2D Circular search pattern - algorithm

I need an algorithm to give me coordinates to the nearest cells (in order of distance) to another cell in a 2D grid. Its for a search algorithm that then checks those coordinates for all sorts of things for suitability. Anyways, so far I came up with this:
function testy(cx, cy, idx) {
var radius = Math.floor(Math.sqrt(idx / Math.PI));
var segment = Math.round(idx - (radius * Math.PI));
var angle = segment / radius;
var x = Math.round(cx + radius * Math.cos(angle));
var y = Math.round(cy + radius * Math.sin(angle));
return [x, y];
}
addEventListener("load", function() {
var canv = document.createElement("canvas");
document.body.appendChild(canv);
canv.width = 800;
canv.height = 600;
var ctx = canv.getContext("2d");
var scale = 5;
var idx = 0;
var idx_end = 10000;
var func = function() {
var xy = testy(0,0,idx++);
var x = xy[0] * scale + canv.width / 2;
var y = xy[1] * scale + canv.height / 2;
ctx.rect(x, y, scale, scale);
ctx.fill();
if (idx < idx_end) setTimeout(func, 0);
}
func();
});
but as you can tell, its kinda crap because it skips some cells. There's a few assumptions I'm making there:
That the circumference of a circle of a certain radius corresponds to the number of cells on the path of that circle. I didn't think that would be too great of a problem though since the actual number of cells in a radius should be lower than the circumference leading to duplication(which in small amounts is ok) but not exclusion(not ok).
That the radius of a circle by the n-th index specified would be slightly more than Math.floor(Math.sqrt(idx / Math.PI)) because each increase of 1 to the radius corresponds to 2 * Math.PI being added to the circumference of the circle. Again, should lead to slight duplication but no exclusion.
Other than that I have no idea what could be wrong with it, I fail at math any more complex than this so probably something to do with that.
Perhaps there is another algorithm like this already out there though? One that doesn't skip cells? Language doesn't really matter, I'm using js to prototype it but it can be whatever.

Instead of thinking about the full circle, think about a quadrant. Adapting that to the full circle later should be fairly easy. Use (0,0) as the center of the circle for convenience. So you want to list grid cells with x,y ≥ 0 in order of non-decreasing x² + y².
One useful data structure is a priority queue. It can be used to keep track of the next y value for every x value, and you can extract the one with minimal x² + y² easily.
q = empty priority queue, for easy access to element with minimal x²+y²
Insert (0,0) into queue
while queue is not empty:
remove minimal element from queue and call it (x,y)
insert (x,y+1) into queue unless y+1 is off canvas
if y = 0:
insert (x+1,0) into queue unless x+1 is off canvas
do whatever you want to do with (x,y)
So for a canvas of size n this will enumerate all the n² points, but the priority queue will only contain n elements at most. The whole loop runs in O(n² log(n)). And if you abort the loop eraly because you found what you were looking for, it gets cheaper still, in contrast to simply sorting all the points. Another benefit is that you can use integer arithmetic exclusively, so numeric errors won't be an issue. One drawback is that JavaScript does not come with a priority queue out of the box, but I'm sure you can find an implementation you can reuse, e.g. tiniqueue.
When doing full circle, you'd generate (−x,y) unless x=0, and likewise for (x,−y) and (−x,−y). You could exploit symmetry a bit more by only having the loop over ⅛ of the circle, i.e. not inserting (x,y+1) if x=y, and then also generating (y,x) as a separate point unless x=y. Difference in performance should be marginal for many use cases.
