Why is my bilinear interpolation vastly different from the in-built matlab function?












3















I've been working on bilinear interpolation based on wiki example in matlab. I followed the example to the T, but when comparing the outputs from my function and the in-built matlab function, the results are vastly different and I can't figure out why or how that happens.



Using inbuilt matlab function:
Photo of a zebra on a white background.



Result of my function below:
The same photo above but the image is blurry.



function T = bilinear(X,h,w)
%pre-allocating the output size
T = uint8(zeros(h,w));
%padding the original image with 0 so i don't go out of bounds
X = padarray(X,[2,2],'both');
%calculating dimension ratios
hr = h/size(X,1);
wr = w/size(X,2);

for row = 3:h-3
for col = 3:w-3
%for calculating equivalent position on the original image
o_row = ceil(row/hr);
o_col = ceil(col/wr);
%getting the intensity values from horizontal neighbors
Q12=X(o_row+1,o_col-1);
Q22=X(o_row+1,o_col+1);
Q11=X(o_row-1,o_col-1);
Q21=X(o_row-1,o_col+1);
%calculating the relative positions to the enlarged image
y2=round((o_row-1)*hr);
y=round(o_row*hr);
y1=round((o_row+1)*hr);
x1=round((o_col-1)*wr);
x=round(o_col*wr);
x2=round((o_col+1)*wr);
%interpolating on 2 first axis and the result between them
R1=((x2-x)/(x2-x1))*Q11+((x-x1)/(x2-x1))*Q21;
R2=((x2-x)/(x2-x1))*Q12+((x-x1)/(x2-x1))*Q22;
P=round(((y2-y)/(y2-y1))*R1+((y-y1)/(y2-y1))*R2);
T(row,col) = P;

T = uint8(T);
end
end
end


The arguments passed to the function are step4 = bilinear(Igray,1668,1836); (scale factor of 3).










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Also, uint8(zeros(h,w)) creates a double array and concerts it to uint8. It’s better to do zeros(h,w,'uint8').

    – Cris Luengo
    Nov 14 '18 at 14:41











  • Removing relevant code is generally considered vandalism. Please don't do it. By posting on the Stack Exchange (SE) network, you've granted a non-revocable right, under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, for SE to distribute that content (i.e. regardless of your future choices). By SE policy, the non-vandalized version of the post is the one which is distributed. Thus, any vandalism will be reverted. If you want to know more about deleting a post please see: How does deleting work? ...

    – Makyen
    Nov 14 '18 at 21:53
















3















I've been working on bilinear interpolation based on wiki example in matlab. I followed the example to the T, but when comparing the outputs from my function and the in-built matlab function, the results are vastly different and I can't figure out why or how that happens.



Using inbuilt matlab function:
Photo of a zebra on a white background.



Result of my function below:
The same photo above but the image is blurry.



function T = bilinear(X,h,w)
%pre-allocating the output size
T = uint8(zeros(h,w));
%padding the original image with 0 so i don't go out of bounds
X = padarray(X,[2,2],'both');
%calculating dimension ratios
hr = h/size(X,1);
wr = w/size(X,2);

for row = 3:h-3
for col = 3:w-3
%for calculating equivalent position on the original image
o_row = ceil(row/hr);
o_col = ceil(col/wr);
%getting the intensity values from horizontal neighbors
Q12=X(o_row+1,o_col-1);
Q22=X(o_row+1,o_col+1);
Q11=X(o_row-1,o_col-1);
Q21=X(o_row-1,o_col+1);
%calculating the relative positions to the enlarged image
y2=round((o_row-1)*hr);
y=round(o_row*hr);
y1=round((o_row+1)*hr);
x1=round((o_col-1)*wr);
x=round(o_col*wr);
x2=round((o_col+1)*wr);
%interpolating on 2 first axis and the result between them
R1=((x2-x)/(x2-x1))*Q11+((x-x1)/(x2-x1))*Q21;
R2=((x2-x)/(x2-x1))*Q12+((x-x1)/(x2-x1))*Q22;
P=round(((y2-y)/(y2-y1))*R1+((y-y1)/(y2-y1))*R2);
T(row,col) = P;

T = uint8(T);
end
end
end


The arguments passed to the function are step4 = bilinear(Igray,1668,1836); (scale factor of 3).










