I think we can do a "valid" fft convolution and pick out only those results at strided locations, like this:
def strideConv(arr,arr2,s):
cc=scipy.signal.fftconvolve(arr,arr2[::-1,::-1],mode='valid')
idx=(np.arange(0,cc.shape[1],s), np.arange(0,cc.shape[0],s))
xidx,yidx=np.meshgrid(*idx)
return cc[yidx,xidx]
This gives same results as other people's answers.
But I guess this only works if the kernel size is odd numbered.
Also I've flipped the kernel in arr2[::-1,::-1] just to stay consistent with others, you may want to omit it depending on context.
UPDATE:
We currently have a few different ways of doing 2D or 3D convolution using numpy and scipy alone, and I thought about doing some comparisons to give some idea on which one is faster on data of different sizes. I hope this won't be regarded as off-topic.
Method 1: FFT convolution (using scipy.signal.fftconvolve):
def padArray(var,pad,method=1):
if method==1:
var_pad=numpy.zeros(tuple(2*pad+numpy.array(var.shape[:2]))+var.shape[2:])
var_pad[pad:-pad,pad:-pad]=var
else:
var_pad=numpy.pad(var,([pad,pad],[pad,pad])+([0,0],)*(numpy.ndim(var)-2),
mode='constant',constant_values=0)
return var_pad
def conv3D(var,kernel,stride=1,pad=0,pad_method=1):
'''3D convolution using scipy.signal.convolve.
'''
var_ndim=numpy.ndim(var)
kernel_ndim=numpy.ndim(kernel)
stride=int(stride)
if var_ndim<2 or var_ndim>3 or kernel_ndim<2 or kernel_ndim>3:
raise Exception("<var> and <kernel> dimension should be in 2 or 3.")
if var_ndim==2 and kernel_ndim==3:
raise Exception("<kernel> dimension > <var>.")
if var_ndim==3 and kernel_ndim==2:
kernel=numpy.repeat(kernel[:,:,None],var.shape[2],axis=2)
if pad>0:
var_pad=padArray(var,pad,pad_method)
else:
var_pad=var
conv=fftconvolve(var_pad,kernel,mode='valid')
if stride>1:
conv=conv[::stride,::stride,...]
return conv
Method 2: Special conv (see this anwser):
def conv3D2(var,kernel,stride=1,pad=0):
'''3D convolution by sub-matrix summing.
'''
var_ndim=numpy.ndim(var)
ny,nx=var.shape[:2]
ky,kx=kernel.shape[:2]
result=0
if pad>0:
var_pad=padArray(var,pad,1)
else:
var_pad=var
for ii in range(ky*kx):
yi,xi=divmod(ii,kx)
slabii=var_pad[yi:2*pad+ny-ky+yi+1:1, xi:2*pad+nx-kx+xi+1:1,...]*kernel[yi,xi]
if var_ndim==3:
slabii=slabii.sum(axis=-1)
result+=slabii
if stride>1:
result=result[::stride,::stride,...]
return result
Method 3: Strided-view conv, as suggested by Divakar:
def asStride(arr,sub_shape,stride):
'''Get a strided sub-matrices view of an ndarray.
<arr>: ndarray of rank 2.
<sub_shape>: tuple of length 2, window size: (ny, nx).
<stride>: int, stride of windows.
Return <subs>: strided window view.
See also skimage.util.shape.view_as_windows()
'''
s0,s1=arr.strides[:2]
m1,n1=arr.shape[:2]
m2,n2=sub_shape[:2]
view_shape=(1+(m1-m2)//stride,1+(n1-n2)//stride,m2,n2)+arr.shape[2:]
strides=(stride*s0,stride*s1,s0,s1)+arr.strides[2:]
subs=numpy.lib.stride_tricks.as_strided(arr,view_shape,strides=strides)
return subs
def conv3D3(var,kernel,stride=1,pad=0):
'''3D convolution by strided view.
'''
var_ndim=numpy.ndim(var)
kernel_ndim=numpy.ndim(kernel)
if var_ndim<2 or var_ndim>3 or kernel_ndim<2 or kernel_ndim>3:
raise Exception("<var> and <kernel> dimension should be in 2 or 3.")
if var_ndim==2 and kernel_ndim==3:
raise Exception("<kernel> dimension > <var>.")
if var_ndim==3 and kernel_ndim==2:
kernel=numpy.repeat(kernel[:,:,None],var.shape[2],axis=2)
if pad>0:
var_pad=padArray(var,pad,1)
else:
var_pad=var
view=asStride(var_pad,kernel.shape,stride)
#return numpy.tensordot(aa,kernel,axes=((2,3),(0,1)))
if numpy.ndim(kernel)==2:
conv=numpy.sum(view*kernel,axis=(2,3))
else:
conv=numpy.sum(view*kernel,axis=(2,3,4))
return conv
I did 3 sets of comparisons:
- convolution on 2D data, with different input size and different kernel size, stride=1, pad=0. Results below (color as time used for convolution repeated for 10 times):
So "FFT conv" is in general the fastest. "Special conv" and "Stride-view conv" get slow as kernel size increases, but decreases again as it approaches the size of input data. The last subplot shows the fastest method, so the big triangle of purple indicates FFT being the winner, but note there is a thin green column on the left side (probably too small to see, but it's there), suggesting that "Special conv" has advantage for very small kernels (smaller than about 5x5). And when kernel size approaches input, "stride-view conv" is fastest (see the diagonal line).
Comparison 2: convolution on 3D data.
Setup: pad=0, stride=2, input dimension=nxnx5, kernel shape=fxfx5.
I skipped computations of "Special Conv" and "Stride-view conv" when kernel size is in the mid of input. Basically "Special Conv" shows no advantage now, and "Stride-view" is faster than FFT for both small and large kernels.
One additional note: when sizes goes above 350, I notice considerable memory usage peaks for the "Stride-view conv".
Comparison 3: convolution on 3D data with larger stride.
Setup: pad=0, stride=5, input dimension=nxnx10, kernel shape=fxfx10.
This time I omitted the "Special Conv". For a larger area "Stride-view conv" surpasses FFT, and last subplots shows that the difference approaches 100 %.
Probably because as the stride goes up, the FFT approach will have more wasted numbers so the "stride-view" gains more advantages for small and large kernels.
