I've programmed a solution in Python which worked great, but required several libraries to install and a lot of burocratic setup to work. I've decided to build it with a GUI in C# on Visual Studio Community 2017 but in the first successful function the result was way slower than in Python. Which IMO it should actually be faster.
The code essentially is just doing a needle in a haystack image search, by getting all images from a folder and testing each needle (total 60 images) in a haystack, in python I return the string, but in C# I'm only printing.
My code in Python is the following:
def getImages(tela):
retorno = []
folder = 'Images'
img_rgb = cv2.imread(tela)
for filename in os.listdir(folder):
template = cv2.imread(os.path.join(folder,filename))
w, h = template.shape[:-1]
res = cv2.matchTemplate(img_rgb, template, cv2.TM_CCOEFF_NORMED)
threshold = .96
loc = np.where(res >= threshold)
if loc[0]>0:
retorno.append(filename[0]+filename[1].lower())
if len(retorno)> 1:
return retorno
and in C#:
Debug.WriteLine(ofd.FileName);
Image<Bgr, byte> source = new Image<Bgr, byte>(ofd.FileName);
string filepath = Directory.GetCurrentDirectory().ToString()+"\\Images";
DirectoryInfo d = new DirectoryInfo(filepath);
var files = d.GetFiles();
foreach (var fname in files){
Image<Bgr, byte> template = new Image<Bgr, byte>(fname.FullName);
Image<Gray, float> result = source.MatchTemplate(template, Emgu.CV.CvEnum.TemplateMatchingType.CcoeffNormed);
double[] minValues, maxValues;
Point[] minLocations, maxLocations;
result.MinMax(out minValues, out maxValues, out minLocations, out maxLocations);
if (maxValues[0] > 0.96) {
Debug.WriteLine(fname);
}
}
I didn't measure the time elapsed between each one, but I can say the result in C# takes about 3 seconds and in Python about 100ms.
There is room for optimization, if anyone would like to suggest any improvements, they are welcome.
The issue is that in Python code you finish the iteration when at least one match is added to retorno:
if len(retorno)> 1:
return retorno
In C# sample you continue iteration until all files are looped through.
I've combined the solutions proposed by denfromufa and HouseCat in the source code below, and did some overall cleanup, so you can see how your code could be. You will also notice minor readability improvements, since I wrote the refactored code using C# 7.0 / .NET 4.7.
Real Algorithm Optimization
Although denfromula correctly pointed out that implementation issue, and HouseCat mentioned using more CPU resources, the true gain relies on reducing the number of operations executed during your image search algorithm.
TURBO STAGE 1 - Suppose the MinMax() function goes through all your image's pixels to collect all those statistics, but you are only interested in using maxValue[0]. An extreme fine tuning would be to write a specific function which stops iterating through all your image's pixels when maxValue[0] goes below your minimum threshold. Apparently, that's all you need in your function. Remember: never burn all your processors computing lots of unused image statistics.
TURBO STAGE 2 - It looks like you are trying to recognize whether any image of your set of images matches your input screenshot (tela). If there are not too many images to be matched, and if you are constantly checking your screen for new matches, it is highly recommended to pre-load all those image match objects, and reuse them among your function calls. Constant disk IO operations and instantiating bitmap classes (for every single screenshot) leads to strong performance hit.
TURBO STAGE 3 - Just in case you are taking several screenshots per second, then try to reuse the screenshot's buffer. Constantly reallocating the whole screenshot's buffer when its dimensions simply did not change also causes performance loss.
TURBO STAGE 4 - This is hard to get, and depends on how much you want to invest on this. Think about your image recognition system as a big pipeline. The bitmaps as containers of data flowing among your stages (image matching stage, OCR stage, mouse position painting stage, video recording stage, etc). The idea is to create a fixed number of containers and reuse them, avoiding their creation and their destruction. The amount of containers is like the "buffer size" for your pipeline system. When the several stages of your pipeline finished using these containers, they are returned to the start of your pipeline, to a kind of container pool.
