Related
Bresenham's line drawing algorithm is well known and quite simple to implement.
While there are more advanced ways to draw anti-ailesed lines, Im interested in writing a function which draws a single pixel width non anti-aliased line, based on floating point coordinates.
This means while the first and last pixels will remain the same, the pixels drawn between them will have a bias based on the sub-pixel position of both end-points.
In principle this shouldn't be all that complicated, since I assume its possible to use the sub-pixel offsets to calculate an initial error value to use when plotting the line, and all other parts of the algorithm remain the same.
No sub pixel offset:
X###
###X
Assuming the right hand point has a sub-pixel position close to the top, the line could look like this:
With sub pixel offset for example:
X######
X
Is there a tried & true method of drawing a line that takes sub-pixel coordinates into account?
Note:
This seems like a common operation, I've seen OpenGL drivers take this into account for example - using GL_LINE, though from a quick search I didn't find any answers online - maybe used wrong search terms?
At a glance this question looks like it might be a duplicate of: Precise subpixel line drawing algorithm (rasterization algorithm)However that is asking about drawing a wide line, this is asking about offsetting a single pixel line.
If there isn't some standard method, I'll try write this up to post as an answer.
Having just encountered the same challenge, I can confirm that this is possible as you expected.
First, return to the simplest form of the algorithm: (ignore the fractions; they'll disappear later)
x = x0
y = y0
dx = x1 - x0
dy = y1 - y0
error = -0.5
while x < x1:
if error > 0:
y += 1
error -= 1
paint(x, y)
x += 1
error += dy/dx
This means that for integer coordinates, we start half a pixel above the pixel boundary (error = -0.5), and for each pixel we advance in x, we increase the ideal y coordinate (and therefore the current error) by dy/dx.
First let's see what happens if we stop forcing x0, y0, x1 and y1 to be integers: (this will also assume that instead of using pixel centres, the coordinates are relative to the bottom-left of each pixel1, since once you support sub-pixel positions you can simply add half the pixel width to the x and y to return to pixel-centred logic)
x = x0
y = y0
dx = x1 - x0
dy = y1 - y0
error = (0.5 - (x0 % 1)) * dy/dx + (y0 % 1) - 1
while x < x1:
if error > 0:
y += 1
error -= 1
paint(x, y)
x += 1
error += dy/dx
The only change was the initial error calculation. The new value comes from simple trig to calculate the y coordinate when x is at the pixel centre. It's worth noting that you can use the same idea to clip the line's start position to be within some bound, which is another challenge you'll likely face when you want to start optimising things.
Now we just need to convert this into integer-only arithmetic. We'll need some fixed multiplier for the fractional inputs (scale), and the divisions can be handled by multiplying them out, just as the standard algorithm does.
# assumes x0, y0, x1 and y1 are pre-multiplied by scale
x = x0
y = y0
dx = x1 - x0
dy = y1 - y0
error = (scale - 2 * (x0 % scale)) * dy + 2 * (y0 % scale) * dx - 2 * dx * scale
while x < x1:
if error > 0:
y += scale
error -= 2 * dx * scale
paint(x / scale, y / scale)
x += scale
error += 2 * dy * scale
Note that x, y, dx and dy keep the same scaling factor as the input variables (scale), whereas error has a more complex scaling factor: 2 * dx * scale. This allows it to absorb the division and fraction in its original formulation, but means we need to apply the same scale everywhere we use it.
Obviously there's a lot of room to optimise here, but that's the basic algorithm. If we assume scale is a power-of-two (2^n), we can start to make things a little more efficient:
dx = x1 - x0
dy = y1 - y0
mask = (1 << n) - 1
error = (2 * (y0 & mask) - (2 << n)) * dx - (2 * (x0 & mask) - (1 << n)) * dy
x = x0 >> n
y = y0 >> n
while x < (x1 >> n):
if error > 0:
y += 1
error -= 2 * dx << n
paint(x, y)
x += 1
error += 2 * dy << n
As with the original, this only works in the (x >= y, x > 0, y >= 0) octant. The usual rules apply for extending it to all cases, but note that there are a few extra gotchyas due to the coordinates no-longer being centred in the pixel (i.e. reflections become more complex).
You'll also need to watch out for integer overflows: error has twice the precision of the input variables, and a range of up to twice the length of the line. Plan your inputs, precision, and variable types accordingly!
1: Coordinates are relative to the corner which is closest to 0,0. For an OpenGL-style coordinate system that's the bottom left, but it could be the top-left depending on your particular scenario.
I had a similar problem, with the addition of needing sub-pixel endpoints, I also needed to make sure all pixels which intersect the line are drawn.
I'm not sure that my solution will be helpful to OP, both because its been 4+ years, and because of the sentence "This means while the first and last pixels will remain the same..." For me, that is actually a problem (More on that later). Hopefully this may be helpful to others.
