[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Help with matrix replication
From: |
Carnë Draug |
Subject: |
Re: Help with matrix replication |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:40:59 +0000 |
On 20 December 2012 19:28, Richardson, Anthony <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Behalf Of Carnë Draug
>> > Subject: Help with matrix replication
>> >
>> > By the way, imresize(a, 2, 'nearest') will do what I want, but this is a
>> function from the image package and I'm trying to write some routines that
>> duplicate the functionality of the image package without using any of those
>> functions.
>>
>> Why are you avoiding the image package? It's the second time this week
>> someone tries to solve something that is already on a package but does not
>> want to use it. I don't understand the aversion.
>>
>> You know that you can at least just look into imresize, see how it works and
>> use it.
>
> I'm not averse to using it. I'm using it a lot, but I'm also studying image
> processing and most of the study involves implementing many image processing
> algorithms in Octave. Most (all?) of the algorithms are already implemented
> in the image package. We aren't allowed to use routines from the image
> package except to compare the results from our routines to those from the
> image package.
Oh! Ok, so it's an assignment, I understand that.
> Also, imresize appears to fit the image matrix to a grid and then uses one of
> several different interpolation methods (user selectable) to generate a new
> (larger or smaller) image matrix. I'm interested only in the specific case
> of generating a larger matrix by pixel replication (at this point) and
> thought that clever indexing might provide a "better" solution than the more
> general interpolation method used by imresize. That appears to be the case.
> On my machine resizing a 2x3 double matrix by a factor of 1000 using indexing
> is over 50 times faster than using imresize. Also, I can increase the same
> matrix by a factor of 5000 using indexing, but get a "memory exhausted" error
> when using imresize with a factor of 2000. (I'm not complaining about
> imresize. It is great, but it might not be the best method to use when you
> are interested only in pixel replication.)
It's perfectly acceptable to have imresize use different methods for
different cases. It doesn't need to have a single solution, whatever
is faster is better. Would you be able to supply a patch for us?
Carnë