This last optimization this is really hard to achieve using these external libraries, because in most cases their API require some internal bitmap instantiation, and the fine tuning would also cause extreme software coupling between your library and the external one. So you will have to dig into these nice libraries to understand how they actually work, and build your own custom Framework. I can say it's a nice learning experience.
Those libraries are really cool for many purposes; they provide a generic API for improved functionality re-usability. This also means they address much more stuff than you actually need in a single API call. When it comes to high performance algorithms, you should always re-think what is the essential functionality you need from those libraries to achieve your goal, and if they are your bottleneck, do it by yourself.
I can say that a good fine-tuned image recognition algorithm doesn't take more than a few milliseconds to do what you want. I've experienced image recognition applications which do it almost instantaneously for larger screenshots (e.g. Eggplant Functional).
Now back to your code...
Your refactored code should look like below. I did not include all those fine-tuned algorithms I've mentioned - you should better ask separate questions for them in SO.
Image<Bgr, byte> source = new Image<Bgr, byte>(ofd.FileName);
// Preferably use Path.Combine here:
string dir = Path.Combine(Directory.GetCurrentDirectory(), "Images");
// Check whether directory exists:
if (!Directory.Exists(dir))
throw new Exception($"Directory was not found: '{dir}'");
// It looks like you just need filenames here...
// Simple parallel foreach suggested by HouseCat (in 2.):
Parallel.ForEach(Directory.GetFiles(dir), (fname) =>
{
Image<Gray, float> result = source.MatchTemplate(
new Image<Bgr, byte>(fname.FullName),
Emgu.CV.CvEnum.TemplateMatchingType.CcoeffNormed);
// By using C# 7.0, we can do inline out declarations here:
result.MinMax(
out double[] minValues,
out double[] maxValues,
out Point[] minLocations,
out Point[] maxLocations);
if (maxValues[0] > 0.96)
{
// ...
var result = ...
return result; // <<< As suggested by: denfromufa
}
// ...
});
Happy Tuning ;-)
This (denfromufa's answer) indeed explains your issue but to piggy back and add a few suggestions/optimizations as well:
1.) Your GetFiles can be replaced with a Parallel file enumerator, that is also recursive with children directories. I have shamelessly written a few on GitHub.
2.) You can parellelize the foreach loop into a Parallel.ForEach(files, fname () => { Code(); }); Again, my FileSearchBenchmark Repository on GitHub has plenty of File code execution in Parallel to provide examples.
Related
I am writing a WPF application that processes an image data stream from an IR camera. The application uses a class library for processing steps such as rescaling or colorizing, which I am also writing myself. An image processing step looks something like this:
ProcessFrame(double[,] frame)
{
int width = frame.GetLength(1);
int height = frame.GetLength(0);
byte[,] result = new byte[height, width];
Parallel.For(0, height, row =>
{
for(var col = 0; col < width; ++col)
ManipulatePixel(frame[row, col]);
});
}
Frames are processed by a task that runs in the background. The issue is, that depending on how costly the specific processing algorithm is ( ManipulatePixel() ), the application can't keep up with the camera's frame rate any more. However, I have noticed that despite me using parallel for loops, the application simply won't use all of the CPU that is available - task manager performance tab shows about 60-80% CPU usage.
I have used the same processing algorithms in C++ before, using the concurrency::parallel_for loops from the parallel patterns library. The C++ code uses all of the CPU it can get, as I would expect, and I also tried PInvoking a C++ DLL from my C# code, doing the same algorithm that runs slowly in the C# library - it also uses all the CPU power available, CPU usage is right at 100% virtually the whole time and there is no trouble at all keeping up with the camera.
