I've been looking at pyvista which is based on vtk, and I'm a bit surprised that there is no order imposed in the internal data structure of the indices for the various cells of the geometric objects.
A tetrahedron is simply a tuple of 4 indices, a triangle is a tuple of 3. Often this is good, but for various operations like clipping/mesh boolean operations etc., I'd think it's natural to demand some sort of fixed order - i.e. always fixed clockwise order in the case of triangle/convex polygon. Based on how important this ordering is in discrete differential geometry, I'd think imposing order would be very useful for all sorts of things vtk can do, like geodesics etc.
So why isn't that the case? Is it not as useful as I think?
Simple: in 3D, there is no clockwise/couterclockwise order, you can look at a polygon from both sides.
(On a complete mesh, you can demand that all faces be oriented consistently, provided if forms an orientable manifold.)
Final remark: if such an order was possible, you can be sure that it would be in use everywhere.
Related
I am looking for a method that can help me in project I am working on. The idea is that there are some rectangles in 2d space, I want to query a rectangular area and see if it overlaps any rectangle in that area. If it does, it fails. If it doesn't, meaning the space is empty, it succeeds.
I was linked to z-order curves to help turn 2d coordinates into 1d. While I was reading about it, I encountered the Hilbert curve. I read that the Hilbert curve is preferred over a z-order curve because it maintains better proximity of points. I also read that the Hilbert curve is used to make more efficient quadtrees and octrees.
I was reading this article https://sigmodrecord.org/publications/sigmodRecord/0103/3.lawder.pdf for a possible solution but I don't know if this applies to my case.
I also saw this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14217760 which mentioned multiple index entries for non point objects.
Is there an elegant method where I can use the Hilbert curve to achieve this? Is it possible with just an array of rectangles?
I am pretty sure it is possible and can be very efficient. But there is a lot of complexity involved.
I have implemented this for a z-order curve and called it PH-Tree, you find implementations in Java and C++, as well as theoretical background in the link. The PH-Tree is similar to a z-ordered quadtree but with several modifications that allow taking full advantage of the space filling curve.
There are a few things to unpack here.
Hilbert curves vs z-order curves: Yes, Hilbert curves have a slightly better proximity than z-order curves. Better proximity does two things: 1) reduce the number of elements (nodes, data) to look at and 2) improve linear access patterns (less hopping around). Both is important if the spatial index is stored on disk and I/O is expensive (especially old disk drives).
If I remember correctly, Hilbert curve and z-order are similar enough that the always access the same amount of data. The only thing that Hilbert curves are better at is linear access.
However, Hilbert curves are much more complicated to calculate, in the tests I made with an in-memory index (not very thorough testing, I admit) I found that z-order curves are considerably more efficient because the reduced CPU time outweighs the cost of accessing data slightly out of order.
Space filling curves (at least Hilbert and z-curve) allow for some neat bit-level hacks that can speed up index operations. However, even for z-ordering I found that getting these right required a lot of thinking (I wrote a whole paper about it). I believe these operations can be adapted for Hilbert curves but I may take some time and, as I wrote above, it may not improve performance at all.
Storing rectangles in a spatial curve index:
There are different approaches to encode rectangles in a spatial curve. All approaches that I am aware of encode the rectangle in a multi-dimensional point. I found the following encoding to work best (assuming axis aligned rectangles). We defined the rectangle by the lower left minimum-corner and the upper right maximum corner, e.g. min={min0, min1}={2,3}/max={max0, max1}={8,4}. We transform this (by interleaving the min/max values) into a 4-dimensional point {2,8,3,4} and store this point in the index. Other approaches use a different ordering (2,3,8,4) or, instead of two corners, store the center point and the lengths of the edges.
Querying:
If you want to find any rectangles that overlap/intersect with a given region (we call that a window query) we need to create a 4-dimensional query box, i.e. an axis aligned box that is defined by a 4D min-point and 4D max-point (copied from here):
min = {−∞, min_0, −∞, min_1} = {−∞, 2, −∞, 3}
max = {max_0, +∞, max_1, +∞} = {8, +∞, 4, +∞}
We can process the dimensions one by one. The first min/max pair is {−∞, 8}, that will match any 2D rectangle whose minimum x-coordinate is is 8 or lower. All coordinates:
d=0: min/max pair is {−∞, 8}: matches any 2D min-x <= 8
d=1: min/max pair is {2, +∞}: matches any 2D max-x >= 2
d=2: min/max pair is {−∞, 4}: matches any 2D min-y <= 4
d=3: min/max pair is {3, +∞}: matches any 2D max-y <= 3
If all these conditions hold true, then the stored rectangle overlaps with the query window.