I don't know if this can be considered to be Bresenham's algorithm, but it is awful similar. I'll explain it for the (+,+) quadrant. Lets say you wish to draw a line from point (Px,Py) to (Qx,Qy) over a grid of pixels with width W. Having a grid width W > 1 allows for sub-pixel endpoints.
For a line going in the (+,+) quadrant, the starting point is easy to calculate, just take the floor of (Px,Py). As you will see later, this only works if Qx >= Px & Qy >= Py.
Now you need to find which pixel to go to next. There are 3 possibilities: (x+1,y), (x,y+1), & (x+1,y+1). To make this decision, I use the 2D cross product defined as:
If this value is negative, vector b is right/clockwise of vector a.
If this value is positive, vector b is left/anti-clockwise of vector a.
If this value is zero vector b points in the same direction as vector a.
To make the decision on which pixel is next, compare the cross product between the line P-Q [red in image below] and a line between the point P and the top-right pixel (x+1,y+1) [blue in image below].
The vector between P & the top-right pixel can be calculated as:
So, we will use the value from the 2D cross product:
If this value is negative, the next pixel will be (x,y+1).
If this value is positive, the next pixel will be (x+1,y).
If this value is exactly zero, the next pixel will be (x+1,y+1).
That works fine for the starting pixel, but the rest of the pixels will not have a point that lies inside them. Luckily, after the initial point, you don't need a point to be inside the pixel for the blue vector. You can keep extending it like so:
The blue vector starts at the starting point of the line, and is updated to the (x+1,y+1) for every pixel. The rule for which pixel to take is the same. As you can see, the red vector is right of the blue vector. So, the next pixel will be the one right of the green pixel.
The value for the cross product needs updated for every pixel, depending on which pixel you took.
Add dx if the next pixel was (x+1), add dy if the pixel was (y+1). Add both if the pixel went to (x+1,y+1).
This process is repeated until it reaches the ending pixel, (Qx / W, Qy / W).
All combined this leads to the following code:
int dx = x2 - x2;
int dy = y2 - y1;
int local_x = x1 % width;
int local_y = y1 % width;
int cross_product = dx*(width-local_y) - dy*(width-local_x);
int dx_cross = -dy*width;
int dy_cross = dx*width;
int x = x1 / width;
int y = y1 / width;
int end_x = x2 / width;
int end_y = y2 / width;
while (x != end_x || y != end_y) {
SetPixel(x,y,color);
int old_cross = cross_product;
if (old_cross >= 0) {
x++;
cross_product += dx_cross;
}
if (old_cross <= 0) {
y++;
cross_product += dy_cross;
}
}
Making it work for all quadrants is a matter of reversing the local coordinates and some absolute values. Heres the code which works for all quadrants:
int dx = x2 - x1;
int dy = y2 - y1;
int dx_x = (dx >= 0) ? 1 : -1;
int dy_y = (dy >= 0) ? 1 : -1;
int local_x = x1 % square_width;
int local_y = y1 % square_width;
int x_dist = (dx >= 0) ? (square_width - local_x) : (local_x);
int y_dist = (dy >= 0) ? (square_width - local_y) : (local_y);
int cross_product = abs(dx) * abs(y_dist) - abs(dy) * abs(x_dist);
dx_cross = -abs(dy) * square_width;
dy_cross = abs(dx) * square_width;
int x = x1 / square_width;
int y = y1 / square_width;
int end_x = x2 / square_width;
int end_y = y2 / square_width;
while (x != end_x || y != end_y) {
SetPixel(x,y,color);
int old_cross = cross_product;
if (old_cross >= 0) {
x += dx_x;
cross_product += dx_cross;
}
if (old_cross <= 0) {
y += dy_y;
cross_product += dy_cross;
}
}
However there is a problem! This code will not stop in some cases. To understand why, you need to really look into exactly what conditions count as the intersection between a line and a pixel.
When exactly is a pixel drawn?
I said I need to make that all pixels which intersect a line need to be drawn. But there's some ambiguity in the edge cases.
Here is a list of all possible intersections in which a pixel will be drawn for a line where Qx >= Px & Qy >= Py:
A - If a line intersects the pixel completely, the pixel will be drawn.
B - If a vertical line intersects the pixel completely, the pixel will be drawn.
C - If a horizontal line intersects the pixel completely, the pixel will be drawn.
D - If a vertical line perfectly touches the left of the pixel, the pixel will be drawn.
E - If a horizontal line perfectly touches the bottom of the pixel, the pixel will be drawn.
F - If a line endpoint starts inside of a pixel going (+,+), the pixel will be drawn.
G - If a line endpoint starts exactly on the left side of a pixel going (+,+), the pixel will be drawn.
H - If a line endpoint starts exactly on the bottom side of a pixel going (+,+), the pixel will be drawn.
I - If a line endpoint starts exactly on the bottom left corner of a pixel going (+,+), the pixel will be drawn.
