Understanding Bresenham's error accumulation part of the algorithm? - algorithm

I'm having issues understanding how the error accumulation part works in Bresenham's line drawing algorithm.
Say we have x1 and x2. Let's assume that x1 < x2, y1 < y2, and (x2 - x1) >= (y2 - y1) for simplicity:
Let's start with the naive way of drawing a line. It would look something like:
void DrawLine(int x1, int y1, int x2, int y2)
{
float y = y1 + 0.5f;
float slope = (float)(y2 - y1) / (x2 - x1);
for (int x = x1; x <= x2; ++x)
{
PlotPixel(x, (int)y);
y += slope;
}
}
Let's make it more Bresenham'ish, and separate the integer and floating-point parts of y:
void DrawLine(int x1, int y1, int x2, int y2)
{
int yi = y1;
float yf = 0.5f;
float slope = (float)(y2 - y1) / (x2 - x1);
for (int x = x1; x <= x2; ++x)
{
PlotPixel(x, yi);
yf += slope;
if (yf >= 1.0f)
{
yf -= 1.0f;
++yi;
}
}
}
At this point we could multiply yf and slope by 2 * (x2 - x1) to make them integers, no more floats. I understand that.
The part I don't fully understand, is this:
if (yf >= 1.0f)
{
yf -= 1.0f;
++yi;
}
How does that actually work? why are we comparing against 1.0 and then decrementing by it?
I know that the basic question of Bresenham is: If we're currently at pixel x, y and we want to draw the next one, should we pick x + 1, y or x + 1, y + 1? - I just don't understand how that check is helping us answer this question.
Some people call it error term, some call it threshold, I just don't get what it represents.
Any explanations is appreciated,
thanks.

Bresenham's line rasterization algorithm performs all the calculations in integer arithmetic. In your code you are using float types and you shouldn't.
First consider that you know two pixels that are on the line. The starting pixel and the end pixel. What the algorithm calculates are the pixels that approximate the line such that the rasterized line starts and stops on the two input pixels.
Second, all lines drawn are reflections of lines with slope between 0 and 0.5. There is a special case for vertical lines. If your algorithm is correct for this input, then you need to initialize the starting state of the rasterizer to correctly rasterize a line: start pixel (x, y), ∆x, ∆y, and D the decision variable.
Since you can assume all lines are drawn from left to right, have positive slope equal to or less than 0.5, the problem boils down to:
is the next rasterized pixel to the current pixels right or to the right and up one pixel.
You can make this decision by keeping track of how much your rasterized line deviates from the true line. To do so, the line equation is re-written into an implicit function, F(x, y) = ∆yx - ∆xy + ∆xb = 0 and you repeatedly evaluate it F(x + 1 y + 0.5). Since that requires floating point math, you focus on identifying if you are on, above, or below the true line. Therefore, F(x + 1 y + 0.5) = ∆y - 0.5∆x and multiplying by two 2 * F(x + 1 y + 0.5) = 2∆y - ∆x. That's the first decision, if the result is less than zero, add one to x but zero to y.
The second decision and subsequent decisions follow similarly and the error is accumulated. A decision variable D is initialized to 2∆y - ∆x. If D < 0, then D = D + 2∆y; else y = y + 1 and D = D + 2(∆y - ∆x). The x variable is always incremented.
Jim Arvo had a great explanation of Bresenham's algorithm.

In your implementation yf is a 0.5 + distance between real floating-point Y coordinate and drawn (integral) Y coordinate. This distance is the current error of your drawing. You want to keep the error within at most half-of-pixel between real line and drawn line (-0.5..+0.5), so your yf which is 0.5+error should be between 0 and 1. When it exceeds one, you just increase your drawn Y coordinate (yi) by one and you need to decrease an error by one. Let's take an example:
slope = 0.3;
x = 0; yf = 0.5; y = 0; // start drawing: no error
x = 1; yf = 0.8; y = 0; // draw second point at (1, 0); error is +0.3
x = 2; yf = 1.1; y = 0; // error is too big (+0.6): increase y
yf = 0.1; y = 1; // now error is -0.4; draw point at (2, 1)
x = 3; yf = 0.4; y = 1; // draw at (3, 1); error is -0.1
x = 4; yf = 0.7; y = 1; // draw at (4, 1); error is +0.2
x = 5; yf = 1.0; y = 1; // error is too big (+0.5); increase y
yf = 0.0; y = 2; // now error is -0.5; draw point at (5, 2)
And so on.

