Oh one more small thing comes to my mind: In the minimal example skimage code that I gave, I included two test files: testImage.png and testImageTiny.png The *Tiny.png strangely does not show the memory blowup at all. I don't understand this behavior at all, but included anyway. Maybe it helps for finding out more about the problem.
> FWIW, binary images are stored as ubyte, so 1 *byte* per pixel. Sounds strange. Have to google about this. Thanks for the Info, anyway! :) Cheers, Martin On 07/13/2017 08:26 PM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017, at 04:21, Martin Fleck wrote: >> >> Indeed, this could be the complete problem already! For the analysis >> I use a binary image - so only one bit per pixel. >> > > FWIW, binary images are stored as ubyte, so 1 *byte* per pixel. > >> Greg: Regarding your PR and my analysis: My analysis using a 1.2GB >> file stops due to memory problems already in >> skimage.morphology.remove_small_objects() even if the major memory >> blowup happens with skimage.morphology.label(). >> So there are problems at multiple steps that hopefully can be improved. > > Thanks for helping us uncover and trace these! > > Stéfan > > > > _______________________________________________ > scikit-image mailing list > scikit-image@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image
_______________________________________________ scikit-image mailing list scikit-image@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-image