And here are some pixels which do NOT intersect the line:
A' - If a line obviously doesn't intersect a pixel, the pixel will NOT be drawn.
B' - If a vertical line obviously doesn't intersect a pixel, the pixel will NOT be drawn.
C' - If a horizontal line obviously doesn't intersect a pixel, the pixel will NOT be drawn.
D' - If a vertical line exactly touches the right side of a pixel, the pixel will NOT be drawn.
E' - If a horizontal line exactly touches the top side of a pixel, the pixel will NOT be drawn.
F' - If a line endpoint starts exactly on the top right corner of a pixel going in the (+,+) direction, the pixel will NOT be drawn.
G' - If a line endpoint starts exactly on the top side of a pixel going in the (+,+) direction, the pixel will NOT be drawn.
H' - If a line endpoint starts exactly on the right side of a pixel going in the (+,+) direction, the pixel will NOT be drawn.
I' - If a line exactly touches a corner of the pixel, the pixel will NOT be drawn. This applies to all corners.
Those rules apply as you would expect (just flip the image) for the other quadrants. The problem I need to highlight is when an endpoint lies exactly on the edge of a pixel. Take a look at this case:
This is like image G' above, except the y-axis is flipped because the Qy < Py. There are 4x4 red dots because W is 4, making the pixel dimensions 4x4. Each of the 4 dots are the ONLY endpoints a line can touch. The line drawn goes from (1.25, 1.0) to (somewhere).
This shows why it's incorrect (at least how I defined pixel-line intersections) to say the pixel endpoints can be calculated as the floor of the line endpoints. The floored pixel coordinate for that endpoint seems to be (1,1), but it is clear that the line never really intersects that pixel. It just touches it, so I don't want to draw it.
Instead of flooring the line endpoints, you need to floor the minimal endpoints, and ceil the maximal endpoints minus 1 across both x & y dimensions.
So finally here is the complete code which does this flooring/ceiling:
int dx = x2 - x1;
int dy = y2 - y1;
int dx_x = (dx >= 0) ? 1 : -1;
int dy_y = (dy >= 0) ? 1 : -1;
int local_x = x1 % square_width;
int local_y = y1 % square_width;
int x_dist = (dx >= 0) ? (square_width - local_x) : (local_x);
int y_dist = (dy >= 0) ? (square_width - local_y) : (local_y);
int cross_product = abs(dx) * abs(y_dist) - abs(dy) * abs(x_dist);
dx_cross = -abs(dy) * square_width;
dy_cross = abs(dx) * square_width;
int x = x1 / square_width;
int y = y1 / square_width;
int end_x = x2 / square_width;
int end_y = y2 / square_width;
// Perform ceiling/flooring of the pixel endpoints
if (dy < 0)
{
if ((y1 % square_width) == 0)
{
y--;
cross_product += dy_cross;
}
}
else if (dy > 0)
{
if ((y2 % square_width) == 0)
end_y--;
}
if (dx < 0)
{
if ((x1 % square_width) == 0)
{
x--;
cross_product += dx_cross;
}
}
else if (dx > 0)
{
if ((x2 % square_width) == 0)
end_x--;
}
while (x != end_x || y != end_y) {
SetPixel(x,y,color);
int old_cross = cross_product;
if (old_cross >= 0) {
x += dx_x;
cross_product += dx_cross;
}
if (old_cross <= 0) {
y += dy_y;
cross_product += dy_cross;
}
}
This code itself hasn't been tested, but it comes slightly modified from my GitHub project where it has been tested.
Let's assume you want to draw a line from P1 = (x1, y1) to P2 = (x2, y2) where all the numbers are floating point pixel coordinates.
Calculate the true pixel coordinates of P1 and P2 and paint them: P* = (round(x), round(y)).
If abs(x1* - x2*) <= 1 && abs(y1* - y2*) <= 1 then you are finished.
Decide whether it is a horizontal (true) or a vertical line (false): abs(x1 - x2) >= abs(y1 - y2).
If it is a horizontal line and x1 > x2 or if it is a vertical line and y1 > y2: swap P1 with P2 (and also P1* with P2*).
If it is a horizontal line you can get the y-coordinates for all the x-coordinates between x1* and x2* with the following formula:
y(x) = round(y1 + (x - x1) / (x2 - x1) * (y2 - y1))
If you have a vertical line you can get the x-coordinates for all the y-coordinates between y1* and y2* with this formula:
x(y) = round(x1 + (y - y1) / (y2 - y1) * (x2 - x1))
Here is a demo you can play around with, you can try different points on line 12.
Okay algebra and trig are not my strong suit by any means so here is what I need to do.
I have a circle which is measured in degrees from +180 to -180 (360 total)
Given the center point of the circle stays the same, Cx , Cy.
The angle varies from -180 to +180
I need to locate a point that regardless the given angle is + 3 units away that is at the 90 degree position and the 270 degree position (from the given degrees)
So like...