Final words:
This sounds complicated but can be implemented very efficiently (also lends itself to vectorization). I found that is on par with other indexes (quadtree, R-Star-Tree), see some benchmarks I made here.
Specifically, I found that the z-ordered indexes have very good insertion/update/removal times (I don't know whether that matters for you) and is very good for small query result sizes (it sounds like you often expect it be zero, i.e. no overlapping rectangle found). It generally works well with large datasets (1000s or millions of entries) and datasets that have strong clusters.
For smaller datasets of if you expect to typically find many result (you can of course abort a query early once you find the first match!) other index types may be better.
On a last note, I found the dataset characteristics to have considerable influence on which index worked best. Also, implementation appears to be at least as important as the underlying algorithms. Especially for quadtrees I found huge variations in performance from different implementations.
I've been researching for a known algorithm that identifies the "most relevant" vertices of a 2D polygon. I may be using the wrong keywords (I've been trying to search for mesh simplification algorithms), but I've not yet found anything useful.
I should define what I mean by "most relevant" vertices with some context. I want to take a 2D polygon, apply a geometrical transformation, and render both the pre-transformed and post-transformed polygons with a mapping between the vertices to visualize the effects of the transformation. However, with small highly detailed polygons (high vertex count per area), there is a lot of "visual clutter".
The idea is that there should be an algorithm that could identify which vertices would be eligible for mapping and which ones wouldn't. I can design such an algorithm by taking into account two things:
Edge length: ignore a vertex if the length between it and the previous one is smaller than a threshold. An accumulator would be needed to avoid ignoring multiple subsequent vertices.
Internal angle: ignore a vertex if the internal angle at the vertex is higher than a threshold. An "accumulator" would be needed to avoid ignoring multiple subsequent vertices.
Despite probably being able to implement such a thing, I don't like reinventing the wheel and decided to ask you if you came across something like this which could actually solve other problems that I didn't think of (e.g., complex polygons).
It sounds like you're looking for the Ramer-Douglas-Peucker algorithm, which does "path simplification" but can be extended for use with polygons. It works by starting with only a couple of endpoints, then greedily adding back whichever vertices are necessary to approximate the original shape to within a certain tolerance. There are a variety of other algorithms and heuristics, but none of them has a reputation for reliably producing significantly better results than RDP, and RDP is easy to understand and implement.
I have polygons that define the contour of counties in the UK. These shapes are very detailed (10k to 20k points each), thus rendering the related computations (is point X in polygon P?) quite computationaly expensive.
Thus, I would like to "subsample" my polygons, to obtain a similar shape but with less points. What are the different techniques to do so?
The trivial one would be to take one every N points (thus subsampling by a factor N), but this feels too "crude". I would rather do some averaging of points, or something of that flavor. Any pointer?
Two solutions spring to mind:
1) since the map of the UK is reasonably squarish, you could choose to render a bitmap with the counties. Assign each a specific colour, and then render the borders with a 1 or 2 pixel thick black line. This means you'll only have to perform the expensive interior/exterior calculation if a sample happens to lie on the border. The larger the bitmap, the less often this will happen.
2) simplify the county outlines. You can use a recursive Ramer–Douglas–Peucker algorithm to recursively simplify the boundaries. Just make sure you cache the results. You may also have to solve this not for entire county boundaries but for shared boundaries only, to ensure no gaps. This might be quite tricky.
Here you can find a project dealing exactly with your issues. Although it works primarily with an area "filled" by points, you can set it to work with a "perimeter" type definition as yours.
It uses a k-nearest neighbors approach for calculating the region.
Samples:
Here you can request a copy of the paper.
Seemingly they planned to offer an online service for requesting calculations, but I didn't test it, and probably it isn't running.
HTH!
Polygon triangulation should help here. You'll still have to check many polygons, but these are triangles now, so they are easier to check and you can use some optimizations to determine only a small subset of polygons to check for a given region or point.
As it seems you have all the algorithms you need for polygons, not only for triangles, you can also merge several triangles that are too small after triangulation or if triangle count gets too high.
I have a set of 3d points that approximate a surface. Each point, however, are subject to some error. Furthermore, the set of points contain a lot more points than is actually needed to represent the underlying surface.
