We Keep Coding

Why does scipy.signal.correlate2d fail to work in this example?

I am trying to cross-correlate two images, and thus locate the template image on the first image, by finding the maximum correlation value.
I drew an image with some random shapes (first image), and cut out one of these shapes (template). Now, when I use scipy's correlate2d, and locate point in the correlation with maximum values, several point appear. From my knowledge, shouldn't there only be one point where the overlap is at max?
The idea behind this exercise is to take some part of an image, and then correlate that to some previous images from a database. Then I should be able to locate this part on the older images based on the maximum value of correlation.
My code looks something like this:
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
from PIL import Image
import scipy.signal as sp
img = Image.open('test.png').convert('L')
img = np.asarray(img)
temp = Image.open('test_temp.png').convert('L')
temp = np.asarray(temp)
corr = sp.correlate2d(img, temp, boundary='symm', mode='full')
plt.imshow(corr, cmap='hot')
plt.colorbar()
coordin = np.where(corr == np.max(corr)) #Finds all coordinates where there is a maximum correlation
listOfCoordinates= list(zip(coordin[1], coordin[0]))
for i in range(len(listOfCoordinates)): #Plotting all those coordinates
plt.plot(listOfCoordinates[i][0], listOfCoordinates[i][1],'c*', markersize=5)
This yields the figure:
Cyan stars are points with max correlation value (255).
I expect there to be only one point in "corr" to have the max value of correlation, but several appear. I have tried to use different modes of correlating, but to no avail.
This is the test image I use when correlating.
This is the template, cut from the original image.
Can anyone give some insight to what I might be doing wrong here?

You are probably overflowing the numpy type uint8.
Try using:
img = np.asarray(img,dtype=np.float32)
temp = np.asarray(temp,dtype=np.float32)
Untested.

Applying
img = img - img.mean()
temp = temp - temp.mean()
before computing the 2D cross-correlation corr should give you the expected result.
Cleaning up the code, for a full example:
from imageio import imread
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
import scipy.signal as sp
import numpy as np
img = imread('https://i.stack.imgur.com/JL2LW.png', pilmode='L')
temp = imread('https://i.stack.imgur.com/UIUzJ.png', pilmode='L')
corr = sp.correlate2d(img - img.mean(),
temp - temp.mean(),
boundary='symm',
mode='full')
# coordinates where there is a maximum correlation
max_coords = np.where(corr == np.max(corr))
plt.plot(max_coords[1], max_coords[0],'c*', markersize=5)
plt.imshow(corr, cmap='hot')

saving a grid of heterogenous images in Python

How can I use something like below line to save images on a grid of 4x4 of heterogenous images? Imagine that images are identified by sample[i] and i takes 16 different values.
scipy.misc.imsave(str(img_index) + '.png', sample[1])
Similar to this answer but for 16 different images
https://stackoverflow.com/a/42041135/2414957
I am not biased towards the used method as long as it does the deed. Also, I am interested in saving images rather than showing them using plt.show() as I am using a remote server and dealing with CelebA image dataset which is a giant dataset. I just want to randomly select 16 images from my batch and save the results of DCGAN and see if it makes any sense or if it converges.
*Currently, I am saving images like below:
batch_no = random.randint(0, 63)
scipy.misc.imsave('sample_gan_images/iter_%d_epoch_%d_sample_%d.png' %(itr, epoch, batch_no), sample[batch_no])
and here, I have 25 epochs and 2000 iterations and batch size is 64.

Personally, I tend to use matplotlib.pyplot.subplots for these kinds of situations. If your images are really heterogenous it might be a better choice than the image concatenation based approach in the answer you linked to.
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.misc import face
x = 4
y = 4
fig,axarr = plt.subplots(x,y)
ims = [face() for i in range(x*y)]
for ax,im in zip(axarr.ravel(), ims):
ax.imshow(im)
fig.savefig('faces.png')
My big complaint about subplots is the quantity of whitespace in the resulting figure. As well, for your application you may not want the axes ticks/frames. Here's a wrapper function that deals with those issues:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def savegrid(ims, rows=None, cols=None, fill=True, showax=False):
if rows is None != cols is None:
raise ValueError("Set either both rows and cols or neither.")
if rows is None:
rows = len(ims)
cols = 1
gridspec_kw = {'wspace': 0, 'hspace': 0} if fill else {}
fig,axarr = plt.subplots(rows, cols, gridspec_kw=gridspec_kw)
if fill:
bleed = 0
fig.subplots_adjust(left=bleed, bottom=bleed, right=(1 - bleed), top=(1 - bleed))
for ax,im in zip(axarr.ravel(), ims):
ax.imshow(im)
if not showax:
ax.set_axis_off()
kwargs = {'pad_inches': .01} if fill else {}
fig.savefig('faces.png', **kwargs)
Running savegrid(ims, 4, 4) on the same set of images as used earlier yields:
If you use savegrid, if you want each individual image to take up less space, pass the fill=False keyword arg. If you want to show the axes ticks/frames, pass showax=True.