Outsourcing the code into a C++ DLL and then marshalling it back into C# is an extra hassle I'd of course rather avoid. How do I make my C# code actually make use of all the CPU potential? I have tried increasing process priority like this:
using (Process process = Process.GetCurrentProcess())
process.PriorityClass = ProcessPriorityClass.RealTime;
Which has an effect, but only a very small one. I also tried setting the degree of parallelism for the Parallel.For() loops like this:
ParallelOptions parallelOptions = new ParallelOptions();
parallelOptions.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = Environment.ProcessorCount;
and then passing that to the Parallel.For() loop, this had no effect at all but I suppose that's not surprising since the default settings should already be optimized. I also tried setting this in the application configuration:
<runtime>
<Thread_UseAllCpuGroups enabled="true"></Thread_UseAllCpuGroups>
<GCCpuGroup enabled="true"></GCCpuGroup>
<gcServer enabled="true"></gcServer>
</runtime>
but this actually makes it run even slower.
EDIT:
The ProcessFrame code block I quoted originally was actually not quite correct. What I was doing at the time was:
ProcessFrame(double[,] frame)
{
byte[,] result = new byte[frame.GetLength(0), frame.GetLength(1)];
Parallel.For(0, frame.GetLength(0), row =>
{
for(var col = 0; col < frame.GetLength(1); ++col)
ManipulatePixel(frame[row, col]);
});
}
Sorry for this, I was paraphrasing code at the time and I didn't realize that this is an actual pitfall, that produces different results. I have since changed the code to what I originally wrote (i.e. the width and height variables set at the beginning of the function, and the array's length properties only queried once each instead of in the for loop's conditional statements). Thank you #Seabizkit, your second comment inspired me to try this. The change in fact already makes the code run noticeably faster - I didn't realize this because C++ doesn't know 2D arrays so I had to pass the pixel dimensions as separate arguments anyway. Whether it is fast enough as it is I cannot say yet however.
Also thank you for the other answers, they contain a lot of things I don't know yet but it's great to know what I have to look for. I'll update once I reached a satisfactory result.
I would need to have all of your code and be able to run it locally in order to diagnose the problem because your posting is devoid of details (I would need to see inside your ManipulatePixel function, as well as the code that calls ProcessFrame). but here's some general tips that apply in your case.
2D arrays in .NET are significantly slower than 1D arrays and staggered arrays, even in .NET Core today - this is a longstanding bug.
See here:
https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/4059
Why are multi-dimensional arrays in .NET slower than normal arrays?
Multi-dimensional array vs. One-dimensional
So consider changing your code to use either a jagged array (which also helps with memory locality/proximity caching, as each thread would have its own private buffer) or a 1D array with your own code being responsible for bounds-checking.
Or better-yet: use stackalloc to manage the buffer's lifetime and pass that by-pointer (unsafe ahoy!) to your thread delegate.
Sharing memory buffers between threads makes it harder for the system to optimize safe memory accesses.
Avoid allocating a new buffer for each frame encountered - if a frame has a limited lifespan then consider using reusable buffers using a buffer-pool.
Consider using the SIMD and AVX features in .NET. While modern C/C++ compilers are smart enough to compile code to use those instructions, the .NET JIT isn't so hot - but you can make explicit calls into SMID/AVX instructions using the SIMD-enabled types (you'll need to use .NET Core 2.0 or later for the best accelerated functionality)
Also, avoid copying individual bytes or scalar values inside a for loop in C#, instead consider using Buffer.BlockCopy for bulk copy operations (as these can use hardware memory copy features).
Regarding your observation of "80% CPU usage" - if you have a loop in a program then that will cause 100% CPU usage within the time-slices provided by the operating-system - if you don't see 100% usage then your code then:
Your code is actually running faster than real-time (this is a good thing!) - (unless you're certain your program can't keep-up with the input?)
Your codes' thread (or threads) is blocked by something, such as a blocking IO call or a misplaced Thread.Sleep. Use tools like ETW to see what your process is doing when you think it should be CPU-bound.
Ensure you aren't using any lock (Monitor) calls or using other thread or memory synchronization primitives.
