Fastest Way To Loop Through Every Pixel

[Chaos]

As my first attempt to loop through every pixel of an image, I used

for thisY in range(0, thisHeight):
for thisX in range(0, thisWidth):
#Actions here for Pixel thisX, thisY

But it takes 450-1000 milliseconds

I want speeds less than 10 milliseconds

I have tried using SWIG, and pypy but they all are unsuccessfull in
compiling my files.

[John Machin]

Chaos wrote:

As my first attempt to loop through every pixel of an image, I used

for thisY in range(0, thisHeight):
for thisX in range(0, thisWidth):
#Actions here for Pixel thisX, thisY

OT: you don't need the 0 in the range call. Taking it out doesn't make
it run faster, though.

>
But it takes 450-1000 milliseconds

I want speeds less than 10 milliseconds

I have tried using SWIG, and pypy but they all are unsuccessfull in
compiling my files.

Unsuccessful because .... what?
[I wasn't aware that swig was intended to compile Python scripts]

Sticking with Python:
With the "for thisX" try
(1) using xrange instead of range.
(2) widthRange = range(thisWidth )
for thisY in range(thisHeigh t):
for thisX in widthrange:
and in general, hoist loop-invariants outside the loop.

Have you considered Pyrex?

It all depends on what "#Actions here for Pixel thisX, thisY" is doing.
Perhaps there is a library (PIL, pygame, ...) that does what you are
trying to do.
Perhaps if you show us what you are doing, we can give you better
advice.

HTH,
John

[Chaos]

John Machin wrote:

Chaos wrote:

As my first attempt to loop through every pixel of an image, I used

for thisY in range(0, thisHeight):
for thisX in range(0, thisWidth):
#Actions here for Pixel thisX, thisY

OT: you don't need the 0 in the range call. Taking it out doesn't make
it run faster, though.

But it takes 450-1000 milliseconds

I want speeds less than 10 milliseconds

I have tried using SWIG, and pypy but they all are unsuccessfull in
compiling my files.

Unsuccessful because .... what?
[I wasn't aware that swig was intended to compile Python scripts]

Sticking with Python:
With the "for thisX" try
(1) using xrange instead of range.
(2) widthRange = range(thisWidth )
for thisY in range(thisHeigh t):
for thisX in widthrange:
and in general, hoist loop-invariants outside the loop.

Have you considered Pyrex?

It all depends on what "#Actions here for Pixel thisX, thisY" is doing.
Perhaps there is a library (PIL, pygame, ...) that does what you are
trying to do.
Perhaps if you show us what you are doing, we can give you better
advice.

HTH,
John

Nope still same speed. I also tried pyrex but I couldnt understand how
to build pyx files. I didnt see how to set up the files using C. I
wasnt sure if you were supposed use the example or build your own.

With pypy I got a strange error trying to open py files. It said the
first character of evey py file was unknown.

I may try SWIG again becuase I fail to rememeber why I stopped using it.

[Nick Vatamaniuc]

Hello Chaos,

Whatever you do in "#Actions here ..." might be expressed nicely as a
ufunction for numeric. Then you might be able to convert the expression
to a numeric expression. Check out numpy/scipy.

In general, if thisHeight, thisWidth are large use xrange not range.
range() generates a list of numbers first then iterates through them.
So try that first.

Then of course if you do the whole thing many times you could just
pre-generate the indices as in:
all_indices=[]
for i in xrange(thisHeig ht):
for j in xrange(thisWidt h):
all_indices.app end( (i,j) )

Then each time you need to run '#Actions here...' you can just use
for (i,j) in all_indices:
#Actions here ... blah blah

In general, if there would be a way to significantly optimize generic
for loops, they would probably be already optimized...

Nick V.
Chaos wrote:

As my first attempt to loop through every pixel of an image, I used

for thisY in range(0, thisHeight):
for thisX in range(0, thisWidth):
#Actions here for Pixel thisX, thisY

But it takes 450-1000 milliseconds

I want speeds less than 10 milliseconds

I have tried using SWIG, and pypy but they all are unsuccessfull in
compiling my files.

[Chaos]

Chaos wrote:

John Machin wrote:

Chaos wrote:

As my first attempt to loop through every pixel of an image, I used
>
for thisY in range(0, thisHeight):
for thisX in range(0, thisWidth):
#Actions here for Pixel thisX, thisY

OT: you don't need the 0 in the range call. Taking it out doesn't make
it run faster, though.

>
But it takes 450-1000 milliseconds
>
I want speeds less than 10 milliseconds
>
I have tried using SWIG, and pypy but they all are

unsuccessfull in

compiling my files.

Unsuccessful because .... what?
[I wasn't aware that swig was intended to compile Python scripts]

Sticking with Python:
With the "for thisX" try
(1) using xrange instead of range.
(2) widthRange = range(thisWidth )
for thisY in range(thisHeigh t):
for thisX in widthrange:
and in general, hoist loop-invariants outside the loop.

Have you considered Pyrex?

It all depends on what "#Actions here for Pixel thisX, thisY" is doing.
Perhaps there is a library (PIL, pygame, ...) that does what you are
trying to do.
Perhaps if you show us what you are doing, we can give you better
advice.

HTH,
John

Nope still same speed. I also tried pyrex but I couldnt understand how
to build pyx files. I didnt see how to set up the files using C. I
wasnt sure if you were supposed use the example or build your own.