I found this on github, also sharing it:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def merge_images(image_batch, size):
h,w = image_batch.shape[1], image_batch.shape[2]
c = image_batch.shape[3]
img = np.zeros((int(h*size[0]), w*size[1], c))
for idx, im in enumerate(image_batch):
i = idx % size[1]
j = idx // size[1]
img[j*h:j*h+h, i*w:i*w+w,:] = im
return img
im_merged = merge_images(sample, [8,8])
plt.imsave('sample_gan_images/im_merged.png', im_merged )

To do a spline surface fit using scipy's RectBivariateSpline and SmoothBivariateSpline on noisy data

I am trying to do a 2D-surface fit on some imaging data. I attached an example of such data, which is basically a 1014 x 1014 array with substantial amount of noise. Example_image. Some patches of this array are invalid data, which I masked and set to NaN values, as shown in yellow in the Example image. As you can see in the image, there is a background gradient from left (brighter) to right (dimmer), which I am trying to remove. The gradient cannot be well fitted by a polynomial, hence my goal is to do a 2D-surface bivariate spline fit, and subtract the gradient off.
I have tried a number of tasks in scipy, but most of them do not return ideal result.
To start with I have tried the [RectBivariateSpline] Bivariate structured interpolation of large array with NaN values or mask), but since my image have NaNs in it, running RectBivariateSpline gives only an output of NaNs.
I have also tried SmoothBivariateSpline, which is the irregular gridded version of the task. I omitted those pixels that have NaN values and converted the rest into 1D arrays as input. But it failed as the array size is too big. I then tried to chop my array to try to run it on smaller chunks, but it gives the following error and quit with a segmentation fault, which I have no idea what it means.
fitpack2.py:1044: UserWarning:
Error on entry, no approximation returned. The following conditions
must hold:
xb<=x[i]<=xe, yb<=y[i]<=ye, w[i]>0, i=0..m-1
If iopt==-1, then
xb
I then tried to first filled in the NaN patches in my image with values using griddata with linear interpolation. Since the patches are huge, the interpolation is not ideal, but at least it gave me an array without NaN. I then use this array to run RectBivariateSpline again. But the output array is still NaNs.
I suspect that the noise in my image is screwing up the behaviour of both tasks, so I also tried to first run a Gaussian kernel on my image to smooth it, then filled in the NaN patches with griddata, then run RectBivariateSpline or SmoothBivariateSpline, but they still give me arrays with NaN values as output.
I am not sure that I understand the manual of both tasks correctly, so I attach the following script:
#!/usr/bin/python
import matplotlib
matplotlib.use('qt5agg')
#matplotlib.rc('font',**{'family':'sans-serif','sans-serif':['Helvetica']})
#matplotlib.rc('text.latex', preamble=r'\usepackage{cmbright}')
#matplotlib.rc('text.latex', preamble=r'\usepackage[scaled]{helvet} \renewcommand\familydefault{\sfdefault} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}')
#matplotlib.rc('text', usetex=True)
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import astropy.io.fits as pyfits