"use strict";
function distCompare(a, b) {
const a2 = a.x*a.x + a.y*a.y;
const b2 = b.x*b.x + b.y*b.y;
return a2 < b2 ? -1 : a2 > b2 ? 1 : 0;
}
// Yields points in the range -w <= x <= w and -h <= y <= h
function* aroundOrigin(w,h) {
const q = TinyQueue([{x:0, y:0}], distCompare);
while (q.length) {
const p = q.pop();
yield p;
if (p.x) yield {x:-p.x, y:p.y};
if (p.y) yield {x:p.x, y:-p.y};
if (p.x && p.y) yield {x:-p.x, y:-p.y};
if (p.y < h) q.push({x:p.x, y:p.y+1});
if (p.y == 0 && p.x < w) q.push({x:p.x + 1, y:0});
}
}
// Yields points around (cx,cy) in range 0 <= x < w and 0 <= y < h
function* withOffset(cx, cy, w, h) {
const delegate = aroundOrigin(
Math.max(cx, w - cx - 1), Math.max(cy, h - cy - 1));
for(let p of delegate) {
p = {x: p.x + cx, y: p.y + cy};
if (p.x >= 0 && p.x < w && p.y >= 0 && p.y < h) yield p;
}
}
addEventListener("load", function() {
const canv = document.createElement("canvas");
document.body.appendChild(canv);
const cw = 800, ch = 600;
canv.width = cw;
canv.height = ch;
const ctx = canv.getContext("2d");
const scale = 5;
const w = Math.ceil(cw / scale);
const h = Math.ceil(ch / scale);
const cx = w >> 1, cy = h >> 1;
const pointgen = withOffset(cx, cy, w, h);
let cntr = 0;
var func = function() {
const {value, done} = pointgen.next();
if (done) return;
if (cntr++ % 16 === 0) {
// lighten older parts so that recent activity is more visible
ctx.fillStyle = "rgba(255,255,255,0.01)";
ctx.fillRect(0, 0, cw, ch);
ctx.fillStyle = "rgb(0,0,0)";
}
ctx.fillRect(value.x * scale, value.y*scale, scale, scale);
setTimeout(func, 0);
}
func();
});
<script type="text/javascript">module={};</script>
<script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/mourner/tinyqueue/54dc3eb1/index.js"></script>

Related

How can i split a list of points in all angle

I try to seperate a list of point into all basic angle
Here's my code
var increment =15/50;
var distance = 20;
var count = 0;
for( theta=0;theta <50; theta++) {
var newX = centerX +distance*Math.cos(theta*2*Math.PI*increment);
var newY = centerY +distance*Math.sin(theta*2*Math.PI*increment);
cxt.fillText("o",newX, newY);
count++;
if(count%5===0){
distance=distance+20;
}
}
Output:
I try to modify the increment many times but either they didn't make into straght lines or all the points turn into a mess
What is the exact increment number or function for this?
Problem 1
No need for count - it is being incremented in exactly the same fashion as theta:
var increment =15/50;
var distance = 20;
for( theta=0;theta <50; theta++) {
var newX = centerX +distance*Math.cos(theta*2*Math.PI*increment);
var newY = centerY +distance*Math.sin(theta*2*Math.PI*increment);
cxt.fillText("o",newX, newY);
if(theta%5===0){ // just use theta here
distance=distance+20;
}
}
Problem 2
The if statement increments distance once every 5 points, which means each "ring" only contains 5 points, whereas they should have as many points as basic angles. The logic should therefore be:
if (theta % 16 === 0) { // there are 16 "basic angles"
distance += 20;
}
Problem 3
1 is not an integer multiple of the fractional increment 15/50, so the second "ring" of points will not line up with the first - there will be an angular offset of 2*PI/5 between consecutive rings.
It is more efficient to separate the single loop into two nested loops, as suggested by Damien. The outer loop should increment the angle as the trigonometric functions are expensive.
var num_basic_angles = 16; // number of basic angles
var separation = 20; // distance between each point
var num_points; // number of points per angle
for (var angle = 0; angle < num_basic_angles; angle++) {
var theta = 2*Math.PI*angle/num_basic_angles;
var cos_t = Math.cos(theta);
var sin_t = Math.sin(theta);
for (var point = 0; point < num_points; point++) {
var x = centerX + distance * point * cos_t;
var y = centerY + distance * point * sin_t;
cxt.fillText("o",x,y);
}
}
If you really want to do things in a single loop, use theta = Math.floor(i / num_basic_angles), point = i % num_basic_angles, where i is the loop counter from 0 to num_basic_angles * num_points - 1.
Problem 4
The "basic angles" are not evenly distributed, so incrementing by a fixed value will not work.
No need to be too smart here, because these basic angles are arbitrarily defined anyway. Just store them in an array:
var basic_angles = [0,30,45,60,90,120,135,150,180,210,224,240,270,300,315,330];
var separation = 20; // distance between each point
var num_points; // number of points per angle
for (var angle = 0; angle < basic_angles.length; angle++) {
var theta = Math.PI/180.0*basic_angles[angle];
var cos_t = Math.cos(theta);
var sin_t = Math.sin(theta);
for (var point = 0; point < num_points; point++) {
var x = centerX + distance * point * cos_t;
var y = centerY + distance * point * sin_t;
cxt.fillText("o",x,y);
}
}

What's wrong with this nearest neighbor interpolation shader?

GPU.js converts a JS func into a shader. The following function knows this.thread.x as the current index being operated on, but it is ultimately working as a WebGL shader.
export default function(sprite, w, h, scale) {
var bufferWidth = w * 4;
var channel = this.thread.x % 4;
var thread = this.thread.x - channel;
var y = Math.round(this.thread.x / bufferWidth);
var x = (thread % bufferWidth) / 4;
var upscale = scale * 10;
var upscaleY = y * 10;
var upscaleX = x * 10;
var scaledY = Math.round(upscaleY / upscale);
var scaledX = Math.round(upscaleX / upscale);
var newIndex = scaledY * bufferWidth + scaledX * 4;
if (x <= w * scale && y <= h * scale) {
return sprite[newIndex + channel];
} else {
return 0;
}
}
This almost works, but rows become skipped completely, actually making the result shorter than it should, and lines where those missing rows travel up and down and left to right on the image as it's scaled over time.