Efficiency matters ( it is not true-[PARALLEL], but may, yet need not, benefit from a "just"-[CONCURRENT] work
The BEST, yet a rather hard way, if ultimate performance is a MUST :
in-line an assembly, optimised as per cache-line sizes in the CPU hierarchy and keep indexing that follows the actual memory-layout of the 2D data { column-wise | row-wise }. Given there is no 2D-kernel-transformation mentioned, your process does not need to "touch" any topological-neighbours, the indexing can step in whatever order "across" both of the ranges of the 2D-domain and the ManipulatePixel() may get more efficient on transforming rather blocks-of pixels, instead of bearing all overheads for calling a process just for each isolated atomicised-1px ( ILP + cache-efficiency are on your side ).
Given your target production-platform CPU-family, best use (block-SIMD)-vectorised instructions available from AVX2, best AVX512 code. As you most probably know, may use C/C++ using AVX-intrinsics for performance optimisations with assembly-inspection and finally "copy" the best resulting assembly for your C# assembly-inlining. Nothing will run faster. Tricks with CPU-core affinity mapping and eviction/reservation are indeed a last resort, yet may help for indeed an almost hard-real-time production settings ( though, hard R/T systems are seldom to get developed in an ecosystem with non-deterministic behaviour )
A CHEAP, few-seconds step :
Test and benchmark the run-time per batch of frames of a reversed composition of moving the more-"expensive"-part, the Parallel.For(...{...}) inside the for(var col = 0; col < width; ++col){...} to see the change of the costs of instantiations of the Parallel.For() instrumentation.
Next, if going this cheap way, think about re-factoring the ManipulatePixel() to at least use a block of data, aligned with data-storage layout and being a multiple of cache-line length ( for cache-hits ~ 0.5 ~ 5 [ns] improved costs-of-memory accesses, being ~ 100 ~ 380 [ns] otherwise - here, a will to distribute a work (the worse per 1px) across all NUMA-CPU-cores will result in paying way more time, due to extended access-latencies for cross-NUMA-(non-local) memory addresses and besides never re-using an expensively cached block-of-fetched-data, you knowingly pay excessive costs from cross-NUMA-(non-local) memory fetches ( from which you "use" just 1px and "throw" away all the rest of the cached-block ( as those pixels will get re-fetched and manipulated in some other CPU-core in some other time ~ a triple-waste of time ~ sorry to have mentioned that explicitly, but when shaving each possible [ns] this cannot happen in production pipeline ) )
Anyway, let me wish you perseverance and good luck on your steps forwards to gain the needed efficiency back onto your side.
Here's what I ended up doing, mostly based on Dai's answer:
made sure to query image pixel dimensions once at the beginning of the processing functions, not within the for loop's conditional statement. With parallel loops, it would seem this creates competitive access of those properties from multriple threads which noticeably slows things down.
removed allocation of output buffers within the processing functions. They now return void and accept the output buffer as an argument. The caller creates one buffer for each image processing step (filtering, scaling, colorizing) only, which doesn't change in size but gets overwritten with each frame.
removed an extra data processing step where raw image data in the format ushort (what the camera originally spits out) was converted to double (actual temperature values). Instead, processing is applied to the raw data directly. Conversion to actual temperatures will be dealt with later, as necessary.
I also tried, without success, to use 1D arrays instead of 2D but there is actually no difference in performance. I don't know if it's because the bug Dai mentioned was fixed in the meantime, but I couldn't confirm 2D arrays to be any slower than 1D arrays.