import scipy.interpolate as sp
from astropy.convolution import convolve
from astropy.convolution import Gaussian2DKernel
#------------------------------------------------------------
#Read in the arrays
hdulistorg = pyfits.open('icmj01jrq_flt.fits')
hdulistorg.info()
errarrorg = np.swapaxes(hdulistorg[1].data, 0,1)
hdulist = pyfits.open('jrq_sci_nan_deep.fits')
hdulist.info()
dataarrorg = np.swapaxes(hdulist[0].data, 0,1) #image array
errarrorg = np.swapaxes(hdulistorg[1].data, 0,1) #error array
#Flag some of the problematic values, turn NaNs into 0 for easier handling
dataarr = np.copy(dataarrorg)
w=np.isnan(dataarr)
ww=np.where(dataarr == 0)
www=np.where(dataarr > 100)
wwww=np.where(dataarr < 0)
errarr = 1.0 / (np.copy(errarrorg)+1e-5) # Try to use 1/error as the estimate for weight below
errarr[w] = 0
errarr[ww] = 0
errarr[www] = 0
errarr[wwww]=0
dataarr[w]= 0
dataarr[ww]= 0
dataarr[www]=0
dataarr[wwww]=0
#Make a gaussian kernel smoothed data
maskarr = np.copy(errarr) #For masking the nan regions so they dun get smoothed
maskarr[:]=0
maskarr[w]=1
maskarr[ww]=1
maskarr[www]=1
maskarr[wwww]=1
gauss = Gaussian2DKernel(stddev=5)
condataarr = convolve(dataarr,gauss,normalize_kernel=True,boundary='extend',mask=maskarr)
condataarr[w]=0
conerrarr = np.copy(errarr)
#Setting x,y arrays for the Spline functions
nx, ny = (1014,1014)
x = np.linspace(0, 1013, nx)
y = np.linspace(0, 1013, ny)
xv, yv = np.meshgrid(x, y)
#Make an 1D version of these 2D arrays
dataarrflat = np.ravel(condataarr[0:200,0:200]) #Try only a small chunk!
xvflat = np.ravel(xv[0:200,0:200])
yvflat = np.ravel(yv[0:200,0:200])
errarrflat = np.ravel(conerrarr[0:200,0:200])
notnanloc = np.where(dataarrflat != 0) #Not NaNs
#SmoothBivariateSpline!
rect_S_spline = sp.SmoothBivariateSpline(xvflat[notnanloc], yvflat[notnanloc], dataarrflat[notnanloc],w=errarrflat[notnanloc], kx=3, ky=3)
#Also try using grid data to fix the grid?
gddataarr = np.copy(condataarr)
gddataarrflat = np.ravel(gddataarr)
gdloc = np.where(gddataarrflat != 0) #Not NaNs
gdxvflat = np.ravel(xv)
gdyvflat = np.ravel(yv)
xyarr = np.c_[gdxvflat[gdloc],gdyvflat[gdloc]]
x_grid, y_grid = np.mgrid[0:1013:1014j,0:1013:1014j]
grid_z2 = sp.griddata(xyarr, gddataarrflat[gdloc], (x_grid, y_grid), method='linear')
plt.imshow(grid_z2.T)
#plt.show()
#RectBivariatSpline
rect_B_spline = sp.RectBivariateSpline(x, y, grid_z2.T)
#Result grid (same as input for now)
xnew = np.arange(0, 1013, 1)
ynew = np.arange(0, 1013, 1)
znewS = rect_S_spline(xnew, ynew)
znewB = rect_B_spline(xnew, ynew)
print 'znewS', znewS
print 'znewB', znewB
#Write FITS files
condataarr = np.swapaxes(condataarr, 0, 1)
hdu2 = pyfits.PrimaryHDU(condataarr)
hdulist2 = pyfits.HDUList([hdu2])
hdulist2.writeto('contest.fits',overwrite=True)
hdulist2.close()
hdu3 = pyfits.PrimaryHDU(znewS)
hdulist3 = pyfits.HDUList([hdu3])
hdulist3.writeto('Stest.fits',overwrite=True)
hdulist3.close()

I can not exactly solve your problem, but I have some code that interfaces a FORTRAN interpolation routine with python. You can just call the routines directly from python, no fortran needed.
You can find the code and a description of it at this github page
https://github.com/haakoan/inter

