>> The image I tested initially is 2000x2000 RGB tif ~11mb in size.
I continued testing, with the initial PIL approach
and 3 alternative numpy scripts:
#Script 1 - indexing
for i in range(10):
imarr[:,:,0].mean()
imarr[:,:,1].mean()
imarr[:,:,2].mean()
#Script 2 - slicing
for i in range(10):
imarr[:,:,0:1].mean()
imarr[:,:,1:2].mean()
imarr[:,:,2:3].mean()
#Script 3 - reshape
for i in range(10):
imarr.reshape(-1,3).mean(axis=0)
#Script 4 - PIL
for i in range(10):
stats = ImageStat.stat(img)
stats.mean
After profiling the four scripts separately I got the following
script 1: 5.432sec
script 2: 10.234sec
script 3: 4.980sec
script 4: 0.741sec
when I profiled scripts 1-3 without calculating the mean, I got similar
results of about 0.45sec for 1000 cycles, meaning that even if there
is a copy involved the time required is only a small fraction of the whole
procedure.Getting back to my initial statement I cannot explain why PIL
is very fast in calculations for whole images, but very slow in
calculations of small sub-images.
_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