You can see this effect here: https://enviziion.github.io/lost-worlds/
What's wrong with my algo? Ive tried tweaking rounding and all sorts of stuff but no luck.
Use Math.floor when computing y:
var y = Math.floor(thread / bufferWidth);
If you use Math.round then it will start rounding up to the next row halfway across the buffer, which will produce a weird discontinuity.
Mathematically, you should be able to get back thread.x from y * bufferWidth + x * 4, which works for floor but not round.

Finding the furthest point in a grid when compared to other points

I have a rectangular grid of variable size but averaging 500x500 with a small number of x,y points in it (less than 5). I need to find an algorithm that returns an x,y pair that is the farthest away possible from any of the other points.
Context: App's screen (grid) and a set of x,y points (enemies). The player dies and I need an algorithm that respawns them as far away from the enemies so that they don't die immediately after respawning.
What I have so far: The algorithm I wrote works but doesn't perform that great in slower phones. I'm basically dividing up the grid into squares (much like a tic tac toe) and I assign each square a number. I then check every single square against all enemies and store what the closest enemy was at each square. The square with the highest number is the square that has the closest enemy furthest away. I also tried averaging the existing points and doing something similar to this and while the performance was acceptable, the reliability of the method was not.
This is the simplest algorithm I could think of that still gives good results. It only checks 9 possible positions: the corners, the middle of the sides, and the center point. Most of the time the player ends up in a corner, but you obviously need more positions than enemies.
The algorithm runs in 0.013ms on my i5 desktop. If you replace the Math.pow() by Math.abs(), that comes down to 0.0088ms, though obviously with less reliable results. (Oddly enough, that's slower than my other answer which uses trigonometry functions.)
Running the code snippet (repeatedly) will show the result with randomly positioned enemies in a canvas element.
function furthestFrom(enemy) {
var point = [{x:0,y:0},{x:250,y:0},{x:500,y:0},{x:0,y:250},{x:250,y:250},{x:500,y:250},{x:0,y:500},{x:250,y:500},{x:500,y:500}];
var dist2 = [500000,500000,500000,500000,500000,500000,500000,500000,500000];
var max = 0, furthest;
for (var i in point) {
for (var j in enemy) {
var d = Math.pow(point[i].x - enemy[j].x, 2) + Math.pow(point[i].y - enemy[j].y, 2);
if (d < dist2[i]) dist2[i] = d;
}
if (dist2[i] > max) {
max = dist2[i];
furthest = i;
}
}
return(point[furthest]);
}
// CREATE TEST DATA
var enemy = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++) enemy[i] = {x: Math.round(Math.random() * 500), y: Math.round(Math.random() * 500)};
// RUN FUNCTION
var result = furthestFrom(enemy);
// SHOW RESULT ON CANVAS
var canvas = document.getElementById("canvas");
canvas.width = 500; canvas.height = 500;
canvas = canvas.getContext("2d");
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
paintDot(canvas, enemy[i].x, enemy[i].y, 10, "red");
}
paintDot(canvas, result.x, result.y, 20, "blue");
function paintDot(canvas, x, y, size, color) {
canvas.beginPath();
canvas.arc(x, y, size, 0, 6.2831853);
canvas.closePath();
canvas.fillStyle = color;
canvas.fill();
}
<BODY STYLE="margin: 0; border: 0; padding: 0;">
<CANVAS ID="canvas" STYLE="width: 200px; height: 200px; background-color: #EEE;"></CANVAS>
</BODY>
This is similar to what you are already doing, but with two passes where the first pass can be fairly crude. First decrease resolution. Divide the 500x500 grid into 10x10 grids each of which is 50x50. For each of the resulting 100 subgrids -- determine which have at least one enemy and locate the subgrid that is furthest away from a subgrid which contains an enemy. At this stage there is only 100 subgrids to worry about. Once you find the subgrid which is furthest away from an enemy -- increase resolution. That subgrid has 50x50 = 2500 squares. Do your original approach with those squares. The result is 50x50 + 100 = 2600 squares to process rather than 500x500 = 250,000. (Adjust the numbers as appropriate for the case in which there isn't 500x500 but with the same basic strategy).