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Also, uint8(zeros(h,w)) creates a double array and concerts it to uint8. It’s better to do zeros(h,w,'uint8').

    – Cris Luengo
    Nov 14 '18 at 14:41











  • Removing relevant code is generally considered vandalism. Please don't do it. By posting on the Stack Exchange (SE) network, you've granted a non-revocable right, under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, for SE to distribute that content (i.e. regardless of your future choices). By SE policy, the non-vandalized version of the post is the one which is distributed. Thus, any vandalism will be reverted. If you want to know more about deleting a post please see: How does deleting work? ...

    – Makyen
    Nov 14 '18 at 21:53














3












3








3


0






I've been working on bilinear interpolation based on wiki example in matlab. I followed the example to the T, but when comparing the outputs from my function and the in-built matlab function, the results are vastly different and I can't figure out why or how that happens.



Using inbuilt matlab function:
Photo of a zebra on a white background.



Result of my function below:
The same photo above but the image is blurry.



function T = bilinear(X,h,w)
%pre-allocating the output size
T = uint8(zeros(h,w));
%padding the original image with 0 so i don't go out of bounds
X = padarray(X,[2,2],'both');
%calculating dimension ratios
hr = h/size(X,1);
wr = w/size(X,2);

for row = 3:h-3
for col = 3:w-3
%for calculating equivalent position on the original image
o_row = ceil(row/hr);
o_col = ceil(col/wr);
%getting the intensity values from horizontal neighbors
Q12=X(o_row+1,o_col-1);
Q22=X(o_row+1,o_col+1);
Q11=X(o_row-1,o_col-1);
Q21=X(o_row-1,o_col+1);
%calculating the relative positions to the enlarged image
y2=round((o_row-1)*hr);
y=round(o_row*hr);
y1=round((o_row+1)*hr);
x1=round((o_col-1)*wr);
x=round(o_col*wr);
x2=round((o_col+1)*wr);
%interpolating on 2 first axis and the result between them
R1=((x2-x)/(x2-x1))*Q11+((x-x1)/(x2-x1))*Q21;
R2=((x2-x)/(x2-x1))*Q12+((x-x1)/(x2-x1))*Q22;
P=round(((y2-y)/(y2-y1))*R1+((y-y1)/(y2-y1))*R2);
T(row,col) = P;

T = uint8(T);
end
end
end


The arguments passed to the function are step4 = bilinear(Igray,1668,1836); (scale factor of 3).










share|improve this question
















I've been working on bilinear interpolation based on wiki example in matlab. I followed the example to the T, but when comparing the outputs from my function and the in-built matlab function, the results are vastly different and I can't figure out why or how that happens.



Using inbuilt matlab function:
Photo of a zebra on a white background.



Result of my function below:
The same photo above but the image is blurry.



function T = bilinear(X,h,w)
%pre-allocating the output size
T = uint8(zeros(h,w));
%padding the original image with 0 so i don't go out of bounds
X = padarray(X,[2,2],'both');
%calculating dimension ratios
hr = h/size(X,1);
wr = w/size(X,2);

for row = 3:h-3
for col = 3:w-3
%for calculating equivalent position on the original image
o_row = ceil(row/hr);
o_col = ceil(col/wr);
%getting the intensity values from horizontal neighbors
Q12=X(o_row+1,o_col-1);
Q22=X(o_row+1,o_col+1);
Q11=X(o_row-1,o_col-1);
Q21=X(o_row-1,o_col+1);
%calculating the relative positions to the enlarged image
y2=round((o_row-1)*hr);
y=round(o_row*hr);
y1=round((o_row+1)*hr);
x1=round((o_col-1)*wr);
x=round(o_col*wr);
x2=round((o_col+1)*wr);
%interpolating on 2 first axis and the result between them
R1=((x2-x)/(x2-x1))*Q11+((x-x1)/(x2-x1))*Q21;
R2=((x2-x)/(x2-x1))*Q12+((x-x1)/(x2-x1))*Q22;
P=round(((y2-y)/(y2-y1))*R1+((y-y1)/(y2-y1))*R2);
T(row,col) = P;