Angle = 0
Point 1 -> x = 0, y -3
Point 2 -> x = 0, y + 3
And if the angle was say 90 (provided its measured Clockwise)
Point 1 -> x = -3, y = 0
Point 2 -> x = 3, y = 0
What I need is a forumla that will accept Angle, then tell me what my x/y should be 3 units away from the origin.
I have tried: EDIT Updated to double precision using Java.
`double x = Cx + 3 * Math.cos((d + 90) * Math.PI / 180);'
'double y = Cy + 3 * Math.sin((d + 90) * Math.PI / 180);`
this gives me mixed results, I mean sometimes it's where I think it should be and other times its quite wrong.
Assuming Cx = 0.500, Cy = 0.500
Sample Data: Result:
Deg = 0 x = 2 / y = 5
Deg = 90 x = -1 / y = 2
Deg = 125 x = -0.457 / y = 0.297
Deg = 159 x = 0.924 / y = -0.800
I realize I am only calculating one point at this point but do you have any suggestions on how to get the first point working? at say 90 degrees from whatever degree I start with?
x = Cx + r * Math.cos( (d+90) * Math.PI / 180 );
y = Cy + r * Math.sin( (d+90) * Math.PI / 180 );
Seems that this is the correct formula for what I was trying to accomplish. This will take any value for Cx/Cy's origin add the Radius r, then calculate the degrees + 90 and convert to radians.. Once all that magic takes place, you're left with an x/y coord that is 90 degrees of where you started.
I'm having difficulties with the Midpoint Displacement Algorithm using Haxe. I am implementing this by following the steps found here.
First, create an array that represents a blank map. You begin by giving the four corners a random value.
In this square, create the middle point by averaging the four corners and adding a small 'error', or random value. Then create the midpoints of the 4 sides by averaging the two corners each is between. After these steps, you are left with 4 squares. Repeat the steps:
Create the middle point by averaging the four corners and adding a small 'error'.
Create the midpoint of each side by averaging the two corners each point is between.
Each iteration, make the range of the RNG smaller. That way the original few points can have pretty large variation, but the later points only get tiny adjustments. This ensures the right amount of detail in an image.
Here is the function I've written to perform these steps and then normalize the values:
public static function generateFloatMatrix(Columns:Int, Rows:Int, RangeModifier:Float = 0.65):Array<Array<Float>>
{
//Blank 2D Array
var matrix:Array<Array<Float>> = InitFloatMatrix(Columns, Rows);
var range:Float = 1;
//Set Values for all four corners
matrix[0][0] = Math.random() * range;
matrix[Rows-1][0] = Math.random() * range;
matrix[0][Columns-1] = Math.random() * range;
matrix[Rows - 1][Columns - 1] = Math.random() * range;
//Calculates the amount of segments in base 2
var length = Math.sqrt((Columns * Columns) + (Rows * Rows));
var power:Int = Std.int(Math.pow(2, Math.ceil(Math.log(length) / Math.log(2))));
//Stores largest calculated value for normalization
var max:Float = 0;
var width:Int = Std.int(Columns);
var height:Int = Std.int(Rows);
var i:Int = 1;
while (i < power)
{
//Segment Size
width = Std.int(Columns / i);
height = Std.int(Rows / i);
for (y in 0...i)
{
for (x in 0...i)
{
//Top Left Coordinates per segment
var left = width * x;
var top = height * y;
//Find Midpoint
var xMid = Math.ceil(left + (width / 2));
var yMid = Math.ceil(top + (height / 2));
//Make sure right and bottom do not go out of bounds
var right:Int = (left + width < Columns ? left + width : Columns - 1);
var bottom:Int = (top + height < Rows ? top + height : Rows - 1);
//Sets midpoint value to average of all four corners.
matrix[yMid][xMid] =
(matrix[top][left] +
matrix[bottom][left] +
matrix[bottom][right] +
matrix[top][right]) / 4;
//trace ("Top: " + top + " - Left: " + left + " - Bottom: " + bottom + " - Right: " + right);
//Adds random value to midpoint
matrix[yMid][xMid] += Math.random() * range;
//Set side values to average of adjacent corners
matrix[top][xMid] = (matrix[top][left] + matrix[top][right]) / 2;
matrix[bottom][xMid] = (matrix[bottom][left] + matrix[bottom][right]) / 2;
matrix[yMid][left] = (matrix[top][left] + matrix[bottom][left]) / 2;
matrix[yMid][right] = (matrix[top][right] + matrix[bottom][right]) / 2;
max = Math.max(matrix[top][left], max);
}
}
//Reduces range
range *= RangeModifier;
i *= 2;
}
//Normalizes all values in matrix
for (y in 0...Rows)
{
for (x in 0...Columns)
{
matrix[y][x] /= max;
}
}
return matrix;
}
These are the images it is producing if I use each value to render each pixel to the specified coordinate. All the pixels that are rendered white have the value 0, black is value 1.