How to remove/omit smaller contour lines using matplotlib

I am trying to plot contour lines of pressure level. I am using a netCDF file which contain the higher resolution data (ranges from 3 km to 27 km). Due to higher resolution data set, I get lot of pressure values which are not required to be plotted (rather I don't mind omitting certain contour line of insignificant values). I have written some plotting script based on the examples given in this link http://matplotlib.org/basemap/users/examples.html.
After plotting the image looks like this
From the image I have encircled the contours which are small and not required to be plotted. Also, I would like to plot all the contour lines smoother as mentioned in the above image. Overall I would like to get the contour image like this:-
Possible solution I think of are
Find out the number of points required for plotting contour and mask/omit those lines if they are small in number.
or
Find the area of the contour (as I want to omit only circled contour) and omit/mask those are smaller.
or
Reduce the resolution (only contour) by increasing the distance to 50 km - 100 km.
I am able to successfully get the points using SO thread Python: find contour lines from matplotlib.pyplot.contour()
But I am not able to implement any of the suggested solution above using those points.
Any solution to implement the above suggested solution is really appreciated.
Edit:-
# Andras Deak
I used print 'diameter is ', diameter line just above del(level.get_paths()[kp]) line to check if the code filters out the required diameter. Here is the filterd messages when I set if diameter < 15000::
diameter is 9099.66295612
diameter is 13264.7838257
diameter is 445.574234531
diameter is 1618.74618114
diameter is 1512.58974168
However the resulting image does not have any effect. All look same as posed image above. I am pretty sure that I have saved the figure (after plotting the wind barbs).
Regarding the solution for reducing the resolution, plt.contour(x[::2,::2],y[::2,::2],mslp[::2,::2]) it works. I have to apply some filter to make the curve smooth.
Full working example code for removing lines:-
Here is the example code for your review
#!/usr/bin/env python
from netCDF4 import Dataset
import matplotlib
matplotlib.use('agg')
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import scipy.ndimage
from mpl_toolkits.basemap import interp
from mpl_toolkits.basemap import Basemap
# Set default map
west_lon = 68
east_lon = 93
south_lat = 7
north_lat = 23
nc = Dataset('ncfile.nc')
# Get this variable for later calucation
temps = nc.variables['T2']
time = 0 # We will take only first interval for this example
# Draw basemap
m = Basemap(projection='merc', llcrnrlat=south_lat, urcrnrlat=north_lat,
llcrnrlon=west_lon, urcrnrlon=east_lon, resolution='l')
m.drawcoastlines()
m.drawcountries(linewidth=1.0)
# This sets the standard grid point structure at full resolution
x, y = m(nc.variables['XLONG'][0], nc.variables['XLAT'][0])
# Set figure margins
width = 10
height = 8
plt.figure(figsize=(width, height))
plt.rc("figure.subplot", left=.001)
plt.rc("figure.subplot", right=.999)
plt.rc("figure.subplot", bottom=.001)
plt.rc("figure.subplot", top=.999)
plt.figure(figsize=(width, height), frameon=False)
# Convert Surface Pressure to Mean Sea Level Pressure
stemps = temps[time] + 6.5 * nc.variables['HGT'][time] / 1000.
mslp = nc.variables['PSFC'][time] * np.exp(9.81 / (287.0 * stemps) * nc.variables['HGT'][time]) * 0.01 + (
6.7 * nc.variables['HGT'][time] / 1000)
# Contour only at 2 hpa interval
level = []
for i in range(mslp.min(), mslp.max(), 1):
if i % 2 == 0:
if i >= 1006 and i <= 1018:
level.append(i)
# Save mslp values to upload to SO thread
# np.savetxt('mslp.txt', mslp, fmt='%.14f', delimiter=',')
P = plt.contour(x, y, mslp, V=2, colors='b', linewidths=2, levels=level)
# Solution suggested by Andras Deak
for level in P.collections:
for kp,path in enumerate(level.get_paths()):
# include test for "smallness" of your choice here:
# I'm using a simple estimation for the diameter based on the
# x and y diameter...
verts = path.vertices # (N,2)-shape array of contour line coordinates
diameter = np.max(verts.max(axis=0) - verts.min(axis=0))
if diameter < 15000: # threshold to be refined for your actual dimensions!
#print 'diameter is ', diameter
del(level.get_paths()[kp]) # no remove() for Path objects:(
#level.remove() # This does not work. produces ValueError: list.remove(x): x not in list
plt.gcf().canvas.draw()
plt.savefig('dummy', bbox_inches='tight')
plt.close()
After the plot is saved I get the same image
You can see that the lines are not removed yet. Here is the link to mslp array which we are trying to play with http://www.mediafire.com/download/7vi0mxqoe0y6pm9/mslp.txt
If you want x and y data which are being used in the above code, I can upload for your review.
Smooth line
You code to remove the smaller circles working perfectly. However the other question I have asked in the original post (smooth line) does not seems to work. I have used your code to slice the array to get minimal values and contoured it. I have used the following code to reduce the array size:-
slice = 15
CS = plt.contour(x[::slice,::slice],y[::slice,::slice],mslp[::slice,::slice], colors='b', linewidths=1, levels=levels)
The result is below.
After searching for few hours I found this SO thread having simmilar issue:-
Regridding regular netcdf data
But none of the solution provided over there works.The questions similar to mine above does not have proper solutions. If this issue is solved then the code is perfect and complete.