Here is a Python3 implementation. It uses two functions:
1) fullResSearch(a,b,n,enemies) This function takes a set of enemies, a corner location (a,b) and an int, n, and finds the point in the nxn square of positions whose upper-left hand corner is (a,b) and finds the point in that square whose which has the maximum min-distance to an enemy. The enemies are not assumed to be in this nxn grid (although they certainly can be)
2) findSafePoint(n, enemies, mesh = 20) This function takes a set of enemies who are assumed to be in the nxn grid starting at (0,0). mesh determines the size of the subgrids, defaulting to 20. The overall grid is split into mesh x mesh subgrids (or slightly smaller along the boundaries if mesh doesn't divide n) which I think of as territories. I call a territory an enemy territory if it has an enemy in it. I create the set of enemy territories and pass it to fullResSearch with parameter n divided by mesh rather than n. The return value gives me the territory which is farthest from any enemy territory. Such a territory can be regarded as fairly safe. I feed that territory back into fullResSearch to find the safest point in that territory as the overall return function. The resulting point is either optimal or near-optimal and is computed very quickly. Here is the code (together with a test function):
import random
def fullResSearch(a,b,n,enemies):
minDists = [[0]*n for i in range(n)]
for i in range(n):
for j in range(n):
minDists[i][j] = min((a+i - x)**2 + (b+j - y)**2 for (x,y) in enemies)
maximin = 0
for i in range(n):
for j in range(n):
if minDists[i][j] > maximin:
maximin = minDists[i][j]
farthest = (a+i,b+j)
return farthest
def findSafePoint(n, enemies, mesh = 20):
m = n // mesh
territories = set() #enemy territories
for (x,y) in enemies:
i = x//mesh
j = y//mesh
territories.add((i,j))
(i,j) = fullResSearch(0,0,m,territories)
a = i*mesh
b = j*mesh
k = min(mesh,n - a,n - b) #in case mesh doesn't divide n
return fullResSearch(a,b,k,enemies)
def test(n, numEnemies, mesh = 20):
enemies = set()
count = 0
while count < numEnemies:
i = random.randint(0,n-1)
j = random.randint(0,n-1)
if not (i,j) in enemies:
enemies.add ((i,j))
count += 1
for e in enemies: print("Enemy at", e)
print("Safe point at", findSafePoint(n,enemies, mesh))
A typical run:
>>> test(500,5)
Enemy at (216, 67)
Enemy at (145, 251)
Enemy at (407, 256)
Enemy at (111, 258)
Enemy at (26, 298)
Safe point at (271, 499)
(I verified by using fullResSearch on the overall grid that (271,499) is in fact optimal for these enemies)
This method looks at all the enemies from the center point, checks the direction they're in, finds the emptiest sector, and then returns a point on a line through the middle of that sector, 250 away from the center.
The result isn't always perfect, and the safe spot is never in the center (though that could be added), but maybe it's good enough.
The algorithm runs more than a million times per second on my i5 desktop, but a phone may not be that good with trigonometry. The algorithm uses 3 trigonometry functions per enemy: atan2(), cos() and sin(). Those will probably have the most impact on the speed of execution. Maybe you could replace the cos() and sin() with a lookup table.
Run the code snippet to see an example with randomly positioned enemies.
function furthestFrom(e) {
var dir = [], widest = 0, bisect;
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
dir[i] = Math.atan2(e[i].y - 250, e[i].x - 250);
}
dir.sort(function(a, b){return a - b});
dir.push(dir[0] + 6.2831853);
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
var angle = dir[i + 1] - dir[i];
if (angle > widest) {
widest = angle;
bisect = dir[i] + angle / 2;
}
}
return({x: 250 * (1 + Math.cos(bisect)), y: 250 * (1 + Math.sin(bisect))});
}
// CREATE TEST DATA
var enemy = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++) enemy[i] = {x: Math.round(Math.random() * 500), y: Math.round(Math.random() * 500)};
// RUN FUNCTION AND SHOW RESULT ON CANVAS
var result = furthestFrom(enemy);
var canvas = document.getElementById("canvas");
canvas.width = 500; canvas.height = 500;
canvas = canvas.getContext("2d");
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
paintDot(canvas, enemy[i].x, enemy[i].y, "red");
}
paintDot(canvas, result.x, result.y, "blue");
// PAINT DOT ON CANVAS
function paintDot(canvas, x, y, color) {
canvas.beginPath();
canvas.arc(x, y, 10, 0, 6.2831853);
canvas.closePath();
canvas.fillStyle = color;
canvas.fill();
}
<BODY STYLE="margin: 0; border: 0; padding: 0">
<CANVAS ID="canvas" STYLE="width: 200px; height: 200px; background-color: #EEE;"CANVAS>
</BODY>
Here's an interesting solution, however I cannot test it's efficiency. For each enemy, make a line of numbers from each number, starting with one and increasing by one for each increase in distance. Four initial lines will come from the four edges and each time you go one further out, you create another line coming out at a 90 degree angle, also increasing the number each change in distance. If the number line encounters an already created number that is smaller than it, it will not overwrite it and will stop reaching further. Essentially, this makes it so that if the lines find a number smaller than it, it won't check any further grid marks, eliminating the need to check the entire grid for all of the enemies.