Related

How to use Bresenham's line drawing algorithm with sub pixel bias?

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.

Loop through a array in circle shape without repeat indexes

I need to loop through a array in circle in arc shape with a small radius (like draw a circle pixel by pixel), but all algorithm i tried, checks duplicate indexes of array (it's got the same x and y several times).
I have a radius of 3, with a circle form of 28 elements (not filled), but the algorithm iterate 360 times. I can check if x or y change before i do something, but it's lame.
My code now:
for (int radius = 1; radius < 6; radius++)
{
for (double i = 0; i < 360; i += 1)
{
double angle = i * System.Math.PI / 180;
int x = (int)(radius * System.Math.Cos(angle)) + centerX;
int y = (int)(radius * System.Math.Sin(angle)) + centerY;
// do something
// if (array[x, y]) ....
}
}
PS: I can't use midpoint circle, because i need to increment radius starting from 2 until 6, and not every index is obtained, because his circle it's not real (according trigonometry)
EDIT:
What i really need, is scan a full circle edge by edge, starting by center.
360 steps (it's get all coordinates):
Full scan
for (int radius = 2; radius <= 7; radius++)
{
for (double i = 0; i <= 360; i += 1)
{
double angle = i * System.Math.PI / 180;
int x = (int)(radius * System.Math.Cos(angle));
int y = (int)(radius * System.Math.Sin(angle));
print(x, y, "X");
}
}
Using Midpoint Circle or other algorithm skipping steps (missing coordinates):
Midpoint Circle Algorithm
for (int radius = 2; radius <= 7; radius++)
{
int x = radius;
int y = 0;
int err = 0;
while (x >= y)
{
print(x, y, "X");
print(y, x, "X");
print(-y, x, "X");
print(-y, x, "X");
print(-x, y, "X");
print(-x, -y, "X");
print(-y, -x, "X");
print(y, -x, "X");
print(x, -y, "X");
y += 1;
err += 1 + 2 * y;
if (2 * (err - x) + 1 > 0)
{
x -= 1;
err += 1 - 2 * x;
}
}
}
There are two algorithmic ideas in play here: one is rasterizing a circle. The OP code presents a couple opportunities for improvement on that front: (a) one needn't sample the entire 360 degree circle, realizing that a circle is symmetric across both axes. (x,y) can be reflected in the other three quadrants as (-x,y), (-x,-y), and (x,-y). (b) the step on the loop should be related to the curvature. A simple heuristic is to use the radius as the step. So...
let step = MIN(radius, 90)
for (double i=0; i<90; i += step) {
add (x,y) to results
reflect into quadrants 2,3,4 and add to results
}
With these couple improvements, you may no longer care about duplicate samples being generated. If you still do, then the second idea, independent of the circle, is how to hash a pair of ints. There's a good article about that here: Mapping two integers to one, in a unique and deterministic way.
In a nutshell, we compute an int from our x,y pair that's guaranteed to map uniquely, and then check that for duplicates...
cantor(x, y) = 1/2(x + y)(x + y + 1) + y
This works only for positive values of x,y, which is just what you need since we're only computing (and then reflecting) in the first quadrant. For each pair, check that they are unique
let s = an empty set
int step = MIN(radius, 90)
for (double i=0; i<90; i += step) {
generate (x,y)
let c = cantor(x,y)
if (not(s contains c)) {
add (x,y) to results
reflect into quadrants 2,3,4 and add to results
add c to s
}
}
Got it!
It's not beautiful, but work for me.
int maxRadius = 7;
for (int radius = 1; radius <= maxRadius; radius++)
{
x = position.X - radius;
y = position.Y - radius;
x2 = position.X + radius;
y2 = position.Y + radius;
for (int i = 0; i <= radius * 2; i++)
{
if (InCircle(position.X, position.Y, x + i, y, maxRadius)) // Top X
myArray[position, x + i, y]; // check array
if (InCircle(position.X, position.Y, x + i, y2, maxRadius)) // Bottom X
myArray[position, x + i, y2]; // check array
if (i > 0 && i < radius * 2)
{
if (InCircle(position.X, position.Y, x, y + i, maxRadius)) // Left Y
myArray[position, x, y + i]; // check array
if (InCircle(position.X, position.Y, x2, y + i, maxRadius)) // Right Y
myArray[position, x2, y + i]; // check array
}
}
}
public static bool InCircle(int originX, int originY, int x, int y, int radius)
{
int dx = Math.Abs(x - originX);
if (dx > radius) return false;
int dy = Math.Abs(y - originY);
if (dy > radius) return false;
if (dx + dy <= radius) return true;
return (dx * dx + dy * dy <= radius * radius);
}

