First I applied Delaunay Triangulation on an image with 3000 triangles. I measured similarity (SSIM) to original image as 0.75. (The higher value more similar)
Then I applied Delaunay Triangulation on the image's RGB channels separately as 1000 triangles each. Then I combined 3 images and formed the final image. Then I measured similarity of this (SSIM) to original image as 0.65. (The higher value more similar)
In both cases; points chosen randomly, median value of pixels containing triangles choosen as color of the triangle
I did lots of trials but none of the trials showed better results.
Isn't this weird? Think about it. I just use 1000 random triangles on one layer. Then 1000 more on second layer. Then 1000 more on third layer. When these are put on top of it, it should create more than 3000 unique polygons compared to final image triangulation. Because they do not coincide.
a) What can be the reason behind this?
b) What advantages can I obtain when I apply delaunay triangulation on RGB channels separately instead of applying it on image itself? It is obvious I can not get better similarity. But maybe Storage wise can I get better? Maybe in other areas? What can they be?
When the triangles in each layer don't coincide, it creates a low-pass filtering effect in brightness, because the three triangles that contribute to a pixel's brightness are larger than the single triangle you get in the other case.
It's hard to suggest any 'advantages' to either approach, since we don't really know why you are doing this in the first place.
If you want better similarity, though, then you have to pick better points. I would suggest making the probability of selecting a point proportional to the magnitude of the gradient at that point.
Related
Given a "density" scalar field in the plane, how can I divide the plane into nice (low moment of inertia) regions so that each region contains a similar amount of "mass"?
That's not the best description of what my actual problem is, but it's the most concise phrasing I could think of.
I have a large map of a fictional world for use in a game. I have a pretty good idea of approximately how far one could walk in a day from any given point on this map, and this varies greatly based on the terrain etc. I would like to represent this information by dividing the map into regions, so that one day of walking could take you from any region to any of its neighboring regions. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it should be significantly better than simply dividing the map into a hexagonal grid (which is what many games do).
I had the idea that I could create a gray-scale image with the same dimensions as the map, where each pixel's color value represents how quickly one can travel through the pixel in the same place on the map. Well-maintained roads would be encoded as white pixels, and insurmountable cliffs would be encoded as black, or something like that.
My question is this: does anyone have an idea of how to use such a gray-scale image (the "density" scalar field) to generate my "grid" from the previous paragraph (regions of similar "mass")?
I've thought about using the gray-scale image as a discrete probability distribution, from which I can generate a bunch of coordinates, and then use some sort of clustering algorithm to create the regions, but a) the clustering algorithms would have to create clusters of a similar size, I think, for that idea to work, which I don't think they usually do, and b) I barely have any idea if any of that even makes sense, as I'm way out of my comfort zone here.
Sorry if this doesn't belong here, my idea has always been to solve it programatically somehow, so this seemed the most sensible place to ask.
UPDATE: Just thought I'd share the results I've gotten so far, trying out the second approach suggested by #samgak - recursively subdividing regions into boxes of similar mass, finding the center of mass of each region, and creating a voronoi diagram from those.
I'll keep tweaking, and maybe try to find a way to make it less grid-like (like in the upper right corner), but this worked way better than I expected!
Building upon #samgak's solution, if you don't want the grid-like structure, you can just add a small random perturbation to your centers. You can see below for example the difference I obtain:
without perturbation
adding some random perturbation
A couple of rough ideas:
You might be able to repurpose a color-quantization algorithm, which partitions color-space into regions with roughly the same number of pixels in them. You would have to do some kind of funny mapping where the darker the pixel in your map, the greater the number of pixels of a color corresponding to that pixel's location you create in a temporary image. Then you quantize that image into x number of colors and use their color values as co-ordinates for the centers of the regions in your map, and you could then create a voronoi diagram from these points to define your region boundaries.
Another approach (which is similar to how some color quantization algorithms work under the hood anyway) could be to recursively subdivide regions of your map into axis-aligned boxes by taking each rectangular region and choosing the optimal splitting line (x or y) and position to create 2 smaller rectangles of similar "mass". You would end up with a power of 2 count of rectangular regions, and you could get rid of the blockiness by taking the centre of mass of each rectangle (not simply the center of the bounding box) and creating a voronoi diagram from all the centre-points. This isn't guaranteed to create regions of exactly equal mass, but they should be roughly equal. The algorithm could be improved by allowing recursive splitting along lines of arbitrary orientation (or maybe a finite number of 8, 16, 32 etc possible orientations) but of course that makes it more complicated.