<<<<<<^^^^^^^
<<<<<<^^^^^^^
<<<<<<X>>>>>>
vvvvvvv>>>>>>
vvvvvvv>>>>>>
public void map(int posX, int posY)
{
//left up right down
makeLine(posX, posY, -1, 0, 0, -1);
makeLine(posX, posY, 0, 1, -1, 0);
makeLine(posX, posY, 1, 0, 0, 1);
makeLine(posX, posY, 0, -1, 1, 0);
grid[posX][posY] = 1000;
}
public void makeLine(int posX, int posY, int dirX, int dirY, int dir2X, int dir2Y)
{
int currentVal = 1;
posX += dirX;
posY += dirY;
while (0 <= posX && posX < maxX && posY < maxY && posY >= 0 && currentVal < grid[posX][posY])
{
int secondaryPosX = posX + dir2X;
int secondaryPosY = posY + dir2Y;
int secondaryVal = currentVal + 1;
makeSecondaryLine( secondaryPosX, secondaryPosY, dir2X, dir2Y, secondaryVal);
makeSecondaryLine( secondaryPosX, secondaryPosY, -dir2X, -dir2Y, secondaryVal);
grid[posX][posY] = currentVal;
posX += dirX;
posY += dirY;
currentVal++;
}
}
public void makeSecondaryLine(int secondaryPosX, int secondaryPosY, int dir2X, int dir2Y, int secondaryVal)
{
while (0 <= secondaryPosX && secondaryPosX < maxX && secondaryPosY < maxY &&
secondaryPosY >= 0 && secondaryVal < grid[secondaryPosX][secondaryPosY])
{
grid[secondaryPosX][secondaryPosY] = secondaryVal;
secondaryPosX += dir2X;
secondaryPosY += dir2Y;
secondaryVal++;
}
}
}
Here is the code I used to map out the entire grid. The nice thing about this, is that the number of times the number is checked/written is not that much dependent on the number of enemies on the screen. Using a counter and randomly generated enemies, I was able to get this: 124 enemies and 1528537 checks, 68 enemies and 1246769 checks, 15 enemies and 795695 500 enemies and 1747452 checks. This is a huge difference compared to your earlier code which would do number of enemies * number of spaces.
for 124 enemies you'd have done 31000000 checks, while instead this did 1528537, which is less than 5% of the number of checks normally done.
You can choose some random point at the grid and then move it iteratively from the enemies, here is my implementation in python:
from numpy import array
from numpy.linalg import norm
from random import random as rnd
def get_pos(enem):
# chose random start position
pos = array([rnd() * 500., rnd() * 500.])
# make several steps from enemies
for i in xrange(25): # 25 steps
s = array([0., 0.]) # step direction
for e in enem:
vec = pos - array(e) # direction from enemy
dist = norm(vec) # distance from enemy
vec /= dist # normalize vector
# calculate size of step
step = (1000. / dist) ** 2
vec *= step
s += vec
# update position
pos += s
# ensure that pos is in bounds
pos[0] = min(max(0, pos[0]), 500.)
pos[1] = min(max(0, pos[1]), 500.)
return pos
def get_dist(enem, pos):
dists = [norm(pos - array(e)) for e in enem]
print 'Min dist: %f' % min(dists)
print 'Avg dist: %f' % (sum(dists) / len(dists))
enem = [(0., 0.), (250., 250.), (500., 0.), (0., 500.), (500., 500.)]
pos = get_pos(enem)
print 'Position: %s' % pos
get_dist(enem, pos)
Output:
Position: [ 0. 250.35338215]
Min dist: 249.646618
Avg dist: 373.606883
Triangulate the enemies (there's less than 5?); and triangulate each corner of the grid with the closest pair of enemies to it. The circumcenter of one of these triangles should be a decent place to re-spawn.
Below is an example in JavaScript. I used the canvas method from m69's answer for demonstration. The green dots are the candidates tested to arrive at the blue-colored suggestion. Since we are triangulating the corners, they are not offered as solutions here (perhaps the randomly-closer solutions can be exciting for a player? Alternatively, just test for the corners as well..).
