well. You can open them in Adobe Illustrator to get a better preview of what it looks like. I always insert my plots this way and they always look exactly the same in the PDF as in MATLAB.
One bonus you also get with EPS is that you can actually specify a font size so that the text is readable even when you resize the image in the document.
As for the number of ticks, you can look at the axes properties in the MATLAB documentation. In particular, the XTick and YTick properties are very useful manually controlling how many ticks appear no matter what the window resolution is.
Edit (again): If you render the image to a raster format (such as PNG), it is preferable to choose the exact same resolution as the one used in the document. Rendering a large image (by using a big window size) and making it small in the PDF will yield bad results mainly because the size of the text will scale directly with the size of the image. Rendering a small image will obviously make for a very bad effect because of stretching.
That is why you should use a vector image format. However, the default MATLAB settings for figures produce some of the same problems as raster images: text size is not specified as a font size and the number of ticks varies with the window size.
To produce optimal plots in the final render, follow the given steps:
Set the figure's font size to a decent setting (e.g. 11pt)
Render the plot
Decide on number of ticks to get a good effect and set the ticks manually
Render the image to color EPS
In MATLAB code, this should look somewhat like the following:
function [] = nice_figure ( render )
%
% invisible figure, good for batch renders.
f = figure('Visible', 'Off');
% make plots look nice in output PDF.
set(f, ...
'DefaultAxesFontSize', 11, ...
'DefaultAxesLineWidth', 0.7, ...
'DefaultLineLineWidth', 0.8, ...
'DefaultPatchLineWidth', 0.7);
% actual plot to render.
a = axes('Parent', f);
% show whatever it is we need to show.
render(a);
% save file.
saveas(f, 'plot.eps', 'epsc');
% collect garbarge.
close(f);
end
Then, you can draw some fancy plot using:
function [] = some_line_plot ( a )
%
% render data.
x = -3 : 0.001 : +3;
y = expm1(x) - x - x.^2;
plot(a, x, y, 'g:');
title('f(x)=e^x-1-x-x^2');
xlabel('x');
ylabel('f(x)');
% force use of 'n' ticks.
n = 5;
xlimit = get(a, 'XLim');
ylimit = get(a, 'YLim');
xticks = linspace(xlimit(1), xlimit(2), n);
yticks = linspace(ylimit(1), ylimit(2), n);
set(a, 'XTick', xticks);
set(a, 'YTick', yticks);
end
And render the final output using:
nice_figure(#some_line_plot);
With such code, you don't need to worry about the window size at all. Notice that I haven't even showed the window for you to play with its size. Using this code, I always get beautiful output and small EPS and PDF file sizes (much smaller than when using PNG).
The only thing this solution does not address is adding more ticks when the plot is made larger in the latex code, but that can't be done anyways.

Plotting several jpeg images in a single display

I need to plot and display several jpeg images in a single combined display (or canvas?). For example, suppose I have images {a,b,c,d}.jpg, each of different size, and I would like to plot them on one page in a 2x2 grid. It would be also nice to be able to set a title for each subplot.
I've been thoroughly looking for a solution, but couldn't find out how to do it, so any ideas would really help. I would preferably use a solution that is based on the EBImage package.
There are two ways how to arrange several plots with base graph functions, namely par(mfrow=c(rows,columns)) (substitute rows and columns with integers) and layout(mat) where mat is a matrix like matrix(c(1,2,3,4)).
For further info see ?par, ?layout, and especially Quick-R: Combining Plots.
However, as your question is about images I don't know if it helps you at all. If not, I am sorry for misinterpreting your question.
To add to Henriks solution, a rather convenient way of using the par() function is:
jpeg(filename="somefile.jpg")
op <- par(mfrow=c(2,2)
#plot the plots you want
par(op)
dev.off()
This way, you put the parameters back to the old state after you ran the code. Be aware of the fact this is NOT true if one of the plots gave an error.
Be aware of the fact that R always put the plots in the same order. Using mfrow fills the grid row by row. If you use mfcol instead of mfrow in the code, you fill up column by column.
Layout is a whole different story. Here you can define in which order the plots have to be placed. So layout(matrix(1:4,nrow=2) does the same as par(mfcol=c(2,2)). But layout(matrix(c(1,4,3,2),ncol=2)) places the first plot lefttop, the next one rightbottom, the third one righttop, and the last one leftbottom.
Every plot is completely independent, so the titles you specify using the option main are printed as well. If you want to have more flexibility, you should take a look at lattice plots.
If you do not want the images in a regular grid (the different sizes could imply this), then you might consider using the subplot function from the TeachingDemos package. The last example in the help page shows using an image as a plotting character, just modify to use your different images and sizes/locations.
The ms.image function (same package) used with my.symbols is another possibility.

Resources