T = uint8(T);
end
end
end


The arguments passed to the function are step4 = bilinear(Igray,1668,1836); (scale factor of 3).







matlab image-processing bilinear-interpolation






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 15 '18 at 10:21









BSMP

2,60952435




2,60952435










asked Nov 14 '18 at 14:10









VocaloidasVocaloidas

598




598








  • 1





    Also, uint8(zeros(h,w)) creates a double array and concerts it to uint8. It’s better to do zeros(h,w,'uint8').

    – Cris Luengo
    Nov 14 '18 at 14:41











  • Removing relevant code is generally considered vandalism. Please don't do it. By posting on the Stack Exchange (SE) network, you've granted a non-revocable right, under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, for SE to distribute that content (i.e. regardless of your future choices). By SE policy, the non-vandalized version of the post is the one which is distributed. Thus, any vandalism will be reverted. If you want to know more about deleting a post please see: How does deleting work? ...

    – Makyen
    Nov 14 '18 at 21:53














  • 1





    Also, uint8(zeros(h,w)) creates a double array and concerts it to uint8. It’s better to do zeros(h,w,'uint8').

    – Cris Luengo
    Nov 14 '18 at 14:41











  • Removing relevant code is generally considered vandalism. Please don't do it. By posting on the Stack Exchange (SE) network, you've granted a non-revocable right, under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, for SE to distribute that content (i.e. regardless of your future choices). By SE policy, the non-vandalized version of the post is the one which is distributed. Thus, any vandalism will be reverted. If you want to know more about deleting a post please see: How does deleting work? ...

    – Makyen
    Nov 14 '18 at 21:53








1




1





Also, uint8(zeros(h,w)) creates a double array and concerts it to uint8. It’s better to do zeros(h,w,'uint8').

– Cris Luengo
Nov 14 '18 at 14:41





Also, uint8(zeros(h,w)) creates a double array and concerts it to uint8. It’s better to do zeros(h,w,'uint8').

– Cris Luengo
Nov 14 '18 at 14:41













Removing relevant code is generally considered vandalism. Please don't do it. By posting on the Stack Exchange (SE) network, you've granted a non-revocable right, under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, for SE to distribute that content (i.e. regardless of your future choices). By SE policy, the non-vandalized version of the post is the one which is distributed. Thus, any vandalism will be reverted. If you want to know more about deleting a post please see: How does deleting work? ...

– Makyen
Nov 14 '18 at 21:53





Removing relevant code is generally considered vandalism. Please don't do it. By posting on the Stack Exchange (SE) network, you've granted a non-revocable right, under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, for SE to distribute that content (i.e. regardless of your future choices). By SE policy, the non-vandalized version of the post is the one which is distributed. Thus, any vandalism will be reverted. If you want to know more about deleting a post please see: How does deleting work? ...

– Makyen
Nov 14 '18 at 21:53












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















4














You are finding the pixel nearest to the point you want to interpolate, then find 4 of this pixel’s neighbors and interpolate between them:



o_row = ceil(row/hr);
o_col = ceil(col/wr);
Q12=X(o_row+1,o_col-1);
Q22=X(o_row+1,o_col+1);
Q11=X(o_row-1,o_col-1);
Q21=X(o_row-1,o_col+1);


Instead, find the 4 pixels nearest the point you want to interpolate:



o_row = ceil(row/hr);
o_col = ceil(col/wr);
Q12=X(o_row,o_col-1);
Q22=X(o_row,o_col);
Q11=X(o_row-1,o_col-1);
Q21=X(o_row-1,o_col);


The same pixel’s coordinates then need to be used when computing distances. The easiest way to do that is to separate out the floating-point coordinates of the output pixel ((row,col)) in the input image (o_row,o_col), and the location of the nearest pixel in the input image (fo_row,fo_col). Then, the distances are simply d_row = o_row - fo_row and 1-d_row, etc.