// http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4103405/what-is-the-algorithm-for-finding-the-center-of-a-circle-from-three-points
function circumcenter(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3)
{
var offset = x2 * x2 + y2 * y2;
var bc = ( x1 * x1 + y1 * y1 - offset ) / 2;
var cd = (offset - x3 * x3 - y3 * y3) / 2;
var det = (x1 - x2) * (y2 - y3) - (x2 - x3)* (y1 - y2);
var idet = 1/det;
var centerx = (bc * (y2 - y3) - cd * (y1 - y2)) * idet;
var centery = (cd * (x1 - x2) - bc * (x2 - x3)) * idet;
return [centerx,centery];
}
var best = 0,
candidates = [];
function better(pt,pts){
var temp = Infinity;
for (var i=0; i<pts.length; i+=2){
var d = (pts[i] - pt[0])*(pts[i] - pt[0]) + (pts[i+1] - pt[1])*(pts[i+1] - pt[1]);
if (d <= best)
return false;
else if (d < temp)
temp = d;
}
best = temp;
return true;
}
function f(es){
if (es.length < 2)
return "farthest corner";
var corners = [0,0,500,0,500,500,0,500],
bestcandidate;
// test enemies only
if (es.length > 2){
for (var i=0; i<es.length-4; i+=2){
for (var j=i+2; j<es.length-2; j+=2){
for (var k=j+2; k<es.length; k+=2){
var candidate = circumcenter(es[i],es[i+1],es[j],es[j+1],es[k],es[k+1]);
if (candidate[0] < 0 || candidate[1] < 0 || candidate[0] > 500 || candidate[1] > 500)
continue;
candidates.push(candidate[0]);
candidates.push(candidate[1]);
if (better(candidate,es))
bestcandidate = candidate.slice();
}
}
}
}
//test corners
for (var i=0; i<8; i+=2){
for (var j=0; j<es.length-2; j+=2){
for (var k=j+2; k<es.length; k+=2){
var candidate = circumcenter(corners[i],corners[i+1],es[j],es[j+1],es[k],es[k+1]);
if (candidate[0] < 0 || candidate[1] < 0 || candidate[0] > 500 || candidate[1] > 500)
continue;
candidates.push(candidate[0]);
candidates.push(candidate[1]);
if (better(candidate,es))
bestcandidate = candidate.slice();
}
}
}
best = 0;
return bestcandidate;
}
// SHOW RESULT ON CANVAS
var canvas = document.getElementById("canvas");
canvas.width = 500; canvas.height = 500;
context = canvas.getContext("2d");
//setInterval(function() {
// CREATE TEST DATA
context.clearRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height);
candidates = [];
var enemy = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 8; i++) enemy.push(Math.round(Math.random() * 500));
// RUN FUNCTION
var result = f(enemy);
for (var i = 0; i < 8; i+=2) {
paintDot(context, enemy[i], enemy[i+1], 10, "red");
}
for (var i = 0; i < candidates.length; i+=2) {
paintDot(context, candidates[i], candidates[i+1], 7, "green");
}
paintDot(context, result[0], result[1], 18, "blue");
function paintDot(context, x, y, size, color) {
context.beginPath();
context.arc(x, y, size, 0, 6.2831853);
context.closePath();
context.fillStyle = color;
context.fill();
}
//},1500);
<BODY STYLE="margin: 0; border: 0; padding: 0;">
<CANVAS ID="canvas" STYLE="width: 200px; height: 200px; background:
radial-gradient(rgba(255,255,255,0) 0, rgba(255,255,255,.15) 30%, rgba(255,255,255,.3) 32%, rgba(255,255,255,0) 33%) 0 0,
radial-gradient(rgba(255,255,255,0) 0, rgba(255,255,255,.1) 11%, rgba(255,255,255,.3) 13%, rgba(255,255,255,0) 14%) 0 0,
radial-gradient(rgba(255,255,255,0) 0, rgba(255,255,255,.2) 17%, rgba(255,255,255,.43) 19%, rgba(255,255,255,0) 20%) 0 110px,
radial-gradient(rgba(255,255,255,0) 0, rgba(255,255,255,.2) 11%, rgba(255,255,255,.4) 13%, rgba(255,255,255,0) 14%) -130px -170px,
radial-gradient(rgba(255,255,255,0) 0, rgba(255,255,255,.2) 11%, rgba(255,255,255,.4) 13%, rgba(255,255,255,0) 14%) 130px 370px,
radial-gradient(rgba(255,255,255,0) 0, rgba(255,255,255,.1) 11%, rgba(255,255,255,.2) 13%, rgba(255,255,255,0) 14%) 0 0,
linear-gradient(45deg, #343702 0%, #184500 20%, #187546 30%, #006782 40%, #0b1284 50%, #760ea1 60%, #83096e 70%, #840b2a 80%, #b13e12 90%, #e27412 100%);
background-size: 470px 470px, 970px 970px, 410px 410px, 610px 610px, 530px 530px, 730px 730px, 100% 100%;
background-color: #840b2a;"></CANVAS>
<!-- http://lea.verou.me/css3patterns/#rainbow-bokeh -->
</BODY>

Binary Image "Lines-of-Sight" Edge Detection

Consider this binary image:
A normal edge detection algorithm (Like Canny) takes the binary image as input and results into the contour shown in red. I need another algorithm that takes a point "P" as a second piece of input data. "P" is the black point in the previous image. This algorithm should result into the blue contour. The blue contours represents the point "P" lines-of-sight edge of the binary image.