Your problem is that you don't necessarily hit the already populated pixels with your calculations if your map dimensions are not a power of two. For example if your map is 30 units wide, your grid width is 15 in the first pass and 7 in the second pass, where it bases its calculations on the yet untouched unit 14.
A solution is to do all calculations with floating-point arithmetic until you determine the unit indices, which must of course be integer:
while (i < power)
{
var width:Float = Columns / i; // Floating-point division
var height:Float = Rows / i;
for (y in 0...i)
{
for (x in 0...i)
{
var left:Int = Math.floor(width * x);
var top:Int = Math.floor(height * y);
var xMid:Int = Math.floor(width * (x + 0.5));
var yMid:Int = Math.floor(height * (y + 0.5));
var right:Int = Math.floor(width * (x +1));
var bottom:Int = Math.floor(height * (y + 1));
//Make sure right and bottom do not go out of bounds
if (right > Columns - 1) right = Columns - 1;
if (bottom > Rows - 1) bottom = Rows - 1;
// Do offset and interpolation stuff
}
}
}
This should give you a random map, graph-paper effect and all.
(Caveat: I'm not familiar with Haxe, but have tested this in Javascript, which doesn't have an integer type. I've used Math-floor throughout, where you'll want to do it the Haxe way.)
Finally, it looks to me that you do too many passes. I'd base the power on the maximum of the two dimensions instead of the diagonal. You can also skip the last step where wthe width is near one.
So I've managed myself to write the first part (algorithm) to calculate each tile's position where should it be placed while drawing this map (see bellow). However I need to be able to convert mouse location to the appropriate cell and I've been almost pulling my hair off because I can't figure out a way how to get the cell from mouse location. My concern is that it involves some pretty high math or something i'm just something easy i'm not capable to notice.
For example if the mouse position is 112;35 how do i calculate/transform it to to get that the cell is 2;3 at that position?
Maybe there is some really good math-thinking programmer here who would help me on this or someone who knows how to do it or can give some information?
var cord:Point = new Point();
cord.x = (x - 1) * 28 + (y - 1) * 28;
cord.y = (y - 1) * 14 + (x - 1) * (- 14);
Speaking of the map, each cell (transparent tile 56x28 pixels) is placed in the center of the previous cell (or at zero position for the cell 1;1), above is the code I use for converting cell-to-position. I tried lot of things and calculations for position-to-cell but each of them failed.
Edit:
After reading lot of information it seems that using off screen color map (where colors are mapped to tiles) is the fastest and most efficient solution?
I know this is an old post, but I want to update this since some people might still look for answers to this issue, just like I was earlier today. However, I figured this out myself. There is also a much better way to render this so you don't get tile overlapping issues.
The code is as simple as this:
mouse_grid_x = floor((mouse_y / tile_height) + (mouse_x / tile_width));
mouse_grid_y = floor((-mouse_x / tile_width) + (mouse_y / tile_height));
mouse_x and mouse_y are mouse screen coordinates.
tile_height and tile_width are actual tile size, not the image itself. As you see on my example picture I've added dirt under my tile, this is just for easier rendering, actual size is 24 x 12. The coordinates are also "floored" to keep the result grid x and y rounded down.
Also notice that I render these tiles from the y=0 and x=tile_with / 2 (red dot). This means my 0,0 actually starts at the top corner of the tile (tilted) and not out in open air. See these tiles as rotated squares, you still want to start from the 0,0 pixel.
Tiles will be rendered beginning with the Y = 0 and X = 0 to map size. After first row is rendered you skip a few pixels down and to the left. This will make the next line of tiles overlap the first one, which is a great way to keep the layers overlapping coorectly. You should render tiles, then whatever in on that tile before moving on to the next.
I'll add a render example too:
for (yy = 0; yy < map_height; yy++)
{
for (xx = 0; xx < map_width; xx++)
{
draw tiles here with tile coordinates:
tile_x = (xx * 12) - (yy * 12) - (tile_width / 2)
tile_y = (yy * 6) + (xx * 6)
also draw whatever is on this tile here before moving on
}
}
(1) x` = 28x -28 + 28y -28 = 28x + 28y -56
(2) y` = -14x +14 +14y -14 = -14x + 14y
Transformation table:
[x] [28 28 -56 ] = [x`]
[y] [-14 14 0 ] [y`]
[1] [0 0 1 ] [1 ]
[28 28 -56 ] ^ -1
[-14 14 0 ]
[0 0 1 ]
Calculate that with a plotter ( I like wims )
[1/56 -1/28 1 ]
[1/56 1/28 1 ]
[0 0 1 ]
x = 1/56*x` - 1/28y` + 1
y = 1/56*x` + 1/28y` + 1
I rendered the tiles like above.
the sollution is VERY simple!
first thing:
my Tile width and height are both = 32
this means that in isometric view,
the width = 32 and height = 16!