Algorithm to access the tiles in a matrix (game map) that are in a disc

I am developping a tile mapped game.
I need to access the tiles that are in a disc, with a given radius and centered on a given point.
Accessing the tiles that are in a square is easy, we only need to use two loops :
for(int i=xmin; i<xmax; ++i)
for(int j=ymin; j<ymax; ++j)
// the tile map[i][j] is in the square
But how do you access the tiles that are in a given disc (full circle) ?
EDIT:
I mean, I could process each tile in a bounding rectangle (bounding the disc), and determine whether or not a tile in that rectangle is in the disk, by using (x-x0)²+(y-y0)²<R², but with that algorithm, we would explore useless tiles.
When using a large radius, there are many tiles to process, and it will be slow because calculating (x-x0)²+(y-y0)²<R² many times is heavy
What I want is an algorithm more efficient than this one.
EDIT2:
I don't need a perfect disk
We can do a linear scan through x, calculating the range of y. Then we only have to scan through the tiles that are in the circle, like in this badly drawn picture. (Christmas colors?)
If we have a circle with radius r and an x-position x, we can figure out the maximum length of y:
y = sqrt(r * r - x * x);
So the code for iterating through the tiles would look like:
int center_x = (xmin + xmax) / 2;
int center_y = (ymin + ymax) / 2;
for(int x = xmin; x <= xmax; x++) {
int ydist = sqrt(r * r - (center_x - x) * (center_x - x));
for(int y = center_y - ydist; y <= center_y + ydist; y++) {
// these are the tiles in the disc
}
}
Here's some Python code:
from Tkinter import *
from math import *
tk = Tk()
g = Canvas(tk, width=500, height=500)
g.pack()
x0 = 25 # x center
y0 = 25 # y center
r = 17 # radius
t = 10 # tile side length
for x in range(x0 - r, x0 + r + 1):
ydist = int(round(sqrt(r**2 - (x0 - x)**2), 1))
for y in range(y0 - ydist, y0 + ydist + 1):
g.create_rectangle(x * t, y * t, x * t + t, y * t + t
, fill='#'
+ '0123456789ABCDEF'[15 - int(15 * sqrt((x0 - x)**2 + (y0 - y)**2) / r)]
+ '0123456789ABCDEF'[int(15 * sqrt((x0 - x)**2 + (y0 - y)**2) / r)]
+ '0')
g.create_oval((x0 - r) * t, (y0 - r) * t, (x0 + r) * t + t, (y0 + r) * t + t, outline="red", width=2)
mainloop()
And the resulting disk:
Not perfect at the ends, but I hope it works well enough for you (or you can modify it).
You can use the Bresenham's circle Algorithm (section 3.3, Scan Converting Circles) (it uses integer arithmetic only, is very accurate and process fourth part of the whole circle to produce the entire circumference) in your tile matrix to detect those tiles that forms the circumference, then trace lines between them from up-to-down (or left-to-right):
The following is a pseudo implementation of the circle algorithm:
static void circle(int x0, int y0, int x1, int y1) {
// Bresenham's Circle Algorithm
int x, y, d, deltaE, deltaSE;
int radius, center_x, center_y;
bool change_x = false;
bool change_y = false;
if( x0 > x1 ) {
// swap x values
x = x0;
x0 = x1;
x1 = x;
change_x = true;
}
if( y0 > y1 ) {
// swap y values
y = y0;
y0 = y1;
y1 = y;
