Given a 3D object, how do I convert it into an approximated shape in which all the sides of the object are parallel to either of the co-ordinate planes, and all the vertices have integer co-ordinates?
For example, a sphere with center at origin and a radius of 1.5 will be approximated to a cube with center at origin and side length of 2.
For another example, the line given by x = y = 0.5 will have an approximated shape as a rectangular parallelepiped with infinite length, and width and breadth as 1, and positioned such that one of its edge is along z-axis, while all the faces are along or parallel to either of x-z or y-z co-ordinate planes.
I am working with finite objects only, the above example is only meant to explain my needs.
I want an algorithm which can do this for me for any shape.
In general case you need to determine maximum and minimum shape coordinates along every axis and define minimum axis aligned integer bounding box with values rounded to larger (using Ceil) for max and rounded to smaller (using Floor) for min coordinates. For example:
XMin_Box = Floor(XMin_Shape)
XMax_Box = Ceil(XMax_Shape)
Edit:
If you need to approximate a shape with more precision, consider some kind of voxelization (3d analog of 2d rasterization)
Related
I have 2 sets of points that are restricted to live on the 3D unit sphere, call them {pi} and {qi} (I'll assume correspondence is known). The goal is to register one set to the other, through rotations and translations. Typically I would have used a transformation of the form:
P = RQ + T
where R is a rotation matrix and T a translation vector.
But in this case there is an extra constraint that all points must live on the sphere, how can I include this condition.
Assuming the sets are 'rigid', so you can slide and rotate the whole set on the sphere, but can not change distances between points within a set, all possible transformations are rotations.
Whenever you rotate the set relative to some axis, points move in planes perpendicular to the axis. So all displacements are vectors normal to the axis vector. So each two displacement vectors should make a vector product parallel to the axis vector.
Now, if you already know the correspondence between P and Q points, calculate displacement vectors di from each qi to a corresponding pi and calculate some vector products:
di × dj = (pi - qi) × (pj - qj)
If they have directions close enough to each other, you can assume you have the rotation axis.
Now for each pair or pi,qi find a point ti on an axis such that the PQT triangle is normal to the axis. The angle at the T vertex defines the rotation to slide qi to pi. If all respective angles are equal, you're done. Otherwise you'll have to seek some approximate solution...
I've just implemented collision detection using SAT and this article as reference to my implementation. The detection is working as expected but I need to know where both rectangles are colliding.
I need to find the center of the intersection, the black point on the image above (but I don't have the intersection area neither). I've found some articles about this but they all involve avoiding the overlap or some kind of velocity, I don't need this.
The information I've about the rectangles are the four points that represents them, the upper right, upper left, lower right and lower left coordinates. I'm trying to find an algorithm that can give me the intersection of these points.
I just need to put a image on top of it. Like two cars crashed so I put an image on top of the collision center. Any ideas?
There is another way of doing this: finding the center of mass of the collision area by sampling points.
Create the following function:
bool IsPointInsideRectangle(Rectangle r, Point p);
Define a search rectangle as:
TopLeft = (MIN(x), MAX(y))
TopRight = (MAX(x), MAX(y))
LowerLeft = (MIN(x), MIN(y))
LowerRight = (MAX(x), MIN(y))
Where x and y are the coordinates of both rectangles.
You will now define a step for dividing the search area like a mesh. I suggest you use AVG(W,H)/2 where W and H are the width and height of the search area.
Then, you iterate on the mesh points finding for each one if it is inside the collition area:
IsPointInsideRectangle(rectangle1, point) AND IsPointInsideRectangle(rectangle2, point)
Define:
Xi : the ith partition of the mesh in X axis.
CXi: the count of mesh points that are inside the collision area for Xi.
Then:
And you can do the same thing with Y off course. Here is an ilustrative example of this approach:
You need to do the intersection of the boundaries of the boxes using the line to line intersection equation/algorithm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-line_intersection
Once you have the points that cross you might be ok with the average of those points or the center given a particular direction possibly. The middle is a little vague in the question.
Edit: also in addition to this you need to work out if any of the corners of either of the two rectangles are inside the other (this should be easy enough to work out, even from the intersections). This should be added in with the intersections when calculating the "average" center point.
This one's tricky because irregular polygons have no defined center. Since your polygons are (in the case of rectangles) guaranteed to be convex, you can probably find the corners of the polygon that comprises the collision (which can include corners of the original shapes or intersections of the edges) and average them to get ... something. It will probably be vaguely close to where you would expect the "center" to be, and for regular polygons it would probably match exactly, but whether it would mean anything mathematically is a bit of a different story.
I've been fiddling mathematically and come up with the following, which solves the smoothness problem when points appear and disappear (as can happen when the movement of a hitbox causes a rectangle to become a triangle or vice versa). Without this bit of extra, adding and removing corners will cause the centroid to jump.
Here, take this fooplot.