Mapheight in this case is 5 (max. Y value)
y_iso & x_iso == 0 when y_mouse=MapHeight/tilewidth/2 and x_mouse = 0
when x_mouse +=1, y_iso -=1
so first of all I calculate the "per-pixel transformation"
TileY = ((y_mouse*2)-((MapHeight*tilewidth)/2)+x_mouse)/2;
TileX = x_mouse-TileY;
to find the tile coordinates I just devide both by tilewidth
TileY = TileY/32;
TileX = TileX/32;
DONE!!
never had any problems!
I've found algorithm on this site http://www.tonypa.pri.ee/tbw/tut18.html. I couldn't get it to work for me properly, but I change it by trial and error to this form and it works for me now.
int x = mouse.x + offset.x - tile[0;0].x; //tile[0;0].x is the value of x form witch map was drawn
int y = mouse.y + offset.y;
double _x =((2 * y + x) / 2);
double _y= ((2 * y - x) / 2);
double tileX = Math.round(_x / (tile.height - 1)) - 1;
double tileY = Math.round(_y / (tile.height - 1));
This is my map generation
for(int x=0;x<max_X;x++)
for(int y=0;y<max_Y;y++)
map.drawImage(image, ((max_X - 1) * tile.width / 2) - ((tile.width - 1) / 2 * (y - x)), ((tile.height - 1) / 2) * (y + x));
One way would be to rotate it back to a square projection:
First translate y so that the dimensions are relative to the origin:
x0 = x_mouse;
y0 = y_mouse-14
Then scale by your tile size:
x1 = x/28; //or maybe 56?
y1 = y/28
Then rotate by the projection angle
a = atan(2/1);
x_tile = x1 * cos(a) - y1 * sin(a);
y_tile = y1 * cos(a) + x1 * sin(a);
I may be missing a minus sign, but that's the general idea.
Although you didn't mention it in your original question, in comments I think you said you're programming this in Flash. In which case Flash comes with Matrix transformation functions. The most robust way to convert between coordinate systems (eg. to isometric coordinates) is using Matrix transformations:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/geom/Matrix.html
You would want to rotate and scale the matrix in the inverse of how you rotated and scaled the graphics.
I'm trying to find the best way to calculate the biggest (in area) rectangle which can be contained inside a rotated rectangle.
Some pictures should help (I hope) in visualizing what I mean:
The width and height of the input rectangle is given and so is the angle to rotate it. The output rectangle is not rotated or skewed.
I'm going down the longwinded route which I'm not even sure if it will handle the corner cases (no pun intended). I'm certain there is an elegant solution to this. Any tips?
EDIT: The output rectangle points don't necessarily have to touch the input rectangles edges. (Thanks to Mr E)
I just came here looking for the same answer. After shuddering at the thought of so much math involved, I thought I would resort to a semi-educated guess. Doodling a bit I came to the (intuitive and probably not entirely exact) conclusion that the largest rectangle is proportional to the outer resulting rectangle, and its two opposing corners lie at the intersection of the diagonals of the outer rectangle with the longest side of the rotated rectangle. For squares, any of the diagonals and sides would do... I guess I am happy enough with this and will now start brushing the cobwebs off my rusty trig skills (pathetic, I know).
Minor update... Managed to do some trig calculations. This is for the case when the Height of the image is larger than the Width.
Update. Got the whole thing working. Here is some js code. It is connected to a larger program, and most variables are outside the scope of the functions, and are modified directly from within the functions. I know this is not good, but I am using this in an isolated situation, where there will be no confusion with other scripts: redacted
I took the liberty of cleaning the code and extracting it to a function:
function getCropCoordinates(angleInRadians, imageDimensions) {
var ang = angleInRadians;
var img = imageDimensions;
var quadrant = Math.floor(ang / (Math.PI / 2)) & 3;
var sign_alpha = (quadrant & 1) === 0 ? ang : Math.PI - ang;
var alpha = (sign_alpha % Math.PI + Math.PI) % Math.PI;
var bb = {
w: img.w * Math.cos(alpha) + img.h * Math.sin(alpha),
h: img.w * Math.sin(alpha) + img.h * Math.cos(alpha)
};
var gamma = img.w < img.h ? Math.atan2(bb.w, bb.h) : Math.atan2(bb.h, bb.w);
var delta = Math.PI - alpha - gamma;
var length = img.w < img.h ? img.h : img.w;
var d = length * Math.cos(alpha);
var a = d * Math.sin(alpha) / Math.sin(delta);
var y = a * Math.cos(gamma);
var x = y * Math.tan(gamma);
return {
x: x,
y: y,
w: bb.w - 2 * x,
h: bb.h - 2 * y
};
}
I encountered some problems with the gamma-calculation, and modified it to take into account in which direction the original box is the longest.