What I am looking for is an algorithm to create a new (much smaller) set of points representing a simplified, smoother version of the surface (pardon for not having a better definition than "simplified, smoother"). The underlying surface is not a mathematical one so I'm not hoping to fit the data set to some mathematical function.
Instead of dealing with it as a point cloud, I would recommend triangulating a mesh using Delaunay triangulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaunay_triangulation
Then decimate the mesh. You can research decimation algorithms, but you can get pretty good quick and dirty results with an algorithm that just merges adjacent tris that have similar normals.
I think you are looking for 'Level of detail' algorithms.
A simple one to implement is to break your volume (surface) into some number of sub-volumes. From the points in each sub-volume, choose a representative point (such as the one closest to center, or the closest to the average, or the average etc). use these points to redraw your surface.
You can tweak the number of sub-volumes to increase/decrease detail on the fly.
I'd approach this by looking for vertices (points) that contribute little to the curvature of the surface. Find all the sides emerging from each vertex and take the dot products of pairs (?) of them. The points representing very shallow "hills" will subtend huge angles (near 180 degrees) and have small dot products.
Those vertices with the smallest numbers would then be candidates for removal. The vertices around them will then form a plane.
Or something like that.
Google for Hugues Hoppe and his "surface reconstruction" work.
Surface reconstruction is used to find a meshed surface to fit the point cloud; however, this method yields lots of triangles. You can then apply mesh a reduction technique to reduce the polygon count in a way to minimize error. As an example, you can look at OpenMesh's decimation methods.
OpenMesh
Hugues Hoppe
There exist several different techniques for point-based surface model simplification, including:
clustering;
particle simulation;
iterative simplification.
See the survey:
M. Pauly, M. Gross, and L. P. Kobbelt. Efficient simplification of point-
sampled surfaces. In Proceedings of the conference on Visualization’02,
pages 163–170, Washington, DC, 2002. IEEE.
unless you parametrise your surface in some way i'm not sure how you can decide which points carry similar information (and can thus be thrown away).
i guess you can choose a bunch of points at random to get rid of, but that doesn't sound like what you want to do.
maybe points near each other (for some definition of 'near') can be considered to contain similar information, and so reduced to single representatives for each such group.
could you give some more details?
It's simpler to simplify a point cloud without the constraints of mesh triangles and indices.
smoothing and simplification are different tasks though. To simplify the cloud you should first get rid of noise artefacts by making a profile of the kind of noise that you have, it's frequency and directional caracteristics and do a noise profile compared type reduction. good normal vectors are helfpul for that.
here is a document about 5-6 simplifications using delauney, voronoi, and k nearest neighbour maths:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.10.9640&rep=rep1&type=pdf
A later version from 2008:
http://www.wseas.us/e-library/transactions/research/2008/30-705.pdf
here is a recent c++ version:
https://github.com/tudelft3d/masbcpp/blob/master/src/simplify.cpp
I need to evaluate if two sets of 3d points are the same (ignoring translations and rotations) by finding and comparing a proper geometric hash. I did some paper research on geometric hashing techniques, and I found a couple of algorithms, that however tend to be complicated by "vision requirements" (eg. 2d to 3d, occlusions, shadows, etc).
Moreover, I would love that, if the two geometries are slightly different, the hashes are also not very different.
Does anybody know some algorithm that fits my need, and can provide some link for further study?
Thanks
Your first thought may be trying to find the rotation that maps one object to another but this a very very complex topic... and is not actually necessary! You're not asking how to best match the two, you're just asking if they are the same or not.
Characterize your model by a list of all interpoint distances. Sort the list by that distance. Now compare the list for each object. They should be identical, since interpoint distances are not affected by translation or rotation.
Three issues:
1) What if the number of points is large, that's a large list of pairs (N*(N-1)/2). In this case you may elect to keep only the longest ones, or even better, keep the 1 or 2 longest ones for each vertex so that every part of your model has some contribution. Dropping information like this however changes the problem to be probabilistic and not deterministic.
2) This only uses vertices to define the shape, not edges. This may be fine (and in practice will be) but if you expect to have figures with identical vertices but different connecting edges. If so, test for the vertex-similarity first. If that passes, then assign a unique labeling to each vertex by using that sorted distance. The longest edge has two vertices. For each of THOSE vertices, find the vertex with the longest (remaining) edge. Label the first vertex 0 and the next vertex 1. Repeat for other vertices in order, and you'll have assigned tags which are shift and rotation independent. Now you can compare edge topologies exactly (check that for every edge in object 1 between two vertices, there's a corresponding edge between the same two vertices in object 2) Note: this starts getting really complex if you have multiple identical interpoint distances and therefore you need tiebreaker comparisons to make the assignments stable and unique.