Probably also worth mentioning, the ManipulatePixel() function in my original post was actually more of a placeholder rather than a real call to another function. Here's a more proper example of what I am doing to a frame, including the changes I made:
private static void Rescale(ushort[,] originalImg, byte[,] scaledImg, in (ushort, ushort) limits)
{
Debug.Assert(originalImg != null);
Debug.Assert(originalImg.Length != 0);
Debug.Assert(scaledImg != null);
Debug.Assert(scaledImg.Length == originalImg.Length);
ushort min = limits.Item1;
ushort max = limits.Item2;
int width = originalImg.GetLength(1);
int height = originalImg.GetLength(0);
Parallel.For(0, height, row =>
{
for (var col = 0; col < width; ++col)
{
ushort value = originalImg[row, col];
if (value < min)
scaledImg[row, col] = 0;
else if (value > max)
scaledImg[row, col] = 255;
else
scaledImg[row, col] = (byte)(255.0 * (value - min) / (max - min));
}
});
}
This is just one step and some others are much more complex but the approach would be similar.
Some of the things mentioned like SIMD/AVX or the answer of user3666197 unfortunately are well beyond my abilities right now so I couldn't test that out.
It's still relatively easy to put enough processing load into the stream to tank the frame rate but for my application the performance should be enough now. Thanks to everyone who provided input, I'll mark Dai's answer as accepted because I found it the most helpful.
I've been look ing for a method for connected component labeling in Emgu (c# wrapper for OpenCV). I've failed to find a direct method for such a basic CV strategy. However, I did come across many suggestions for doing it using FindContours and DrawContours but without code examples. So I had a go at it and it seems to work okay.
I'm dropping it here for two reasons.
So people searching for it can find a code example.
More importantly, i'm wondering if there are suggestions for optimization and improvements of this function. E.g. is the chain approximation method for FindContours efficient/appropriate?
public static Image<Gray, byte> LabelConnectedComponents(this Image<Gray, byte> binary, int startLabel)
{
Contour<Point> contours = binary.FindContours(
CHAIN_APPROX_METHOD.CV_CHAIN_APPROX_NONE,
RETR_TYPE.CV_RETR_CCOMP);
int count = startLabel;
for (Contour<Point> cont = contours;
cont != null;
cont = cont.HNext)
{
CvInvoke.cvDrawContours(
binary,
cont,
new MCvScalar(count),
new MCvScalar(0),
2,
-1,
LINE_TYPE.FOUR_CONNECTED,
new Point(0, 0));
++count;
}
return binary;
}
I would use the following:
connected component labeling (AForge / Accord.NET ?)
(although for many cases you will find it almost the same for the function that you wrote, give it a try to verify the results)
After this step you will probably find more regions that are close together and that belong to the same person.
Than you can use:
implement or search for implementation of hierarhical aglomerative clustering (HCA)
to combine close region.
P.S.:
is the chain approximation method for FindContours efficient/appropriate
if you are using NO_APPROX no approximations of chain code will be used. By using this you can get non-smoothed edges (with many small hills and valleys) but if that does not bother you than this parameter value is fine.
First of all, I am aware that this question really sounds as if I didn't search, but I did, a lot.
I wrote a small Mandelbrot drawing code for C#, it's basically a windows form with a PictureBox on which I draw the Mandelbrot set.
My problem is, is that it's pretty slow. Without a deep zoom it does a pretty good job and moving around and zooming is pretty smooth, takes less than a second per drawing, but once I start to zoom in a little and get to places which require more calculations it becomes really slow.
On other Mandelbrot applications my computer does really fine on places which work much slower in my application, so I'm guessing there is much I can do to improve the speed.
I did the following things to optimize it:
Instead of using the SetPixel GetPixel methods on the bitmap object, I used LockBits method to write directly to memory which made things a lot faster.
Instead of using complex number objects (with classes I made myself, not the built-in ones), I emulated complex numbers using 2 variables, re and im. Doing this allowed me to cut down on multiplications because squaring the real part and the imaginary part is something that is done a few time during the calculation, so I just save the square in a variable and reuse the result without the need to recalculate it.
I use 4 threads to draw the Mandelbrot, each thread does a different quarter of the image and they all work simultaneously. As I understood, that means my CPU will use 4 of its cores to draw the image.
I use the Escape Time Algorithm, which as I understood is the fastest?