-- Magnus Hoff
Trying not to break tradition putting the solution of the problem as a picture:)
Edit:
Third equations is wrong. The correct one is:
3.w * cos(α) * X + w * sin(α) * Y - w * w * sin(α) * cos(α) - w * h = 0
To solve the system of linear equations you can use Cramer rule, or Gauss method.
First, we take care of the trivial case where the angle is zero or a multiple of pi/2. Then the largest rectangle is the same as the original rectangle.
In general, the inner rectangle will have 3 points on the boundaries of the outer rectangle. If it does not, then it can be moved so that one vertex will be on the bottom, and one vertex will be on the left. You can then enlarge the inner rectangle until one of the two remaining vertices hits a boundary.
We call the sides of the outer rectangle R1 and R2. Without loss of generality, we can assume that R1 <= R2. If we call the sides of the inner rectangle H and W, then we have that
H cos a + W sin a <= R1
H sin a + W cos a <= R2
Since we have at least 3 points on the boundaries, at least one of these inequality must actually be an equality. Let's use the first one. It is easy to see that:
W = (R1 - H cos a) / sin a
and so the area is
A = H W = H (R1 - H cos a) / sin a
We can take the derivative wrt. H and require it to equal 0:
dA/dH = ((R1 - H cos a) - H cos a) / sin a
Solving for H and using the expression for W above, we find that:
H = R1 / (2 cos a)
W = R1 / (2 sin a)
Substituting this in the second inequality becomes, after some manipulation,
R1 (tan a + 1/tan a) / 2 <= R2
The factor on the left-hand side is always at least 1. If the inequality is satisfied, then we have the solution. If it isn't satisfied, then the solution is the one that satisfies both inequalities as equalities. In other words: it is the rectangle which touches all four sides of the outer rectangle. This is a linear system with 2 unknowns which is readily solved:
H = (R2 cos a - R1 sin a) / cos 2a
W = (R1 cos a - R2 sin a) / cos 2a
In terms of the original coordinates, we get:
x1 = x4 = W sin a cos a
y1 = y2 = R2 sin a - W sin^2 a
x2 = x3 = x1 + H
y3 = y4 = y2 + W
Edit: My Mathematica answer below is wrong - I was solving a slightly different problem than what I think you are really asking.
To solve the problem you are really asking, I would use the following algorithm(s):
On the Maximum Empty Rectangle Problem
Using this algorithm, denote a finite amount of points that form the boundary of the rotated rectangle (perhaps a 100 or so, and make sure to include the corners) - these would be the set S decribed in the paper.
.
.
.
.
.
For posterity's sake I have left my original post below:
The inside rectangle with the largest area will always be the rectangle where the lower mid corner of the rectangle (the corner near the alpha on your diagram) is equal to half of the width of the outer rectangle.
I kind of cheated and used Mathematica to solve the algebra for me:
From this you can see that the maximum area of the inner rectangle is equal to 1/4 width^2 * cosecant of the angle times the secant of the angle.
Now I need to figure out what is the x value of the bottom corner for this optimal condition. Using the Solve function in mathematica on my area formula, I get the following:
Which shows that the x coordinate of the bottom corner equals half of the width.
Now just to make sure, I'll going to test our answer empirically. With the results below you can see that indeed the highest area of all of my tests (definately not exhaustive but you get the point) is when the bottom corner's x value = half of the outer rectangle's width.
#Andri is not working correctly for image where width > height as I tested.
So, I fixed and optimized his code by such way (with only two trigonometric functions):
calculateLargestRect = function(angle, origWidth, origHeight) {
var w0, h0;
if (origWidth <= origHeight) {
w0 = origWidth;
h0 = origHeight;
}
else {
w0 = origHeight;
h0 = origWidth;
}
// Angle normalization in range [-PI..PI)
var ang = angle - Math.floor((angle + Math.PI) / (2*Math.PI)) * 2*Math.PI;
ang = Math.abs(ang);
if (ang > Math.PI / 2)
ang = Math.PI - ang;
var sina = Math.sin(ang);
var cosa = Math.cos(ang);
var sinAcosA = sina * cosa;
var w1 = w0 * cosa + h0 * sina;
var h1 = w0 * sina + h0 * cosa;
var c = h0 * sinAcosA / (2 * h0 * sinAcosA + w0);
var x = w1 * c;
var y = h1 * c;
var w, h;
if (origWidth <= origHeight) {
w = w1 - 2 * x;
h = h1 - 2 * y;
}
else {
w = h1 - 2 * y;
h = w1 - 2 * x;
}
return {
w: w,
h: h
}
}
UPDATE
Also I decided to post the following function for proportional rectange calculating:
calculateLargestProportionalRect = function(angle, origWidth, origHeight) {
var w0, h0;
if (origWidth <= origHeight) {
w0 = origWidth;
h0 = origHeight;
}
else {
w0 = origHeight;
h0 = origWidth;
}
// Angle normalization in range [-PI..PI)
var ang = angle - Math.floor((angle + Math.PI) / (2*Math.PI)) * 2*Math.PI;
ang = Math.abs(ang);
if (ang > Math.PI / 2)
ang = Math.PI - ang;
var c = w0 / (h0 * Math.sin(ang) + w0 * Math.cos(ang));
var w, h;
if (origWidth <= origHeight) {
w = w0 * c;
h = h0 * c;
}
else {
w = h0 * c;
h = w0 * c;
}
return {
w: w,
h: h
}
}
Coproc solved this problem on another thread (https://stackoverflow.com/a/16778797) in a simple and efficient way. Also, he gave a very good explanation and python code there.