With pypy I got a strange error trying to open py files. It said the
first character of evey py file was unknown.

I may try SWIG again becuase I fail to rememeber why I stopped using it.

With SWIG when I tried to execute ld -shared example.o example_wrap.o
-o _example.so line in CMD I got example_wrap.o: example.o
:<.text+0x####> : undifned refrence to object

--Nick

Thank you but it didnt work, but I think I am getting somewhere because
I used your method and got 400 ms, I think that is something because I
used 2 loops

He is the code #Actions here

myCol = (0.3 * image.GetRed(th isX, thisY)) + (0.59 *
image.GetGreen( thisX, thisY)) + (0.11 * image.GetBlue(t hisX, thisY))
if myCol < darkestCol:
darkestCol = myCol
possX = thisX
possY = thisY

[Simon Forman]

Chaos wrote:

As my first attempt to loop through every pixel of an image, I used

for thisY in range(0, thisHeight):
for thisX in range(0, thisWidth):
#Actions here for Pixel thisX, thisY

But it takes 450-1000 milliseconds

I want speeds less than 10 milliseconds

I have tried using SWIG, and pypy but they all are unsuccessfull in
compiling my files.

You could try the PIL package.

>From the docs at

http://www.pythonware.com/library/pi...book/image.htm

Image.eval(func tion, image) =image

Applies the function (which should take one argument) to each pixel in
the given image. If the image has more than one band, the same function
is applied to each band. Note that the function is evaluated once for
each possible pixel value, so you cannot use random components or other
generators.

HTH,
~Simon

[Casey Hawthorne]

Have you tried PIL? (Python Imaging Library)

"Chaos" <ps*******@gmai l.comwrote:

>As my first attempt to loop through every pixel of an image, I used

for thisY in range(0, thisHeight):
for thisX in range(0, thisWidth):
#Actions here for Pixel thisX, thisY

But it takes 450-1000 milliseconds

I want speeds less than 10 milliseconds

I have tried using SWIG, and pypy but they all are unsuccessfull in
compiling my files.

--
Regards,
Casey

[Chaos]

Simon Forman wrote:

Chaos wrote:

As my first attempt to loop through every pixel of an image, I used

for thisY in range(0, thisHeight):
for thisX in range(0, thisWidth):
#Actions here for Pixel thisX, thisY

But it takes 450-1000 milliseconds

I want speeds less than 10 milliseconds

I have tried using SWIG, and pypy but they all are unsuccessfull in
compiling my files.

You could try the PIL package.

From the docs at

http://www.pythonware.com/library/pi...book/image.htm

Image.eval(func tion, image) =image

Applies the function (which should take one argument) to each pixel in
the given image. If the image has more than one band, the same function
is applied to each band. Note that the function is evaluated once for
each possible pixel value, so you cannot use random components or other
generators.

HTH,
~Simon

I have tried PIL. Not only that, but the Image.eval function had no
success either. I did some tests and I found out that Image.eval only
called the function a certain number of times either 250, or 255.
Unless I can find a working example for this function, its impossible
to use.

[Paul McGuire]

"Chaos" <ps*******@gmai l.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ i3g2000cwc.goog legroups.com...

>

myCol = (0.3 * image.GetRed(th isX, thisY)) + (0.59 *
image.GetGreen( thisX, thisY)) + (0.11 * image.GetBlue(t hisX, thisY))
if myCol < darkestCol:
darkestCol = myCol
possX = thisX
possY = thisY

Psyco may be of some help to you, especially if you extract out your myCol
expression into its own function, something like:

def darkness(img,x, y):
return (0.3 * img.GetRed(x,y) ) + (0.59 * img.GetGreen(x, y)) + (0.11 *
img.GetBlue(x,y ))

You may also be paying a penalty for the floating-point multiplications .
Since you are only concerned with the relative values, what if you scale up
all of your weighting coefficients, so that you only do integer multiplies?

def darkness(img,x, y):
return (30 * img.GetRed(x,y) ) + (59 * img.GetGreen(x, y)) + (11 *
img.GetBlue(x,y ))

You can also cut down on resolution of your GetXXX functions by saving them
to locals.

RedVal = Image.GetRed
GrnVal = Image.GetGreen
BluVal = Image.GetBlue
def darkness(img,x, y):
return (30 * RedVal(img,x,y) ) + (59 * GreenVal(img,x, y)) + (11 *
BlueVal(img,x,y ))

Even downer-and-dirtier, you could approximate 30 with 32, 59 with 64, and
11 with 8, and do bit-shifting instead of multiplying:

def darkness(img,x, y):
return (RedVal(img,x,y ) << 5) + (GreenVal(img,x ,y) << 6) +
(BlueVal(img,x, y) << 3)
-- Paul

[Paul McGuire]

"Nick Vatamaniuc" <va******@gmail .comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ p79g2000cwp.goo glegroups.com.. .

Hello Chaos,

Then of course if you do the whole thing many times you could just
pre-generate the indices as in:
all_indices=[]
for i in xrange(thisHeig ht):
for j in xrange(thisWidt h):
all_indices.app end( (i,j) )

Or just:

all_indices = [ (i,j) for i in xrange(thisHeig ht) for j in
xrange(thisWidt h) ]

Embrace those list comprehensions!

-- Paul