Here is my how I move between the pixels and calculate, it's commented out so I hope it's understandable:
//Pixel by pixel loop:
for (int r = rRes; r < wTo; r++)
{
for (int i = iRes; i < hTo; i++)
{
//These calculations are to determine what complex number corresponds to the (r,i) pixel.
double re = (r - (w/2))*step + zeroX ;
double im = (i - (h/2))*step - zeroY;
//Create the Z complex number
double zRe = 0;
double zIm = 0;
//Variables to store the squares of the real and imaginary part.
double multZre = 0;
double multZim = 0;
//Start iterating the with the complex number to determine it's escape time (mandelValue)
int mandelValue = 0;
while (multZre + multZim < 4 && mandelValue < iters)
{
/*The new real part equals re(z)^2 - im(z)^2 + re(c), we store it in a temp variable
tempRe because we still need re(z) in the next calculation
*/
double tempRe = multZre - multZim + re;
/*The new imaginary part is equal to 2*re(z)*im(z) + im(c)
* Instead of multiplying these by 2 I add re(z) to itself and then multiply by im(z), which
* means I just do 1 multiplication instead of 2.
*/
zRe += zRe;
zIm = zRe * zIm + im;
zRe = tempRe; // We can now put the temp value in its place.
// Do the squaring now, they will be used in the next calculation.
multZre = zRe * zRe;
multZim = zIm * zIm;
//Increase the mandelValue by one, because the iteration is now finished.
mandelValue += 1;
}
//After the mandelValue is found, this colors its pixel accordingly (unsafe code, accesses memory directly):
//(Unimportant for my question, I doubt the problem is with this because my code becomes really slow
// as the number of ITERATIONS grow, this only executes more as the number of pixels grow).
Byte* pos = px + (i * str) + (pixelSize * r);
byte col = (byte)((1 - ((double)mandelValue / iters)) * 255);
pos[0] = col;
pos[1] = col;
pos[2] = col;
}
}
What can I do to improve this? Do you find any obvious optimization problems in my code?
Right now there are 2 ways I know I can improve it:
I need to use a different type for numbers, double is limited with accuracy and I'm sure there are better non-built-in alternative types which are faster (they multiply and add faster) and have more accuracy, I just need someone to point me where I need to look and tell me if it's true.
I can move processing to the GPU. I have no idea how to do this (OpenGL maybe? DirectX? is it even that simple or will I need to learn a lot of stuff?). If someone can send me links to proper tutorials on this subject or tell me in general about it that would be great.
Thanks a lot for reading that far and hope you can help me :)
If you decide to move the processing to the gpu, you can choose from a number of options. Since you are using C#, XNA will allow you to use HLSL. RB Whitaker has the easiest XNA tutorials if you choose this option. Another option is OpenCL. OpenTK comes with a demo program of a julia set fractal. This would be very simple to modify to display the mandlebrot set. See here
Just remember to find the GLSL shader that goes with the source code.
About the GPU, examples are no help for me because I have absolutely
no idea about this topic, how does it even work and what kind of
calculations the GPU can do (or how is it even accessed?)
Different GPU software works differently however ...
Typically a programmer will write a program for the GPU in a shader language such as HLSL, GLSL or OpenCL. The program written in C# will load the shader code and compile it, and then use functions in an API to send a job to the GPU and get the result back afterwards.
Take a look at FX Composer or render monkey if you want some practice with shaders with out having to worry about APIs.
If you are using HLSL, the rendering pipeline looks like this.
The vertex shader is responsible for taking points in 3D space and calculating their position in your 2D viewing field. (Not a big concern for you since you are working in 2D)
The pixel shader is responsible for applying shader effects to the pixels after the vertex shader is done.
OpenCL is a different story, its geared towards general purpose GPU computing (ie: not just graphics). Its more powerful and can be used for GPUs, DSPs, and building super computers.
WRT coding for the GPU, you can look at Cudafy.Net (it does OpenCL too, which is not tied to NVidia) to start getting an understanding of what's going on and perhaps even do everything you need there. I've quickly found it - and my graphics card - unsuitable for my needs, but for the Mandelbrot at the stage you're at, it should be fine.