Below there is my Matlab implementation of his solution:
function [ CI, T ] = rotateAndCrop( I, ang )
%ROTATEANDCROP Rotate an image 'I' by 'ang' degrees, and crop its biggest
% inner rectangle.
[h,w,~] = size(I);
ang = deg2rad(ang);
% Affine rotation
R = [cos(ang) -sin(ang) 0; sin(ang) cos(ang) 0; 0 0 1];
T = affine2d(R);
B = imwarp(I,T);
% Largest rectangle
% solution from https://stackoverflow.com/a/16778797
wb = w >= h;
sl = w*wb + h*~wb;
ss = h*wb + w*~wb;
cosa = abs(cos(ang));
sina = abs(sin(ang));
if ss <= 2*sina*cosa*sl
x = .5*min([w h]);
wh = wb*[x/sina x/cosa] + ~wb*[x/cosa x/sina];
else
cos2a = (cosa^2) - (sina^2);
wh = [(w*cosa - h*sina)/cos2a (h*cosa - w*sina)/cos2a];
end
hw = flip(wh);
% Top-left corner
tl = round(max(size(B)/2 - hw/2,1));
% Bottom-right corner
br = tl + round(hw);
% Cropped image
CI = B(tl(1):br(1),tl(2):br(2),:);
sorry for not giving a derivation here, but I solved this problem in Mathematica a few days ago and came up with the following procedure, which non-Mathematica folks should be able to read. If in doubt, please consult http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/guide/Mathematica.html
The procedure below returns the width and height for a rectangle with maximum area that fits into another rectangle of width w and height h that has been rotated by alpha.
CropRotatedDimensionsForMaxArea[{w_, h_}, alpha_] :=
With[
{phi = Abs#Mod[alpha, Pi, -Pi/2]},
Which[
w == h, {w,h} Csc[phi + Pi/4]/Sqrt[2],
w > h,
If[ Cos[2 phi]^2 < 1 - (h/w)^2,
h/2 {Csc[phi], Sec[phi]},
Sec[2 phi] {w Cos[phi] - h Sin[phi], h Cos[phi] - w Sin[phi]}],
w < h,
If[ Cos[2 phi]^2 < 1 - (w/h)^2,
w/2 {Sec[phi], Csc[phi]},
Sec[2 phi] {w Cos[phi] - h Sin[phi], h Cos[phi] - w Sin[phi]}]
]
]
Here is the easiest way to do this... :)
Step 1
//Before Rotation
int originalWidth = 640;
int originalHeight = 480;
Step 2
//After Rotation
int newWidth = 701; //int newWidth = 654; //int newWidth = 513;
int newHeight = 564; //int newHeight = 757; //int newHeight = 664;
Step 3
//Difference in height and width
int widthDiff ;
int heightDiff;
int ASPECT_RATIO = originalWidth/originalHeight; //Double check the Aspect Ratio
if (newHeight > newWidth) {
int ratioDiff = newHeight - newWidth;
if (newWidth < Constant.camWidth) {
widthDiff = (int) Math.floor(newWidth / ASPECT_RATIO);
heightDiff = (int) Math.floor((originalHeight - (newHeight - originalHeight)) / ASPECT_RATIO);
}
else {
widthDiff = (int) Math.floor((originalWidth - (newWidth - originalWidth) - ratioDiff) / ASPECT_RATIO);
heightDiff = originalHeight - (newHeight - originalHeight);
}
} else {
widthDiff = originalWidth - (originalWidth);
heightDiff = originalHeight - (newHeight - originalHeight);
}
Step 4
//Calculation
int targetRectanleWidth = originalWidth - widthDiff;
int targetRectanleHeight = originalHeight - heightDiff;
Step 5
int centerPointX = newWidth/2;
int centerPointY = newHeight/2;
Step 6
int x1 = centerPointX - (targetRectanleWidth / 2);
int y1 = centerPointY - (targetRectanleHeight / 2);
int x2 = centerPointX + (targetRectanleWidth / 2);
int y2 = centerPointY + (targetRectanleHeight / 2);
Step 7
x1 = (x1 < 0 ? 0 : x1);
y1 = (y1 < 0 ? 0 : y1);
This is just an illustration of Jeffrey Sax's solution above, for my future reference.
With reference to the diagram above, the solution is:
(I used the identity tan(t) + cot(t) = 2/sin(2t))