This is how I would write this function:



function T = bilinear(X,h,w)
% Pre-allocating the output size
T = zeros(h,w,'uint8'); % Create the matrix in the right type, rather than cast !!
% Calculating dimension ratios
hr = h/size(X,1); % Not with the padded sizes!!
wr = w/size(X,2);
% Padding the original image with 0 so I don't go out of bounds
pad = 2;
X = padarray(X,[pad,pad],'both');
% Loop
for col = 1:w % Looping over the row in the inner loop is faster!!
for row = 1:h
% For calculating equivalent position on the original image
o_row = row/hr;
o_col = col/wr;
fo_row = floor(o_row); % Code is simpler when using floor here !!
fo_col = floor(o_col);
% Getting the intensity values from horizontal neighbors
Q11 = double(X(fo_row +pad, fo_col +pad)); % Indexing taking padding into account !!
Q21 = double(X(fo_row+1+pad, fo_col +pad)); % Casting to double might not be necessary, but MATLAB does weird things with integer computation !!
Q12 = double(X(fo_row +pad, fo_col+1+pad));
Q22 = double(X(fo_row+1+pad, fo_col+1+pad));
% Calculating the relative positions to the enlarged image
d_row = o_row - fo_row;
d_col = o_col - fo_col;
% Interpolating on 2 first axis and the result between them
R1 = (1-d_row)*Q11 + d_row*Q21;
R2 = (1-d_row)*Q12 + d_row*Q22;
T(row,col) = round((1-d_col)*R1 + d_col*R2);
end
end
end





share|improve this answer


























  • @Vocaloidas that is wrong. You use 4 adjacent pixels for interpolation, not the neighbors.

    – Ander Biguri
    Nov 14 '18 at 15:34











  • @Vocaloidas: I have updated the answer with a suggestion for how to compute the distances properly. I have also included my modifications to your code, just to make sure I wasn't telling you something wrong. :)

    – Cris Luengo
    Nov 14 '18 at 15:40











Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53302184%2fwhy-is-my-bilinear-interpolation-vastly-different-from-the-in-built-matlab-funct%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4














You are finding the pixel nearest to the point you want to interpolate, then find 4 of this pixel’s neighbors and interpolate between them:



o_row = ceil(row/hr);
o_col = ceil(col/wr);
Q12=X(o_row+1,o_col-1);
Q22=X(o_row+1,o_col+1);
Q11=X(o_row-1,o_col-1);
Q21=X(o_row-1,o_col+1);


Instead, find the 4 pixels nearest the point you want to interpolate:



o_row = ceil(row/hr);
o_col = ceil(col/wr);
Q12=X(o_row,o_col-1);
Q22=X(o_row,o_col);
Q11=X(o_row-1,o_col-1);
Q21=X(o_row-1,o_col);


The same pixel’s coordinates then need to be used when computing distances. The easiest way to do that is to separate out the floating-point coordinates of the output pixel ((row,col)) in the input image (o_row,o_col), and the location of the nearest pixel in the input image (fo_row,fo_col). Then, the distances are simply d_row = o_row - fo_row and 1-d_row, etc.