The plot illustrates 2 rectangles, R and B (for Red and Blue). The intersection sweeps out an area G (for Green). The Unweighted and Weighted Centers (both Purple) are calculated via the following methods:
(0.225, -0.45): Average of corners of G
(0.2077, -0.473): Average of weighted corners of G
A weighted corner of a polygon is defined as the coordinates of the corner, weighted by the sin of the angle of the corner.
This polygon has two 90 degree angles, one 59.03 degree angle, and one 120.96 degree angle. (Both of the non-right angles have the same sine, sin(Ɵ) = 0.8574929...
The coordinates of the weighted center are thus:
( (sin(Ɵ) * (0.3 + 0.6) + 1 - 1) / (2 + 2 * sin(Ɵ)), // x
(sin(Ɵ) * (1.3 - 1.6) + 0 - 1.5) / (2 + 2 * sin(Ɵ)) ) // y
= (0.2077, -0.473)
With the provided example, the difference isn't very noticeable, but if the 4gon were much closer to a 3gon, there would be a significant deviation.
If you don't need to know the actual coordinates of the region, you could make two CALayers whose frames are the rectangles, and use one to mask the other. Then, if you set an image in the one being masked, it will only show up in the area where they overlap.
I am writing a function to draw an approximate circle on a square array (in Matlab, but the problem is mainly algorithmic).
The goal is to produce a mask for integrating light that falls on a portion of a CCD sensor from a diffraction-limited point source (whose diameter corresponds to a few pixels on the CCD array). In summary, the CCD sensor sees a pattern with revolution-symmetry, that has of course no obligation to be centered on one particular pixel of the CCD (see example image below).
Here is the algorithm that I currently use to produce my discretized circular mask, and which works partially (Matlab/Octave code):
xt = linspace(-xmax, xmax, npixels_cam); % in physical coordinates (meters)
[X Y] = meshgrid(xt-center(1), xt-center(2)); % shifted coordinate matrices
[Theta R] = cart2pol(X,Y);
R = R'; % cart2pol uses a different convention for lines/columns
mask = (R<=radius);
As you can see, my algorithm selects (sets to 1) all the pixels whose physical distance (in meters) is smaller or equal to a radius, which doesn't need to be an integer.
I feel like my algorithm may not be the best solution to this problem. In particular, I would like it to include the pixel in which the center is present, even when the radius is very small.
Any ideas ?
(See http://i.stack.imgur.com/3mZ5X.png for an example image of a diffraction-limited spot on a CCD camera).
if you like to select pixels if and only if they contain any part of the circle C:
in each pixel place a small circle A with the radius = halv size of the pixel, and another one around it with R=sqrt(2)*half size of the circle (a circumscribed circle)
To test if two circles touch each other you just calculate the center to center distances and subtract the sum of the two radii.
If the test circle C is within A then you select the pixel. If it's within B but not C you need to test all four pixel sides for overlap like this Circle line-segment collision detection algorithm?
A brute force approximate method is to make a much finer grid within each pixel and test each center point in that grid.
This is a well-studied problem. Several levels of optimization are possible:
You can brute-force check if every pixel is inside the circle. (r^2 >= (x-x0)^2 + (y-y0)^2)
You can brute-force check if every pixel in a square bounding the circle is inside the circle. (r^2 >= (x-x0)^2 + (y-y0)^2 where |x-x0| < r and |y-y0| < r)
You can go line-by-line (where |y-y0| < r) and calculate the starting x ending x and fill all the lines in between. (Although square roots aren't cheap.)
There's an infinite possibility of more sophisticated algorithms. Here's a common one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midpoint_circle_algorithm (filling in the circle is left as an exercise)
It really depends on how sophisticated you want to be based on how imperative good performance is.
I have a stack of images (about 180 of them) and there are 2 stars (just basic annotations) on every single image. Hence, the position (x,y) of the two stars are provided initially. The dimensions of all these images are fixed and constant.
The 'distance' between the image is about 1o with the origin to be the center (width/2, height/2) of every single 2D image. Note that, if this is plotted out and interpolated nicely, the stars would actually form a ring of an irregular shape.
The dotted red circle and dotted purple circle are there to give a stronger scent of a 3D space and the arrangement of the 2D images (like a fan). It also indicates that each slice is about 1o apart.
With the provided (x,y) that appeared in the 2D image, how do you get the corresponding (x,y,z) in the 3d space knowing that each image is about 1o apart?
I know that MATLAB had 3D plotting capabilities, how should I go about implementing the solution to the above scenario? (Unfortunately, I have very little experience plotting 3D with MATLAB)
SOLUTION
Based on the accepted answer, I looked up a bit further: spherical coordinate system. Based on the computation of phi, rho and theta, I could reconstruct the ring without problems. Hopefully this helps anyone with similar problems.
I have also documented the solution here. I hope it helps someone out there, too:
http://gray-suit.blogspot.com/2011/07/spherical-coordinate-system.html
I believe the y coordinate stays as is for 3D, so we can treat this as converting 2D x and image angle to an x and z when viewed top down.
The 2D x coordinate is the distance from the origin in 3D space (viewed top down). The image angle is the angle the point makes with respect to the x axis in 3D space (viewed top down). So the x coordinate (distance from orign) and the image angle (angle viewed top down) makes up the x and z coordinates in 3D space (or x and y if viewed top down).