3) There's a possibility that two figures have identical edge length populations but they aren't identical.. this is true when one object is the mirror image of the other. This is quite annoying to detect! One way to do it is to use four non-coplanar points (perhaps the ones labeled 0 to 3 from the previous step) and compare the "handedness" of the coordinate system they define. If the handedness doesn't match, the objects are mirror images.
Note the list-of-distances gives you easy rejection of non-identical objects. It also allows you to add "fuzzy" acceptance by allowing a certain amount of error in the orderings. Perhaps taking the root-mean-squared difference between the two lists as a "similarity measure" would work well.
Edit: Looks like your problem is a point cloud with no edges. Then the annoying problem of edge correspondence (#2) doesn't even apply and can be ignored! You still have to be careful of the mirror-image problem #3 though.
There a bunch of SIGGRAPH publications which may prove helpful to you.
e.g. "Global Non-Rigid Alignment of 3-D Scans" by Brown and Rusinkiewicz:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1276404
A general search that can get you started:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=siggraph+point+cloud+registration
spin images are one way to go about it.
Seems like a numerical optimisation problem to me. You want to find the parameters of the transform which transforms one set of points to as close as possible by the other. Define some sort of residual or "energy" which is minimised when the points are coincident, and chuck it at some least-squares optimiser or similar. If it manages to optimise the score to zero (or as near as can be expected given floating point error) then the points are the same.
Googling
least squares rotation translation
turns up quite a few papers building on this technique (e.g "Least-Squares Estimation of Transformation Parameters Between Two Point Patterns").
Update following comment below: If a one-to-one correspondence between the points isn't known (as assumed by the paper above), then you just need to make sure the score being minimised is independent of point ordering. For example, if you treat the points as small masses (finite radius spheres to avoid zero-distance blowup) and set out to minimise the total gravitational energy of the system by optimising the translation & rotation parameters, that should work.
If you want to estimate the rigid
transform between two similar
point clouds you can use the
well-established
Iterative Closest Point method. This method starts with a rough
estimate of the transformation and
then iteratively optimizes for the
transformation, by computing nearest
neighbors and minimizing an
associated cost function. It can be
efficiently implemented (even
realtime) and there are available
implementations available for
matlab, c++... This method has been
extended and has several variants,
including estimating non-rigid
deformations, if you are interested
in extensions you should look at
Computer graphics papers solving
scan registration problem, where
your problem is a crucial step. For
a starting point see the Wikipedia
page on Iterative Closest Point
which has several good external
links. Just a teaser image from a matlab implementation which was designed to match to point clouds:
(source: mathworks.com)
After aligning you could the final
error measure to say how similar the
two point clouds are, but this is
very much an adhoc solution, there
should be better one.
Using shape descriptors one can
compute fingerprints of shapes which
are often invariant under
translations/rotations. In most cases they are defined for meshes, and not point clouds, nevertheless there is a multitude of shape descriptors, so depending on your input and requirements you might find something useful. For this, you would want to look into the field of shape analysis, and probably this 2004 SIGGRAPH course presentation can give a feel of what people do to compute shape descriptors.
This is how I would do it:
Position the sets at the center of mass
Compute the inertia tensor. This gives you three coordinate axes. Rotate to them. [*]
Write down the list of points in a given order (for example, top to bottom, left to right) with your required precision.
Apply any algorithm you'd like for a resulting array.
To compare two sets, unless you need to store the hash results in advance, just apply your favorite comparison algorithm to the sets of points of step 3. This could be, for example, computing a distance between two sets.
I'm not sure if I can recommend you the algorithm for the step 4 since it appears that your requirements are contradictory. Anything called hashing usually has the property that a small change in input results in very different output. Anyway, now I've reduced the problem to an array of numbers, so you should be able to figure things out.
[*] If two or three of your axis coincide select coordinates by some other means, e.g. as the longest distance. But this is extremely rare for random points.
Maybe you should also read up on the RANSAC algorithm. It's commonly used for stitching together panorama images, which seems to be a bit similar to your problem, only in 2 dimensions. Just google for RANSAC, panorama and/or stitching to get a starting point.