Same algorithm gives different results in OpenCV vs Octave/Matlab
Hi I run an algorithm that extracts points of light from an image. In Octave (an Open Source Matlab), I extract 7557 points and get an image that is about what I expect. In OpenCV, using line for line the same code in the executable, OpenCV gives 3196 and the image looks more like noise.
The only difference is the access of the pixels. In Octave, I use pix4=imgNIR(newRow, newCol). In OpenCV, I have tried pix4 = imgNIR.at<uchar>(newRow,newCol) and the equivalent extracting the row using rowNIR = imgNIR.ptr<uint>(newRow) and pix4 = (int)rowNIR(newCol).
As I need negative numbers in some intermediate results, I need 'int' or 'long' data type. (I've tried both.) In Octave, I use uint32.
I have been able to replicate the size issue in Octave to a degree. The 7557 becomes something around 4000.
I have tried imaging at various points with additional Mat files. The one place I need to, I get a segment fault. It appears that there are little or no exception handlers. I inadvertently tried to address outside of the rows. Rather than some kind of index size error, I get a segment fault. I've found a few other causes of segment faults, but they don't apply here.
In Octave, the resulting image is now continuous except where I either have a phase error in the dot position or the spots are too dark. In OpenCV, there are vertical bands every other column. The output image is supposed to be a ramp that contains the subpixel position information. If I were using floating point, it would be the column of the spot centroid plus a decimal. I convert it to integer by premultipying by a constant. I'm using 128, but anything greater than 16 would do. The result in Octave is a continuous ramp. In OpenCV, the values jump up and down across the image in no particular pattern.
I've used cout to print the row, col, and value int the row. Those results look OK. My best guess is that it has something to do with the replacement statement:
rowSpot[spotCol] =(unsigned long)testVar;
I'm using the pointer read writes. I'm getting similar results using .at:
imgSpots.at<long>(spotRow, spotCol)= testVar;
Although, with the latter, there seems to be two missing pixels in the banding rather than one with the pointer method.
Any suggestions or debug hints will be appreciated. Thanks Ralph