That is a polar coordinate.
Read how to convert from polar to cartesian coordinates to get your 3D x and z coordinates.
I'm not great at maths either, here's my go:
3D coords = (2Dx * cos(imageangle), 2Dy, 2Dx * sin(imageangle))
Given the 2D coordinates (x,y) just add the angle A as a third coordinate: (x,y,A). Then you have 3D.
If you want to have the Anotations move on a circle of radius r in 3D you can just calculate:
you can use (r*cos(phi),r*sin(phi),0) which draws a circle in the XY-plane and rotate it with a 3x3 rotation matrix into the orientation you need.
It is not clear from you question around which axis your rotation is taking place. However, my answer holds for a general rotation axis.
First, put your points in a 3D space, lying on the X-Y plane. This means the points have a 0 z-coordinate. Then, apply a 3D rotation of the desired angle around the desired axis - in your example, it is a one degree rotation. You could calculate the transformation matrix yourself (should not be too hard, google "3D rotation matrix" or similar keywords). However, MATLAB makes it easier, using the viewmtx function, which gives you a 4x4 rotational matrix. The extra (fourth) dimension is dependent on the projection you specify (it acts like a scaling coefficient), but in order to make things simple, I will let MATLAB use its default projection - you can read about it in MATLAB documentation.
So, to make the plot clearer, I assume four points which are the vertices of a square lying on the x-y plane (A(1,1), B(1,-1), C(-1,-1), D(1,-1)).
az = 0; % Angle (degrees) of rotation around the z axis, measured from -y axis.
el = 90; % Angle (degrees) of rotation around the y' axis (the ' indicates axes after the first rotation).
x = [1,-1, -1, 1,1]; y = [1, 1, -1, -1,1]; z = [0,0, 0, 0,0]; % A square lying on the X-Y plane.
[m,n] = size(x);
x4d = [x(:),y(:),z(:),ones(m*n,1)]'; % The 4D version of the points.
figure
for el = 90 : -1 :0 % Start from 90 for viewing directly above the X-Y plane.
T = viewmtx(az, el);
x2d = T * x4d; % Rotated version of points.
plot3 (x2d(1,:), x2d(2,:),x2d(3,:),'-*'); % Plot the rotated points in 3D space.
grid
xlim ([-2,2]);
ylim ([-2,2]);
zlim([-2,2]);
pause(0.1)
end
If you can describe your observation of a real physical system (like a binary star system) with a model, you can use particle filters.
Those filters were developed to locate a ship on the sea, when only one observation direction was available. One tracks the ship and estimates where it is and how fast it moves, the longer one follows, the better the estimates become.
I have an image of a 3D rectangle (which due to the projection distortion is not a rectangle in the image). I know the all world and image coordinates of all corners of this rectangle.
What I need is to determine the world coordinate of a point in the image inside this rectangle. To do that I need to compute a transformation to unproject that rectangle to a 2D rectangle.
How can I compute that transform?
Thanks in advance
This is a special case of finding mappings between quadrilaterals that preserve straight lines. These are generally called homographic transforms. Here, one of the quads is a rectangle, so this is a popular special case. You can google these terms ("quad to quad", etc) to find explanations and code, but here are some sites for you.
Perspective Transform Estimation
a gaming forum discussion
extracting a quadrilateral image to a rectangle
Projective Warping & Mapping
ProjectiveMappings for ImageWarping by Paul Heckbert.
The math isn't particularly pleasant, but it isn't that hard either. You can also find some code from one of the above links.
If I understand you correctly, you have a 2D point in the projection of the rectangle, and you know the 3D (world) and 2D (image) coordinates of all four corners of the rectangle. The goal is to find the 3D coordinates of the unique point on the interior of the (3D, world) rectangle which projects to the given point.
(Do steps 1-3 below for both the 3D (world) coordinates, and the 2D (image) coordinates of the rectangle.)
Identify (any) one corner of the rectangle as its "origin", and call it "A", which we will treat as a vector.
Label the other vertices B, C, D, in order, so that C is diagonally opposite A.
Calculate the vectors v=AB and w=AD. These form nice local coordinates for points in the rectangle. Points in the rectangle will be of the form A+rv+sw, where r, s, are real numbers in the range [0,1]. This fact is true in world coordinates and in image coordinates. In world coordinates, v and w are orthogonal, but in image coordinates, they are not. That's ok.
Working in image coordinates, from the point (x,y) in the image of your rectangle, calculate the values of r and s. This can be done by linear algebra on the vector equations (x,y) = A+rv+sw, where only r and s are unknown. It will boil down to a 2x2 matrix equation, which you can solve generally in code using Cramer's rule. (This step will break if the determinant of the required matrix is zero. This corresponds to the case where the rectangle is seen edge-on. The solution isn't unique in that case. If that's possible, make special exception.)
Using the values of r and s from 4, compute A+rv+sw using the vectors A, v, w, for world coordinates. That's the world point on the rectangle.