This is how I would write this function:



function T = bilinear(X,h,w)
% Pre-allocating the output size
T = zeros(h,w,'uint8'); % Create the matrix in the right type, rather than cast !!
% Calculating dimension ratios
hr = h/size(X,1); % Not with the padded sizes!!
wr = w/size(X,2);
% Padding the original image with 0 so I don't go out of bounds
pad = 2;
X = padarray(X,[pad,pad],'both');
% Loop
for col = 1:w % Looping over the row in the inner loop is faster!!
for row = 1:h
% For calculating equivalent position on the original image
o_row = row/hr;
o_col = col/wr;
fo_row = floor(o_row); % Code is simpler when using floor here !!
fo_col = floor(o_col);
% Getting the intensity values from horizontal neighbors
Q11 = double(X(fo_row +pad, fo_col +pad)); % Indexing taking padding into account !!
Q21 = double(X(fo_row+1+pad, fo_col +pad)); % Casting to double might not be necessary, but MATLAB does weird things with integer computation !!
Q12 = double(X(fo_row +pad, fo_col+1+pad));
Q22 = double(X(fo_row+1+pad, fo_col+1+pad));
% Calculating the relative positions to the enlarged image
d_row = o_row - fo_row;
d_col = o_col - fo_col;
% Interpolating on 2 first axis and the result between them
R1 = (1-d_row)*Q11 + d_row*Q21;
R2 = (1-d_row)*Q12 + d_row*Q22;
T(row,col) = round((1-d_col)*R1 + d_col*R2);
end
end
end





share|improve this answer


























  • @Vocaloidas that is wrong. You use 4 adjacent pixels for interpolation, not the neighbors.

    – Ander Biguri
    Nov 14 '18 at 15:34











  • @Vocaloidas: I have updated the answer with a suggestion for how to compute the distances properly. I have also included my modifications to your code, just to make sure I wasn't telling you something wrong. :)

    – Cris Luengo
    Nov 14 '18 at 15:40
















4














You are finding the pixel nearest to the point you want to interpolate, then find 4 of this pixel’s neighbors and interpolate between them:



o_row = ceil(row/hr);
o_col = ceil(col/wr);
Q12=X(o_row+1,o_col-1);
Q22=X(o_row+1,o_col+1);
Q11=X(o_row-1,o_col-1);
Q21=X(o_row-1,o_col+1);


Instead, find the 4 pixels nearest the point you want to interpolate:



o_row = ceil(row/hr);
o_col = ceil(col/wr);
Q12=X(o_row,o_col-1);
Q22=X(o_row,o_col);
Q11=X(o_row-1,o_col-1);
Q21=X(o_row-1,o_col);


The same pixel’s coordinates then need to be used when computing distances. The easiest way to do that is to separate out the floating-point coordinates of the output pixel ((row,col)) in the input image (o_row,o_col), and the location of the nearest pixel in the input image (fo_row,fo_col). Then, the distances are simply d_row = o_row - fo_row and 1-d_row, etc.



This is how I would write this function:



function T = bilinear(X,h,w)
% Pre-allocating the output size
T = zeros(h,w,'uint8'); % Create the matrix in the right type, rather than cast !!
% Calculating dimension ratios
hr = h/size(X,1); % Not with the padded sizes!!
wr = w/size(X,2);
% Padding the original image with 0 so I don't go out of bounds
pad = 2;
X = padarray(X,[pad,pad],'both');
% Loop
for col = 1:w % Looping over the row in the inner loop is faster!!
for row = 1:h
% For calculating equivalent position on the original image
o_row = row/hr;
o_col = col/wr;
fo_row = floor(o_row); % Code is simpler when using floor here !!
fo_col = floor(o_col);
% Getting the intensity values from horizontal neighbors
Q11 = double(X(fo_row +pad, fo_col +pad)); % Indexing taking padding into account !!
Q21 = double(X(fo_row+1+pad, fo_col +pad)); % Casting to double might not be necessary, but MATLAB does weird things with integer computation !!
Q12 = double(X(fo_row +pad, fo_col+1+pad));
Q22 = double(X(fo_row+1+pad, fo_col+1+pad));
% Calculating the relative positions to the enlarged image
d_row = o_row - fo_row;
d_col = o_col - fo_col;
% Interpolating on 2 first axis and the result between them
R1 = (1-d_row)*Q11 + d_row*Q21;
R2 = (1-d_row)*Q12 + d_row*Q22;
T(row,col) = round((1-d_col)*R1 + d_col*R2);
end
end
end





share|improve this answer


























  • @Vocaloidas that is wrong. You use 4 adjacent pixels for interpolation, not the neighbors.