Contour lines (aka isolines) are curves that trace constant values across a 2D scalar field. For example, in a geographical map you might have contour lines to illustrate the elevation of the terrain by showing where the elevation is constant. In this case, let's store contour lines as lists of points on the map.
Suppose you have map that has several contour lines at known elevations, and otherwise you know nothing about the elevations of the map. What algorithm would you use to fill in additional contour lines to approximate the unknown elevations of the map, assuming the landscape is continuous and doesn't do anything surprising?
It is easy to find advise about interpolating the elevation of an individual point using contour lines. There are also algorithms like Marching Squares for turning point elevations into contour lines, but none of these exactly capture this use case. We don't need the elevation of any particular point; we just want the contour lines. Certainly we could solve this problem by filling an array with estimated elevations and then using Marching Squares to estimate the contour lines based on the array, but the two steps of that process seem unnecessarily expensive and likely to introduce artifacts. Surely there is a better way.
IMO, about all methods will amount to somehow reconstructing the 3D surface by interpolation, even if implicitly.
You may try by flattening the curves (turning them to polylines) and triangulating the resulting polygons thay they will define. (There will be a step of closing the curves that end on the border of the domain.)
By intersection of the triangles with a new level (unsing linear interpolation along the sides), you will obtain new polylines corresponding to new isocurves. Notice that the intersections with the old levels recreates the old polylines, which is sound.
You may apply a post-smoothing to the curves, but you will have no guarantee to retrieve the original old curves and cannot prevent close surves to cross each other.
Beware that increasing the density of points along the curves will give you a false feeling of accuracy, as the error due to the spacing of the isolines will remain (indeed the reconstructed surface will be cone-like, with one of the curvatures being null; the surface inside the bottommost and topmost lines will be flat).
Alternatively to using flat triangles, one may think of a scheme where you compute a gradient vector at every vertex (f.i. from a least square fit of a plane on the vertex and its neighbors), and use this information to generate a bivariate polynomial surface in the triangle. You must do this in such a way that the values along a side will coincide for the two triangles that share it. (Unfortunately, I have no formula to give you.)
The isolines are then obtained by a further subdivision of the triangle in smaller triangles, with a flat approximation.
Actually, this is not very different from getting sample points, (Delaunay) triangulating them and fitting picewise continuous patches to the triangles.
Whatever method you will use, be it 2D or 3D, it is useful to reason on what happens if you sweep the range of z values in a continous way. This thought experiment does reconstruct a 3D surface, which will possess continuity and smoothness properties.
A possible improvement over the crude "flat triangulation" model could be to extend every triangle side between to iso-polylines with sides leading to the next iso-polylines. This way, higher order interpolation (cubic) can be achieved, giving a smoother reconstruction.
Anyway, you can be sure that this will introduce discontinuities or other types of artifacts.
A mixed method:
flatten the isolines to polylines;
triangulate the poygons formed by the polylines and the borders;
on every node, estimate the surface gradient (least-square fit of a plane to the node and its neighborrs);
in every triangle, consider the two sides along which you need to interpolate and compute the derivative at endpoints (from the known gradients and the side directions);
use Hermite interpolation along these sides and solve for the desired iso-levels;
join the points obtained on both sides.
This method should be a good tradeoff between complexity and smoothness. It does reconstruct a continuous surface (except maybe for the remark below).
Note that is some cases, yo will obtain three solutions of the cubic. If there are three on each side, join them in order. Otherwise, make a decision on which to join and use the remaining two to close the curve.
Given a set of 2D points, I want to calculate a measure of how horizontally symmetrical and vertically symmetrical those points are.
Alternatively, for each set of points I will also have a rasterised image of the lines between those points, so is there any way to calculate a measure of symmetry for images?
BTW, this is for use in a feature vector that will be presented to a neural network.