change_y = true;
}
int dx = x1 - x0;
int dy = y1 - y0;
radius = dx > dy ? (dy >> 1) : (dx >> 1);
center_x = change_x ? x0 - radius : x0 + radius;
center_y = change_y ? y0 - radius : y0 + radius;
x = 0;
y = radius;
d = 1 - radius;
deltaE = 3;
// -2 * radius + 5
deltaSE = -(radius << 1) + 5;
while(y > x) {
if(d < 0) {
d += deltaE;
deltaE += 2;
deltaSE += 2;
x++;
} else {
d += deltaSE;
deltaE += 2;
deltaSE += 4;
x++;
y--;
}
checkTiles(x, y, center_x, center_y);
}
}
void checkTiles(int x, int y, int center_x, int center_y) {
// here, you iterate tiles up-to-down from ( x + center_x, -y + center_y) to (x + center_x, y + center_y)
// in one straigh line using a for loop
for (int j = -y + center_y; j < y + center_y; ++j)
checkTileAt(x + center_x, j);
// Iterate tiles up-to-down from ( y + center_x, -x + center_y) to ( y + center_x, x + center_y)
for (int j = -x + center_y; j < x + center_y; ++j)
checkTileAt(y + center_x, j);
// Iterate tiles up-to-down from (-x + center_x, -y + center_y) to (-x + center_x, y + center_y)
for (int j = -y + center_y; j < y + center_y; ++j)
checkTileAt(-x + center_x, j);
// here, you iterate tiles up-to-down from (-y + center_x, -x + center_y) to (-y + center_x, x + center_y)
for (int j = -x + center_y; j < x + center_y; ++j)
checkTileAt(-y + center_x, j);
}
With this technique you should process only the required tiles (and after processing only a quarter of the circle), none unnecessary tiles would be checked. Beside that, it uses integer arithmetic only, wich makes it really fast (the deduction and explanation can be found in the provided book link) and the generated circumference is proven to be the best approximation for the real one.
Excluding tiles outside the square wont be much faster. I would just use a square but ignore tiles outside the circle. (e.g. by checking how far the tile is from the circle center)
for(int i=xmin; i<xmax; ++i):
for(int j=ymin; j<ymax; ++j):
if map[i][j] not in the circle:
break
// the tile map[i][j] is in the square
A rough estimate on performance overhead:
Area Square = 2*r*2*r
Area Circle = pi*r*r
Area Square / Area Circle = 4/pi = 1.27
This means using a square instead of a circle is only 1.27 times slower (assuming using a circle doesn't have its own inefficiencies)
Also because you will likely perform some operation on the tiles, (making the iterations involving tiles in the circle much slower) it means the performance gain will go down to almost 0 using a circle layout instead of a square layout.
Use a bounding octagon. It's the bounding square with corners cut off. You need these tests for if a point (any corner of a tile) is in that shape. Put this inside the 2D loop.
abs(x) < R
abs(y) < R
abs(x)+abs(y) < sqrt(2)*R
Precalculate sqrt(2)*R, of course.
This isn't the same as a circle, obviously, but cuts down nicely the amount of wasted space compared to a square.
It'll be hard to generate a loop that goes over only the tile centers or tile corners perfectly, without needing some sort of test in the loop. Any hope for writing such loops would be from use Bresenham's algorithm.