In brief: You code for the GPU with a flavour of C (Cuda C or OpenCL normally) then push the "kernel" (your compiled C method) to the GPU followed by any source data, and then invoke that "kernel", often with parameters to say what data to use - or perhaps a few parameters to tell it where to place the results in its memory.
When I've been doing fractal rendering myself, I've avoided drawing to a bitmap for the reasons already outlined and deferred the render phase. Besides that, I tend to write massively multithreaded code which is really bad for trying to access a bitmap. Instead, I write to a common store - most recently I've used a MemoryMappedFile (a builtin .Net class) since that gives me pretty decent random access speed and a huge addressable area. I also tend to write my results to a queue and have another thread deal with committing the data to storage; the compute times of each Mandelbrot pixel will be "ragged" - that is to say that they will not always take the same length of time. As a result, your pixel commit could be the bottleneck for very low iteration counts. Farming it out to another thread means your compute threads are never waiting for storage to complete.
I'm currently playing with the Buddhabrot visualisation of the Mandelbrot set, looking at using a GPU to scale out the rendering (since it's taking a very long time with the CPU) and having a huge result-set. I was thinking of targetting an 8 gigapixel image, but I've come to the realisation that I need to diverge from the constraints of pixels, and possibly away from floating point arithmetic due to precision issues. I'm also going to have to buy some new hardware so I can interact with the GPU differently - different compute jobs will finish at different times (as per my iteration count comment earlier) so I can't just fire batches of threads and wait for them all to complete without potentially wasting a lot of time waiting for one particularly high iteration count out of the whole batch.
Another point to make that I hardly ever see being made about the Mandelbrot Set is that it is symmetrical. You might be doing twice as much calculating as you need to.
For moving the processing to the GPU, you have lots of excellent examples here:
https://www.shadertoy.com/results?query=mandelbrot
Note that you need an WebGL capable browser to view that link. Works best in Chrome.
I'm no expert on fractals but you seem to have come far already with the optimizations. Going beyond that may make the code much harder to read and maintain so you should ask yourself it is worth it.
One technique I've often observed in other fractal programs is this: While zooming, calculate the fractal at a lower resolution and stretch it to full size during render. Then render at full resolution as soon as zooming stops.
Another suggestion is that when you use multiple threads you should take care that each thread don't read/write memory of other threads because this will cause cache collisions and hurt performance. One good algorithm could be split the work up in scanlines (instead of four quarters like you did now). Create a number of threads, then as long as there as lines left to process, assign a scanline to a thread that is available. Let each thread write the pixel data to a local piece of memory and copy this back to main bitmap after each line (to avoid cache collisions).
I need to display a set of signals. Each signal is defined by millions of samples. Just processing the collection (for converting samples to points according to bitmap size) of samples takes a significant amount of time (especially during scrolling).
So I implemented some kind of downsampling. I just skip some points: take every 2nd, every 3rd, every 50th point depending on signal characteristics. It increases speed very much but significantly distorts signal form.
Are there any smarter approaches?
We've had a similar issue in a recent application. Our visualization (a simple line graph) became too cluttered when zoomed out to see the full extent of the data (about 7 days of samples with a sample taken every 6 seconds more or less), so down-sampling was actually the way to go. If we didn't do that, zooming out wouldn't have much meaning, as all you would see was just a big blob of lines smeared out over the screen.
It all depends on how you are going to implement the down-sampling. There's two (simple) approaches: down-sample at the moment you get your sample or down-sample at display time.
What really gives a huge performance boost in both of these cases is the proper selection of your data-sources.