I searched a lot of an image processing algorithm that achieve this, but didn't find any. I also tried to think about a new one, but I still have a lot of difficulties.
Since you've got a bitmap, you could use a bitmap algorithm.
Here's a working example (in JSFiddle or see below). (Firefox, Chrome, but not IE)
Pseudocode:
// part 1: occlusion
mark all pixels as 'outside'
for each pixel on the edge of the image
draw a line from the source pixel to the edge pixel and
for each pixel on the line starting from the source and ending with the edge
if the pixel is gray mark it as 'inside'
otherwise stop drawing this line
// part 2: edge finding
for each pixel in the image
if pixel is not marked 'inside' skip this pixel
if pixel has a neighbor that is outside mark this pixel 'edge'
// part 3: draw the edges
highlight all the edges
At first this sounds pretty terrible... But really, it's O(p) where p is the number of pixels in your image.
Full code here, works best full page:
var c = document.getElementById('c');
c.width = c.height = 500;
var x = c.getContext("2d");
//////////// Draw some "interesting" stuff ////////////
function DrawScene() {
x.beginPath();
x.rect(0, 0, c.width, c.height);
x.fillStyle = '#fff';
x.fill();
x.beginPath();
x.rect(c.width * 0.1, c.height * 0.1, c.width * 0.8, c.height * 0.8);
x.fillStyle = '#000';
x.fill();
x.beginPath();
x.rect(c.width * 0.25, c.height * 0.02 , c.width * 0.5, c.height * 0.05);
x.fillStyle = '#000';
x.fill();
x.beginPath();
x.rect(c.width * 0.3, c.height * 0.2, c.width * 0.03, c.height * 0.4);
x.fillStyle = '#fff';
x.fill();
x.beginPath();
var maxAng = 2.0;
function sc(t) { return t * 0.3 + 0.5; }
function sc2(t) { return t * 0.35 + 0.5; }
for (var i = 0; i < maxAng; i += 0.1)
x.lineTo(sc(Math.cos(i)) * c.width, sc(Math.sin(i)) * c.height);
for (var i = maxAng; i >= 0; i -= 0.1)
x.lineTo(sc2(Math.cos(i)) * c.width, sc2(Math.sin(i)) * c.height);
x.closePath();
x.fill();
x.beginPath();
x.moveTo(0.2 * c.width, 0.03 * c.height);
x.lineTo(c.width * 0.9, c.height * 0.8);
x.lineTo(c.width * 0.8, c.height * 0.8);
x.lineTo(c.width * 0.1, 0.03 * c.height);
x.closePath();
x.fillStyle = '#000';
x.fill();
}
//////////// Pick a point to start our operations: ////////////
var v_x = Math.round(c.width * 0.5);
var v_y = Math.round(c.height * 0.5);
function Update() {
if (navigator.appName == 'Microsoft Internet Explorer'
|| !!(navigator.userAgent.match(/Trident/)
|| navigator.userAgent.match(/rv 11/))
|| $.browser.msie == 1)
{
document.getElementById("d").innerHTML = "Does not work in IE.";
return;
}
DrawScene();
//////////// Make our image binary (white and gray) ////////////
var id = x.getImageData(0, 0, c.width, c.height);
for (var i = 0; i < id.width * id.height * 4; i += 4) {
id.data[i + 0] = id.data[i + 0] > 128 ? 255 : 64;
id.data[i + 1] = id.data[i + 1] > 128 ? 255 : 64;
id.data[i + 2] = id.data[i + 2] > 128 ? 255 : 64;
}
// Adapted from http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Bitmap/Bresenham's_line_algorithm#JavaScript
function line(x1, y1) {
var x0 = v_x;
var y0 = v_y;
var dx = Math.abs(x1 - x0), sx = x0 < x1 ? 1 : -1;
var dy = Math.abs(y1 - y0), sy = y0 < y1 ? 1 : -1;
var err = (dx>dy ? dx : -dy)/2;
while (true) {
var d = (y0 * c.height + x0) * 4;
if (id.data[d] === 255) break;
id.data[d] = 128;
id.data[d + 1] = 128;
id.data[d + 2] = 128;
if (x0 === x1 && y0 === y1) break;
var e2 = err;
if (e2 > -dx) { err -= dy; x0 += sx; }
if (e2 < dy) { err += dx; y0 += sy; }
}
}
for (var i = 0; i < c.width; i++) line(i, 0);
for (var i = 0; i < c.width; i++) line(i, c.height - 1);
for (var i = 0; i < c.height; i++) line(0, i);
for (var i = 0; i < c.height; i++) line(c.width - 1, i);
// Outline-finding algorithm
function gb(x, y) {
var v = id.data[(y * id.height + x) * 4];
return v !== 128 && v !== 0;
}
for (var y = 0; y < id.height; y++) {
var py = Math.max(y - 1, 0);
var ny = Math.min(y + 1, id.height - 1);
console.log(y);
for (var z = 0; z < id.width; z++) {
var d = (y * id.height + z) * 4;
if (id.data[d] !== 128) continue;