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))

Equation for testing if a point is inside a circle

If you have a circle with center (center_x, center_y) and radius radius, how do you test if a given point with coordinates (x, y) is inside the circle?
In general, x and y must satisfy (x - center_x)² + (y - center_y)² < radius².
Please note that points that satisfy the above equation with < replaced by == are considered the points on the circle, and the points that satisfy the above equation with < replaced by > are considered the outside the circle.
Mathematically, Pythagoras is probably a simple method as many have already mentioned.
(x-center_x)^2 + (y - center_y)^2 < radius^2
Computationally, there are quicker ways. Define:
dx = abs(x-center_x)
dy = abs(y-center_y)
R = radius
If a point is more likely to be outside this circle then imagine a square drawn around it such that it's sides are tangents to this circle:
if dx>R then
return false.
if dy>R then
return false.
Now imagine a square diamond drawn inside this circle such that it's vertices touch this circle:
if dx + dy <= R then
return true.
Now we have covered most of our space and only a small area of this circle remains in between our square and diamond to be tested. Here we revert to Pythagoras as above.
if dx^2 + dy^2 <= R^2 then
return true
else
return false.
If a point is more likely to be inside this circle then reverse order of first 3 steps:
if dx + dy <= R then
return true.
if dx > R then
return false.
if dy > R
then return false.
if dx^2 + dy^2 <= R^2 then
return true
else
return false.
Alternate methods imagine a square inside this circle instead of a diamond but this requires slightly more tests and calculations with no computational advantage (inner square and diamonds have identical areas):
k = R/sqrt(2)
if dx <= k and dy <= k then
return true.
Update:
For those interested in performance I implemented this method in c, and compiled with -O3.
I obtained execution times by time ./a.out
I implemented this method, a normal method and a dummy method to determine timing overhead.
Normal: 21.3s
This: 19.1s
Overhead: 16.5s
So, it seems this method is more efficient in this implementation.
// compile gcc -O3 <filename>.c
// run: time ./a.out
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define TRUE (0==0)
#define FALSE (0==1)
#define ABS(x) (((x)<0)?(0-(x)):(x))
int xo, yo, R;
int inline inCircle( int x, int y ){ // 19.1, 19.1, 19.1
int dx = ABS(x-xo);
if ( dx > R ) return FALSE;
int dy = ABS(y-yo);
if ( dy > R ) return FALSE;
if ( dx+dy <= R ) return TRUE;
return ( dx*dx + dy*dy <= R*R );
}
int inline inCircleN( int x, int y ){ // 21.3, 21.1, 21.5
int dx = ABS(x-xo);
int dy = ABS(y-yo);
return ( dx*dx + dy*dy <= R*R );
}
int inline dummy( int x, int y ){ // 16.6, 16.5, 16.4
int dx = ABS(x-xo);
int dy = ABS(y-yo);
return FALSE;
}
#define N 1000000000
int main(){
int x, y;
xo = rand()%1000; yo = rand()%1000; R = 1;
int n = 0;
int c;
for (c=0; c<N; c++){
x = rand()%1000; y = rand()%1000;
// if ( inCircle(x,y) ){
if ( inCircleN(x,y) ){
// if ( dummy(x,y) ){
n++;
}
}
printf( "%d of %d inside circle\n", n, N);
}
You can use Pythagoras to measure the distance between your point and the centre and see if it's lower than the radius:
def in_circle(center_x, center_y, radius, x, y):
dist = math.sqrt((center_x - x) ** 2 + (center_y - y) ** 2)
return dist <= radius
EDIT (hat tip to Paul)
In practice, squaring is often much cheaper than taking the square root and since we're only interested in an ordering, we can of course forego taking the square root:
def in_circle(center_x, center_y, radius, x, y):
square_dist = (center_x - x) ** 2 + (center_y - y) ** 2
return square_dist <= radius ** 2
Also, Jason noted that <= should be replaced by < and depending on usage this may actually make sense even though I believe that it's not true in the strict mathematical sense. I stand corrected.
boolean isInRectangle(double centerX, double centerY, double radius,
double x, double y)
{
return x >= centerX - radius && x <= centerX + radius &&
y >= centerY - radius && y <= centerY + radius;
}
//test if coordinate (x, y) is within a radius from coordinate (center_x, center_y)
public boolean isPointInCircle(double centerX, double centerY,
double radius, double x, double y)
{
if(isInRectangle(centerX, centerY, radius, x, y))
{
double dx = centerX - x;
double dy = centerY - y;
dx *= dx;
dy *= dy;
double distanceSquared = dx + dy;
double radiusSquared = radius * radius;
return distanceSquared <= radiusSquared;
}
return false;
}
This is more efficient, and readable. It avoids the costly square root operation. I also added a check to determine if the point is within the bounding rectangle of the circle.
The rectangle check is unnecessary except with many points or many circles. If most points are inside circles, the bounding rectangle check will actually make things slower!
As always, be sure to consider your use case.
You should check whether the distance from the center of the circle to the point is smaller than the radius
using Python
if (x-center_x)**2 + (y-center_y)**2 <= radius**2:
# inside circle
Find the distance between the center of the circle and the points given. If the distance between them is less than the radius then the point is inside the circle.
if the distance between them is equal to the radius of the circle then the point is on the circumference of the circle.