General idea
Your question seems to have 2 very different halves: one about omitting small contours, and another one about smoothing the contour lines. The latter is simpler, since I can't really think of anything else other than decreasing the resolution of your contour() call, just like you said.
As for removing a few contour lines, here's a solution which is based on directly removing contour lines individually. You have to loop over the collections of the object returned by contour(), and for each element check each Path, and delete the ones you don't need. Redrawing the figure's canvas will get rid of the unnecessary lines:
# dummy example based on matplotlib.pyplot.clabel example:
import matplotlib
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.cm as cm
import matplotlib.mlab as mlab
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
delta = 0.025
x = np.arange(-3.0, 3.0, delta)
y = np.arange(-2.0, 2.0, delta)
X, Y = np.meshgrid(x, y)
Z1 = mlab.bivariate_normal(X, Y, 1.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0)
Z2 = mlab.bivariate_normal(X, Y, 1.5, 0.5, 1, 1)
# difference of Gaussians
Z = 10.0 * (Z2 - Z1)
plt.figure()
CS = plt.contour(X, Y, Z)
for level in CS.collections:
for kp,path in reversed(list(enumerate(level.get_paths()))):
# go in reversed order due to deletions!
# include test for "smallness" of your choice here:
# I'm using a simple estimation for the diameter based on the
# x and y diameter...
verts = path.vertices # (N,2)-shape array of contour line coordinates
diameter = np.max(verts.max(axis=0) - verts.min(axis=0))
if diameter<1: # threshold to be refined for your actual dimensions!
del(level.get_paths()[kp]) # no remove() for Path objects:(
# this might be necessary on interactive sessions: redraw figure
plt.gcf().canvas.draw()
Here's the original(left) and the removed version(right) for a diameter threshold of 1 (note the little piece of the 0 level at the top):
Note that the top little line is removed while the huge cyan one in the middle doesn't, even though both correspond to the same collections element i.e. the same contour level. If we didn't want to allow this, we could've called CS.collections[k].remove(), which would probably be a much safer way of doing the same thing (but it wouldn't allow us to differentiate between multiple lines corresponding to the same contour level).
To show that fiddling around with the cut-off diameter works as expected, here's the result for a threshold of 2:
All in all it seems quite reasonable.
Your actual case
Since you've added your actual data, here's the application to your case. Note that you can directly generate the levels in a single line using np, which will almost give you the same result. The exact same can be achieved in 2 lines (generating an arange, then selecting those that fall between p1 and p2). Also, since you're setting levels in the call to contour, I believe the V=2 part of the function call has no effect.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# insert actual data here...
Z = np.loadtxt('mslp.txt',delimiter=',')
X,Y = np.meshgrid(np.linspace(0,300000,Z.shape[1]),np.linspace(0,200000,Z.shape[0]))
p1,p2 = 1006,1018
# this is almost the same as the original, although it will produce
# [p1, p1+2, ...] instead of `[Z.min()+n, Z.min()+n+2, ...]`
levels = np.arange(np.maximum(Z.min(),p1),np.minimum(Z.max(),p2),2)
#control
plt.figure()
CS = plt.contour(X, Y, Z, colors='b', linewidths=2, levels=levels)
#modified
plt.figure()
CS = plt.contour(X, Y, Z, colors='b', linewidths=2, levels=levels)
for level in CS.collections:
for kp,path in reversed(list(enumerate(level.get_paths()))):
# go in reversed order due to deletions!
# include test for "smallness" of your choice here:
# I'm using a simple estimation for the diameter based on the
# x and y diameter...
verts = path.vertices # (N,2)-shape array of contour line coordinates
diameter = np.max(verts.max(axis=0) - verts.min(axis=0))
if diameter<15000: # threshold to be refined for your actual dimensions!
del(level.get_paths()[kp]) # no remove() for Path objects:(
# this might be necessary on interactive sessions: redraw figure
plt.gcf().canvas.draw()
plt.show()
Results, original(left) vs new(right):
Smoothing by resampling
I've decided to tackle the smoothing problem as well. All I could come up with is downsampling your original data, then upsampling again using griddata (interpolation). The downsampling part could also be done with interpolation, although the small-scale variation in your input data might make this problem ill-posed. So here's the crude version:
import scipy.interpolate as interp #the new one
# assume you have X,Y,Z,levels defined as before
# start resampling stuff
dN = 10 # use every dN'th element of the gridded input data
my_slice = [slice(None,None,dN),slice(None,None,dN)]
# downsampled data
X2,Y2,Z2 = X[my_slice],Y[my_slice],Z[my_slice]
# same as X2 = X[::dN,::dN] etc.
# upsampling with griddata over original mesh
Zsmooth = interp.griddata(np.array([X2.ravel(),Y2.ravel()]).T,Z2.ravel(),(X,Y),method='cubic')
# plot
plt.figure()
CS = plt.contour(X, Y, Zsmooth, colors='b', linewidths=2, levels=levels)
You can freely play around with the grids used for interpolation, in this case I just used the original mesh, as it was at hand. You can also play around with different kinds of interpolation: the default 'linear' one will be faster, but less smooth.
Result after downsampling(left) and upsampling(right):
Of course you should still apply the small-line-removal algorithm after this resampling business, and keep in mind that this heavily distorts your input data (since if it wasn't distorted, then it wouldn't be smooth). Also, note that due to the crude method used in the downsampling step, we introduce some missing values near the top/right edges of the region under consideraton. If this is a problem, you should consider doing the downsampling based on griddata as I've noted earlier.