    – Ander Biguri
    Nov 14 '18 at 15:34











  • @Vocaloidas: I have updated the answer with a suggestion for how to compute the distances properly. I have also included my modifications to your code, just to make sure I wasn't telling you something wrong. :)

    – Cris Luengo
    Nov 14 '18 at 15:40














4












4








4







You are finding the pixel nearest to the point you want to interpolate, then find 4 of this pixel’s neighbors and interpolate between them:



o_row = ceil(row/hr);
o_col = ceil(col/wr);
Q12=X(o_row+1,o_col-1);
Q22=X(o_row+1,o_col+1);
Q11=X(o_row-1,o_col-1);
Q21=X(o_row-1,o_col+1);


Instead, find the 4 pixels nearest the point you want to interpolate:



o_row = ceil(row/hr);
o_col = ceil(col/wr);
Q12=X(o_row,o_col-1);
Q22=X(o_row,o_col);
Q11=X(o_row-1,o_col-1);
Q21=X(o_row-1,o_col);


The same pixel’s coordinates then need to be used when computing distances. The easiest way to do that is to separate out the floating-point coordinates of the output pixel ((row,col)) in the input image (o_row,o_col), and the location of the nearest pixel in the input image (fo_row,fo_col). Then, the distances are simply d_row = o_row - fo_row and 1-d_row, etc.



This is how I would write this function:



function T = bilinear(X,h,w)
% Pre-allocating the output size
T = zeros(h,w,'uint8'); % Create the matrix in the right type, rather than cast !!
% Calculating dimension ratios
hr = h/size(X,1); % Not with the padded sizes!!
wr = w/size(X,2);
% Padding the original image with 0 so I don't go out of bounds
pad = 2;
X = padarray(X,[pad,pad],'both');
% Loop
for col = 1:w % Looping over the row in the inner loop is faster!!
for row = 1:h
% For calculating equivalent position on the original image
o_row = row/hr;
o_col = col/wr;
fo_row = floor(o_row); % Code is simpler when using floor here !!
fo_col = floor(o_col);
% Getting the intensity values from horizontal neighbors
Q11 = double(X(fo_row +pad, fo_col +pad)); % Indexing taking padding into account !!
Q21 = double(X(fo_row+1+pad, fo_col +pad)); % Casting to double might not be necessary, but MATLAB does weird things with integer computation !!
Q12 = double(X(fo_row +pad, fo_col+1+pad));
Q22 = double(X(fo_row+1+pad, fo_col+1+pad));
% Calculating the relative positions to the enlarged image
d_row = o_row - fo_row;
d_col = o_col - fo_col;
% Interpolating on 2 first axis and the result between them
R1 = (1-d_row)*Q11 + d_row*Q21;
R2 = (1-d_row)*Q12 + d_row*Q22;
T(row,col) = round((1-d_col)*R1 + d_col*R2);
end
end
end





share|improve this answer















You are finding the pixel nearest to the point you want to interpolate, then find 4 of this pixel’s neighbors and interpolate between them:



o_row = ceil(row/hr);
o_col = ceil(col/wr);
Q12=X(o_row+1,o_col-1);
Q22=X(o_row+1,o_col+1);
Q11=X(o_row-1,o_col-1);
Q21=X(o_row-1,o_col+1);


Instead, find the 4 pixels nearest the point you want to interpolate:



o_row = ceil(row/hr);
o_col = ceil(col/wr);
Q12=X(o_row,o_col-1);
Q22=X(o_row,o_col);
Q11=X(o_row-1,o_col-1);
Q21=X(o_row-1,o_col);


The same pixel’s coordinates then need to be used when computing distances. The easiest way to do that is to separate out the floating-point coordinates of the output pixel ((row,col)) in the input image (o_row,o_col), and the location of the nearest pixel in the input image (fo_row,fo_col). Then, the distances are simply d_row = o_row - fo_row and 1-d_row, etc.