if the distance is greater than the radius then the point is outside the circle.
int d = r^2 - ((center_x-x)^2 + (center_y-y)^2);
if(d>0)
print("inside");
else if(d==0)
print("on the circumference");
else
print("outside");
Calculate the Distance
D = Math.Sqrt(Math.Pow(center_x - x, 2) + Math.Pow(center_y - y, 2))
return D <= radius
that's in C#...convert for use in python...
As said above -- use Euclidean distance.
from math import hypot
def in_radius(c_x, c_y, r, x, y):
return math.hypot(c_x-x, c_y-y) <= r
The equation below is a expression that tests if a point is within a given circle where xP & yP are the coordinates of the point, xC & yC are the coordinates of the center of the circle and R is the radius of that given circle.
If the above expression is true then the point is within the circle.
Below is a sample implementation in C#:
public static bool IsWithinCircle(PointF pC, Point pP, Single fRadius){
return Distance(pC, pP) <= fRadius;
}
public static Single Distance(PointF p1, PointF p2){
Single dX = p1.X - p2.X;
Single dY = p1.Y - p2.Y;
Single multi = dX * dX + dY * dY;
Single dist = (Single)Math.Round((Single)Math.Sqrt(multi), 3);
return (Single)dist;
}
This is the same solution as mentioned by Jason Punyon, but it contains a pseudo-code example and some more details. I saw his answer after writing this, but I didn't want to remove mine.
I think the most easily understandable way is to first calculate the distance between the circle's center and the point. I would use this formula:
d = sqrt((circle_x - x)^2 + (circle_y - y)^2)
Then, simply compare the result of that formula, the distance (d), with the radius. If the distance (d) is less than or equal to the radius (r), the point is inside the circle (on the edge of the circle if d and r are equal).
Here is a pseudo-code example which can easily be converted to any programming language:
function is_in_circle(circle_x, circle_y, r, x, y)
{
d = sqrt((circle_x - x)^2 + (circle_y - y)^2);
return d <= r;
}
Where circle_x and circle_y is the center coordinates of the circle, r is the radius of the circle, and x and y is the coordinates of the point.
My answer in C# as a complete cut & paste (not optimized) solution:
public static bool PointIsWithinCircle(double circleRadius, double circleCenterPointX, double circleCenterPointY, double pointToCheckX, double pointToCheckY)
{
return (Math.Pow(pointToCheckX - circleCenterPointX, 2) + Math.Pow(pointToCheckY - circleCenterPointY, 2)) < (Math.Pow(circleRadius, 2));
}
Usage:
if (!PointIsWithinCircle(3, 3, 3, .5, .5)) { }
As stated previously, to show if the point is in the circle we can use the following
if ((x-center_x)^2 + (y - center_y)^2 < radius^2) {
in.circle <- "True"
} else {
in.circle <- "False"
}
To represent it graphically we can use:
plot(x, y, asp = 1, xlim = c(-1, 1), ylim = c(-1, 1), col = ifelse((x-center_x)^2 + (y - center_y)^2 < radius^2,'green','red'))
draw.circle(0, 0, 1, nv = 1000, border = NULL, col = NA, lty = 1, lwd = 1)
Moving into the world of 3D if you want to check if a 3D point is in a Unit Sphere you end up doing something similar. All that is needed to work in 2D is to use 2D vector operations.
public static bool Intersects(Vector3 point, Vector3 center, float radius)
{
Vector3 displacementToCenter = point - center;
float radiusSqr = radius * radius;
bool intersects = displacementToCenter.magnitude < radiusSqr;
return intersects;
}
iOS 15, Accepted Answer written in Swift 5.5
func isInRectangle(center: CGPoint, radius: Double, point: CGPoint) -> Bool
{
return point.x >= center.x - radius && point.x <= center.x + radius &&
point.y >= center.y - radius && point.y <= center.y + radius
}
//test if coordinate (x, y) is within a radius from coordinate (center_x, center_y)
func isPointInCircle(center: CGPoint,
radius:Double, point: CGPoint) -> Bool
{
if(isInRectangle(center: center, radius: radius, point: point))
{
var dx:Double = center.x - point.x
var dy:Double = center.y - point.y
dx *= dx
dy *= dy
let distanceSquared:Double = dx + dy
let radiusSquared:Double = radius * radius
return distanceSquared <= radiusSquared
}
return false
}
I used the code below for beginners like me :).
public class incirkel {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int x;
int y;
int middelx;
int middely;
int straal; {
// Adjust the coordinates of x and y
x = -1;
y = -2;
// Adjust the coordinates of the circle
middelx = 9;
middely = 9;
straal = 10;
{
//When x,y is within the circle the message below will be printed
if ((((middelx - x) * (middelx - x))
+ ((middely - y) * (middely - y)))
< (straal * straal)) {
System.out.println("coordinaten x,y vallen binnen cirkel");
//When x,y is NOT within the circle the error message below will be printed
} else {
System.err.println("x,y coordinaten vallen helaas buiten de cirkel");
}
}
}
}}
Here is the simple java code for solving this problem:
and the math behind it : https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/198764/how-to-know-if-a-point-is-inside-a-circle
boolean insideCircle(int[] point, int[] center, int radius) {
return (float)Math.sqrt((int)Math.pow(point[0]-center[0],2)+(int)Math.pow(point[1]-center[1],2)) <= radius;
}
PHP
if ((($x - $center_x) ** 2 + ($y - $center_y) ** 2) <= $radius **2) {
return true; // Inside
} else {
return false; // Outside
}

Resources