This is a pretty bad solution, but it's the only one that I've come up with. Use the get_contour_verts function in this solution you linked to, possibly with the matplotlib._cntr module so that nothing gets plotted initially. That gives you a list of contour lines, sections, vertices, etc. Then you have to go through that list and pop the contours you don't want. You could do this by calculating a minimum diameter, for example; if the max distance between points is less than some cutoff, throw it out.
That leaves you with a list of LineCollection objects. Now if you make a Figure and Axes instance, you can use Axes.add_collection to add all of the LineCollections in the list.
I checked this out really quick, but it seemed to work. I'll come back with a minimum working example if I get a chance. Hope it helps!
Edit: Here's an MWE of the basic idea. I wasn't familiar with plt._cntr.Cntr, so I ended up using plt.contour to get the initial contour object. As a result, you end up making two figures; you just have to close the first one. You can replace checkDiameter with whatever function works. I think you could turn the line segments into a Polygon and calculate areas, but you'd have to figure that out on your own. Let me know if you run into problems with this code, but it at least works for me.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib as mpl
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def checkDiameter(seg, tol=.3):
# Function for screening line segments. NB: Not actually a proper diameter.
diam = (seg[:,0].max() - seg[:,0].min(),
seg[:,1].max() - seg[:,1].min())
return not (diam[0] < tol or diam[1] < tol)
# Create testing data
x = np.linspace(-1,1, 21)
xx, yy = np.meshgrid(x,x)
z = np.exp(-(xx**2 + .5*yy**2))
# Original plot with plt.contour
fig0, ax0 = plt.subplots()
# Make sure this contour object actually has a tiny contour to remove
cntrObj = ax0.contour(xx,yy,z, levels=[.2,.4,.6,.8,.9,.95,.99,.999])
# Primary loop: Copy contours into a new LineCollection
lineNew = list()
for lineOriginal in cntrObj.collections:
# Get properties of the original LineCollection
segments = lineOriginal.get_segments()
propDict = lineOriginal.properties()
propDict = {key: value for (key,value) in propDict.items()
if key in ['linewidth','color','linestyle']} # Whatever parameters you want to carry over
# Filter out the lines with small diameters
segments = [seg for seg in segments if checkDiameter(seg)]
# Create new LineCollection out of the OK segments
if len(segments) > 0:
lineNew.append(mpl.collections.LineCollection(segments, **propDict))
# Make new plot with only these line collections; display results
fig1, ax1 = plt.subplots()
ax1.set_xlim(ax0.get_xlim())
ax1.set_ylim(ax0.get_ylim())
for line in lineNew:
ax1.add_collection(line)
plt.show()
FYI: The bit with propDict is just to automate bringing over some of the line properties from the original plot. You can't use the whole dictionary at once, though. First, it contains the old plot's line segments, but you can just swap those for the new ones. But second, it appears to contain a number of parameters that are in conflict with each other: multiple linewidths, facecolors, etc. The {key for key in propDict if I want key} workaround is my way to bypass that, but I'm sure someone else can do it more cleanly.