This is how I would write this function:



function T = bilinear(X,h,w)
% Pre-allocating the output size
T = zeros(h,w,'uint8'); % Create the matrix in the right type, rather than cast !!
% Calculating dimension ratios
hr = h/size(X,1); % Not with the padded sizes!!
wr = w/size(X,2);
% Padding the original image with 0 so I don't go out of bounds
pad = 2;
X = padarray(X,[pad,pad],'both');
% Loop
for col = 1:w % Looping over the row in the inner loop is faster!!
for row = 1:h
% For calculating equivalent position on the original image
o_row = row/hr;
o_col = col/wr;
fo_row = floor(o_row); % Code is simpler when using floor here !!
fo_col = floor(o_col);
% Getting the intensity values from horizontal neighbors
Q11 = double(X(fo_row +pad, fo_col +pad)); % Indexing taking padding into account !!
Q21 = double(X(fo_row+1+pad, fo_col +pad)); % Casting to double might not be necessary, but MATLAB does weird things with integer computation !!
Q12 = double(X(fo_row +pad, fo_col+1+pad));
Q22 = double(X(fo_row+1+pad, fo_col+1+pad));
% Calculating the relative positions to the enlarged image
d_row = o_row - fo_row;
d_col = o_col - fo_col;
% Interpolating on 2 first axis and the result between them
R1 = (1-d_row)*Q11 + d_row*Q21;
R2 = (1-d_row)*Q12 + d_row*Q22;
T(row,col) = round((1-d_col)*R1 + d_col*R2);
end
end
end






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 14 '18 at 15:39

























answered Nov 14 '18 at 14:29









Cris LuengoCris Luengo

20.7k52249




20.7k52249













  • @Vocaloidas that is wrong. You use 4 adjacent pixels for interpolation, not the neighbors.

    – Ander Biguri
    Nov 14 '18 at 15:34











  • @Vocaloidas: I have updated the answer with a suggestion for how to compute the distances properly. I have also included my modifications to your code, just to make sure I wasn't telling you something wrong. :)

    – Cris Luengo
    Nov 14 '18 at 15:40



















  • @Vocaloidas that is wrong. You use 4 adjacent pixels for interpolation, not the neighbors.

    – Ander Biguri
    Nov 14 '18 at 15:34











  • @Vocaloidas: I have updated the answer with a suggestion for how to compute the distances properly. I have also included my modifications to your code, just to make sure I wasn't telling you something wrong. :)

    – Cris Luengo
    Nov 14 '18 at 15:40

















@Vocaloidas that is wrong. You use 4 adjacent pixels for interpolation, not the neighbors.

– Ander Biguri
Nov 14 '18 at 15:34





@Vocaloidas that is wrong. You use 4 adjacent pixels for interpolation, not the neighbors.

– Ander Biguri
Nov 14 '18 at 15:34













@Vocaloidas: I have updated the answer with a suggestion for how to compute the distances properly. I have also included my modifications to your code, just to make sure I wasn't telling you something wrong. :)

– Cris Luengo
Nov 14 '18 at 15:40





@Vocaloidas: I have updated the answer with a suggestion for how to compute the distances properly. I have also included my modifications to your code, just to make sure I wasn't telling you something wrong. :)

– Cris Luengo
Nov 14 '18 at 15:40




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53302184%2fwhy-is-my-bilinear-interpolation-vastly-different-from-the-in-built-matlab-funct%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Florida Star v. B. J. F.

Error while running script in elastic search , gateway timeout

Adding quotations to stringified JSON object values