var pz = Math.max(z - 1, 0);
var nz = Math.min(z + 1, id.width - 1);
if (gb(pz, py) || gb(z, py) || gb(nz, py) ||
gb(pz, y) || gb(z, y) || gb(nz, y) ||
gb(pz, ny) || gb(z, ny) || gb(nz, ny)) {
id.data[d + 0] = 0;
id.data[d + 1] = 0;
id.data[d + 2] = 255;
}
}
}
x.putImageData(id, 0, 0);
// Draw the starting point
x.beginPath();
x.arc(v_x, v_y, c.width * 0.01, 0, 2 * Math.PI, false);
x.fillStyle = '#800';
x.fill();
}
Update();
c.addEventListener('click', function(evt) {
var x = evt.pageX - c.offsetLeft,
y = evt.pageY - c.offsetTop;
v_x = x;
v_y = y;
Update();
}, false);
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.2.3/jquery.min.js"></script>
<center><div id="d">Click on image to change point</div>
<canvas id="c"></canvas></center>
I would just estimate P's line of sight contour with ray collisions.
RESOLUTION = PI / 720;
For rad = 0 To PI * 2 Step RESOLUTION
ray = CreateRay(P, rad)
hits = Intersect(ray, contours)
If Len(hits) > 0
Add(hits[0], lineOfSightContour)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_surface_determination with e.g. a Z-Buffer is relatively easy. Edge detection looks a lot trickier and probably needs a bit of tuning. Why not take an existing edge detection algorithm from a library that somebody else has tuned, and then stick in some Z-buffering code to compute the blue contour from the red?
First approach
Main idea
Run an edge detection algorithm (Canny should do it just fine).
For each contour point C compute the triplet (slope, dir, dist), where:
slope is the slope of the line that passes through P and C
dir is a bit which is set if C is to the right of P (on the x axis) and reset if it is to the left; it used in order to distinguish in between points having the same slope, but on opposite sides of P
dist is the distance in between P and C.
Classify the set of contour points such that a class contains the points with the same key (slope, dir) and keep the one point from each such class having the minimum dist. Let S be the set of these closest points.
Sort S in clockwise order.
Iterate once more through the sorted set and, whenever two consecutive points are too far apart, draw a segment in between them, otherwise just draw the points.
Notes
You do not really need to compute the real distance in between P and C since you only use dist to determine the closest point to P at step 3. Instead you can keep C.x - P.x in dist. This piece of information should also tell you which of two points with the same slope is closest to P. Also, C.x - P.x swallows the dir parameter (in the sign bit). So you do not really need dir either.
The classification in step 3 can ideally be done by hashing (thus, in linear number of steps), but since doubles/floats are subject to rounding, you might need to allow small errors to occur by rounding the values of the slopes.
Second approach
Main idea
You can perform a sort of BFS starting from P, like when trying to determine the country/zone that P resides in. For each pixel, look at the pixels around it that were already visited by BFS (called neighbors). Depending on the distribution of the neighbor pixels that are in the line of sight, determine if the currently visited pixel is in the line of sight too or not. You can probably apply a sort of convolution operator on the neighbor pixels (like with any other filter). Also, you do not really need to decide right away if a pixel is for sure in the line of sight. You could instead compute some probability of that to be true.
Notes
Due to the fact that your graph is a 2D image, BFS should be pretty fast (since the number of edges is linear in the number of vertices).
This second approach eliminates the need to run an edge detection algorithm. Also, if the country/zone P resides in is considerably smaller than the image the overall performance should be better than running an edge detection algorithm solely.

Calculate largest inscribed rectangle in a rotated rectangle

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))

Resources