How to produce the following images (gabor patches)

I am trying to create four gabor patches, very similar to those below.
I don't need them to be identical to the pictures below, but similar.
Despite a bit of tinkering, I have been unable to reproduce these images...
I believe they were created in MATLAB originally. I don't have access to the original MATLAB code.
I have the following code in python (2.7.10):
import numpy as np
from scipy.misc import toimage # One can also use matplotlib*
data = gabor_fn(sigma = ???, theta = 0, Lambda = ???, psi = ???, gamma = ???)
toimage(data).show()
*graphing a numpy array with matplotlib
gabor_fn, from here, is defined below:
def gabor_fn(sigma,theta,Lambda,psi,gamma):
sigma_x = sigma;
sigma_y = float(sigma)/gamma;
# Bounding box
nstds = 3;
xmax = max(abs(nstds*sigma_x*numpy.cos(theta)),abs(nstds*sigma_y*numpy.sin(theta)));
xmax = numpy.ceil(max(1,xmax));
ymax = max(abs(nstds*sigma_x*numpy.sin(theta)),abs(nstds*sigma_y*numpy.cos(theta)));
ymax = numpy.ceil(max(1,ymax));
xmin = -xmax; ymin = -ymax;
(x,y) = numpy.meshgrid(numpy.arange(xmin,xmax+1),numpy.arange(ymin,ymax+1 ));
(y,x) = numpy.meshgrid(numpy.arange(ymin,ymax+1),numpy.arange(xmin,xmax+1 ));
# Rotation
x_theta=x*numpy.cos(theta)+y*numpy.sin(theta);
y_theta=-x*numpy.sin(theta)+y*numpy.cos(theta);
gb= numpy.exp(-.5*(x_theta**2/sigma_x**2+y_theta**2/sigma_y**2))*numpy.cos(2*numpy.pi/Lambda*x_theta+psi);
return gb
As you may be able to tell, the only difference (I believe) between the images is contrast. So, gabor_fn would likely needed to be altered to do allow for this (unless I misunderstand one of the params)...I'm just not sure how.
UPDATE:
from math import pi
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
data = gabor_fn(sigma=5.,theta=pi/2.,Lambda=12.5,psi=90,gamma=1.)
unit = #From left to right, unit was set to 1, 3, 7 and 9.
bound = 0.0009/unit
fig = plt.imshow(
data
,cmap = 'gray'
,interpolation='none'
,vmin = -bound
,vmax = bound
)
plt.axis('off')

The problem you are having is a visualization problem (although, I think you are chossing too large parameters).
By default matplotlib, and scipy's (toimage) use bilinear (or trilinear) interpolation, depending on your matplotlib's configuration script. That's why your image looks so smooth. It is because your pixels values are being interpolated, and you are not displaying the raw kernel you have just calculated.
Try using matplotlib with no interpolation:
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
plt.imshow(data, 'gray', interpolation='none')
plt.show()
For the following parameters:
data = gabor_fn(sigma=5.,theta=pi/2.,Lambda=25.,psi=90,gamma=1.)
You get this output:
If you reduce lamda to 15, you get something like this:
Additionally, the sigma you choose changes the strength of the smoothing, adding parameters vmin=-1 and vmax=1 to imshow (similar to what #kazemakase) suggested, will give you the desired contrast.
Check this guide for sensible values (and ways to use) gabor kernels:
http://scikit-image.org/docs/dev/auto_examples/plot_gabor.html

It seems like toimage scales the input data so that the min/max values are mapped to black/white.
I do not know what amplitudes to reasonably expect from gabor patches, but you should try something like this:
toimage(data, cmin=-1, cmax=1).show()
This tells toimage what range your data is in. You can try to play around with cmin and cmax, but make sure they are symmetric (i.e. cmin=-x, cmax=x) so that a value of 0 maps to grey.