Clarification
The image on the left is 'horizontally' symmetrical. If we imagine a vertical line running down the middle of it, the left and right parts are symmetrical. Likewise, the image on the right is 'vertically' symmetrical, if you imagine a horizontal line running across its center.
What I want is a measure of just how horizontally symmetrical they are, and another of just how vertically symmetrical they are.
This is just a guideline / idea, you'll need to work out the details:
To detect symmetry with respect to horizontal reflection:
reflect the image horizontally
pad the original (unreflected) image horizontally on both sides
compute the correlation of the padded and the reflected images
The position of the maximum in the result of the correlation will give you the location of the axis of symmetry. The value of the maximum will give you a measure of the symmetry, provided you do a suitable normalization first.
This will only work if your images are "symmetric enough", and it works for images only, not sets of points. But you can create an image from a set of points too.
Leonidas J. Guibas from Stanford University talked about it in ETVC'08.
Detection of Symmetries and Repeated Patterns in 3D Point Cloud Data.
I am looking for an algorithm that takes vector image data (e.g. sets of edges) and interpolate another set of edges which is the "average" of the two (or more) sets.
To put it in another way, it is just like Adobe Flash where you "tween" two vector images and the software automatically computes the in-between images. Therefore you only specify the starting image and end image, then Flash takes care of all the in-between images.
Is there any established algorithm to do this? Especially in cases like different number of edges?
What exactly do you mean by edges? Are we talking about smooth vector graphics that use curves?
Well a basic strategy would be to simply do a linear interpolation on the points and directions of your control polygon.
Basically you could simply take two corresponding points (one of each curve/vector form) and interpolate them with:
x(t) = (1-t)*p1 + t*p2 with t in [0,1]
(t=0.5 would then of course give you the average between the two)
Since vector graphics usually use curves you'd need to do the same with the direction vector of each control point to get the direction vector of the averaged curve.
One big problem though is to match the right points of each control polygon, especially if both curves have a different degree. You could try doing a degree elevation on one to match the degree of the other and then one by one assign them to each other and interpolate.
Maybe that helps...
I am interested in using shapes like these:
Usually a tangram is made of 7 shapes(5 triangles, 1 square and 1 parallelogram).
What I want to do is fill a shape only with tangram shapes, so at this point,
the size and repetition of shapes shouldn't matter.
Here's something I manually tried:
I am a bit lost on how to approach this.
Assuming I have a path (an ordered list/array of points of the outline),
I imagine I should try to do some sort of triangulation.
Is there such a thing as Deulanay triangulation with triangles constrained to 45 degrees
right angled triangles ?
A more 'brute' approach would be to add a bunch of triangles(45 degrees) and use SAT
for collision detection to 'fix' overlaps, and hopefully gaps will be avoided.
Since the square and parallelogram can be made of triangles(45 degrees) too, I imagine there
would be a nice clean geometric solution, right ?
How do I pack triangles(45 degrees) inside an arbitrary shape ?
Any ideas are welcome.
A few random thoughts (maybe they help you find a better solution) if you're using only the original sizes of the shapes:
as you point out, all shapes in the tangram can be made composed of e.g. the yellow or pink triangle (d-g-c), so try also thinking of a bottom-up approach such as first trying to place as many yellow triangles into your shape and then combine them into larger shapes if possible. In the worst case, you'll end up with a set of these smallest triangles.
any kind triangulation of non-polygons (such as the half-moon in your example) probably does not work very well...
It looks like you require that the shapes can only have a few discrete orientations. To find the best fit of these triangles into the given shape, I'd propose the following approximate solution: draw a grid of triangles (i.e. a square grid with diagonal lines) across the shape and take those triangles which are fully contained. This most likely will not give you the optimal coverage but then you could repeatedly shift the grid by a tenth of the grid size in horizontal and vertical direction and see whether you'll find something which covers a larger fraction of the original shape (or you could go in steps of 1/2 then 1/4 etc. of the original grid size in the spirit of a binary search).
If you allow any arbitrary scaling of the shapes you could approximate any (reasonably smooth ?) shape to arbitrary precision by adding smaller and smaller shapes. E.g. if you have a raster image, you can e.g. choose the size of the yellow triangle such that two of them make a pixel on the image and then you can represent any such raster image.