Let's say you have 7 million samples, and your viewing window is just interested in the last million points. If your implementation depends on an IEnumerable, this means that the IEnumerable will have to MoveNext 6 million times before actually starting. However, if you're using something which is optimized for random reads (a List comes to mind), you can implement your own enumerator for that, more or less like this:
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator(int start, int count, int skip)
{
// assume we have a field in the class which contains the data as a List<T>, named _data
for(int i = start;i<count && i < _data.Count;i+=skip)
{
yield return _data[i];
}
}
Obviously this is a very naive implementation, but you can do whatever you want within the for-loop (use an algorithm based on the surrounding samples to average?). However, this approach will make usually smooth out any extreme spikes in your signal, so be wary of that.
Another approach would be to create some generalized versions of your dataset for different ranges, which update itself whenever you receive a new signal. You usually don't need to update the complete dataset; just updating the end of your set is probably good enough. This allows you do do a bit more advanced processing of your data, but it will cost more memory. You will have to cache the distinct 'layers' of detail in your application.
However, reading your (short) explanation, I think a display-time optimization might be good enough. You will always get a distortion in your signal if you generalize. You always lose data. It's up to the algorithm you choose on how this distortion will occur, and how noticeable it will be.
You need a better sampling algorithm, also you can employ parallel processing features of c#. Refer to Task Parallel Library
The application I am working on currently requires functionality for Perspective Image Distortion. Basically what I want to do is to allow users to load an image into the application and adjust its perspective view properties based on 4 corner points that they can specify.
I had a look at ImageMagic. It has some distort functions with perpective adjustment but is very slow and some certain inputs are giving incorrect outputs.
Any of you guys used any other library or algorithm. I am coding in C#.
Any pointers would be much appreciated.
Thanks
This seems to be exactly what you (and I) were looking for:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/graphics/YLScsFreeTransform.aspx
It will take an image and distort it using 4 X/Y coordinates you provide.
Fast, free, simple code. Tested and it works beautifully. Simply download the code from the link, then use FreeTransform.cs like this:
using (System.Drawing.Bitmap sourceImg = new System.Drawing.Bitmap(#"c:\image.jpg"))
{
YLScsDrawing.Imaging.Filters.FreeTransform filter = new YLScsDrawing.Imaging.Filters.FreeTransform();
filter.Bitmap = sourceImg;
// assign FourCorners (the four X/Y coords) of the new perspective shape
filter.FourCorners = new System.Drawing.PointF[] { new System.Drawing.PointF(0, 0), new System.Drawing.PointF(300, 50), new System.Drawing.PointF(300, 411), new System.Drawing.PointF(0, 461)};
filter.IsBilinearInterpolation = true; // optional for higher quality
using (System.Drawing.Bitmap perspectiveImg = filter.Bitmap)
{
// perspectiveImg contains your completed image. save the image or do whatever.
}
}
Paint .NET can do this and there are also custom implementations of the effect. You could ask for the source code or use Reflector to read it and get an idea of how to code it.
If it is a perspective transform, you should be able to specify a 4x4 transformation matrix that matches the four corners.
Calculate that matrix, then apply each pixel on the resulting image on the matrix, resulting in the "mapped" pixel. Notice that this "mapped" pixel is very likely going to lie between two or even four pixels. In this case, use your favorite interpolation algorithm (e.g. bilinear, bicubic) to get the interpolated color.
This really is the only way for it to be done and cannot be done faster. If this feature is crucial and you absolutely need it to be fast, then you'll need to offload the task to a GPU. For example, you can call upon the DirectX library to apply a perspective transformation on a texture. That can make it extremely fast, even when there is no GPU because the DirectX library uses SIMD instructions to accelerate matrix calculations and color interpolations.
Had the same problem. Here is the demo code with sources ported from gimp.
YLScsFreeTransform doesn't work as expected. Way better solution is ImageMagic
Here is how you use it in c#:
using(MagickImage image = new MagickImage("test.jpg"))
{
image.Distort(DistortMethod.Perspective, new double[] { x0,y0, newX0,newY0, x1,y1,newX1,newY1, x2,y2,newX2,newY2, x3,y3,newX3,newY3 });
control.Image = image.ToBitmap();
}