I am using image maps to provide the input for mouse over shading, nothing fancy here, but I've created polygons that have some sharp edges I'd prefer to see smoothed away.
At the same time I'd like to reduce the overall number of points by removing anything that would lie on a straight line, eg if points a, b and c fall on a straight line, remove point b.
Does anyone know of such an algorithm, preferably implemented in javascript?
We went down this path on a project once -- there is no other option than a whole mess of points. But from testing there doesn't seem to be any real issue with lots of points in the poly method and the size of the text (with all the numeric points) is nominal in the overall scope of HTML and supporting files.
So, as ugly as it looks in raw code, I recommend you just go ahead with the large number of points.
Related
I have a problem finding defects at the edge of a circular object. It's hard to describe so I have a picture which may help a bit. I am trying to find the red marked areas, such as what is shown below:
I already tried matching with templates vision.TemplateMatcher(), but this only works well for the picture I made the template of.
I tried to match it with vision.CascadeObjectDetector() and I trained it with 150 images. I found only < 5% correct results with this.
I also tried matching with detectSURFFeatures() and then matchFeatures(), but this only works on quite similar defects (when the edges are not closed it fails).
Since the defects are close to the half of a circle, I tried to find it with imfindcircles(), but there I find so many possible results. When I take the one with the highest metric sometimes I get the right one but not even close to 30%.
Do any of you have an idea what I can try to find at least more than 50%?
If someone has an idea and wants to try something I added another picture.
Since I am new I can only add two pictures but if you need more I can provide more pictures.
Are you going to detect rough edges like that on smooth binary overlays as you provided before? For eg. are you making a program whose input consists of getting a black image with lots of circles with rough edges which its then supposed to detect? i.e. sudden rough discontinuities in a normally very smooth region.
If the above position is valid, then this may be solved via classical signal processing. My opinion, plot a graph of the intensity on a line between any two points outside and inside the circle. It should look like
.. continuous constant ... continuous constant .. continuous constant.. DISCONTINUOUS VARYING!! DISCONTINUOUS VARYING!! DISCONTINUOUS VARYING!! ... continuous constant .. continuous constant..
Write your own function to detect these discontinuities.
OR
Gradient: The rate of change of certain quantities w.r.t a distance measure.
Use the very famous Sobel (gradient) filter.
Use the X axis version of the filter, See result, if gives you something detectable use it, do same for Y axis version of filter.
In case you're wondering, if you're using Matlab then you just need to get a readily available and highly mentioned 3x3 matrix (seen almost everywhere on the internet ) and plug it into the imfilter function, or use the in-built implementation (edge(image,'sobel')) (if you have the required toolbox).
For a hobby project I'm attempting to align photo's and create 3D pictures. I basically have 2 camera's on a rig, that I use to make pictures. Automatically I attempt to align the images in such a way that you get a 3D SBS image.
They are high resolution images, which means a lot of pixels to process. Because I'm not really patient with computers, I want things to go fast.
Originally I've worked with code based on image stitching and feature extraction. In practice I found these algorithms to be too inaccurate and too slow. The main reason is that you have different levels of depth here, so you cannot do a 1-on-1 match of features. Most of the code already works fine, including vertical alignment.
For this question, you can assume that different ISO exposion levels / color correction and vertical alignment of the images are both taken care of.
What is still missing is a good algorithm for correcting the angle of the pictures. I noticed that left-right pictures usually vary a small number of degrees (think +/- 1.2 degrees difference) in angle, which is enough to get a slight headache. As a human you can easily spot this by looking at sharp differences in color and lining them up.
The irony here is that you spot it immediately as a human if it's correct or not, but somehow I'm not able to learn this to a machine. :-)
I've experimented with edge detectors, Hough transform and a large variety of home-brew algorithms, but so far found all of them to be both too slow and too inaccurate for my purposes. I've also attempted to iteratively aligning vertically while changing the angles slightly, so far without any luck.
Please note: Accuracy is perhaps more important than speed here.
I've added an example image here. It's actually both a left and right eye, alpha-blended. If you look closely, you can see the lamb at the top having two ellipses, and you can see how the chairs don't exactly line up at the top. It might seem negliable, but on a full screen resolution while using a beamer, you will easily see the difference. This also shows the level of accuracy that is required; it's quite a lot.
The shift in 'x' direction will give the 3D effect. Basically, if the shift is 0, it's on the screen, if it's <0 it's behind the screen and if it's >0 it's in front of the screen. This also makes matching harder, since you're not looking for a 'stitch'.
Basically the two camera's 'look' in the same direction (perpendicular as in the second picture here: http://www.triplespark.net/render/stereo/create.html ).
The difference originates from the camera being on a slightly different angle. This means the rotation is uniform throughout the picture.
I have once used the following amateur approach.
Assume that the second image has a rotation + vertical shift mismatch. This means that we need to apply some transform for the second image which can be expressed in matrix form as
x' = a*x + b*y + c
y' = d*x + e*y + f
that is, every pixel that has coordinates (x,y) on the second image, should be moved to a position (x',y') to compensate for this rotation and vertical shift.
We have a strict requirement that a=e, b=-d and d*d+e*e=1 so that it is indeed rotation+shift, no zoom or slanting etc. Also this notation allows for horizontal shift too, but this is easy to fix after angle+vertical shift correction.
Now select several common features on both images (I did selection by hand, as just 5-10 seemed enough, you can try to apply some automatic feature detection mechanism). Assume i-th feature has coordinates (x1[i], y1[i]) on first image and (x2[i], y2[i]) on the second. We expect that after out transformation the features have as equal as possible y-coordinates, that is we want (ideally)
y1[i]=y2'[i]=d*x2[i]+e*y2[i]+f
Having enough (>=3) features, we can determine d, e and f from this requirement. In fact, if you have more than 3 features, you will most probably not be able to find common d, e and f for them, but you can apply least-square method to find d, e and f that make y2' as close to y1 as possible. You can also account for the requirement that d*d+e*e=1 while finding d, e and f, though as far as i remember, I got acceptable results even not accounting for this.
After you have determined d, e and f, you have the requirement a=e and b=-d. This leaves only c unknown, which is horizontal shift. If you know what the horizontal shift should be, you can find c from there. I used the background (clouds on a landscape, for example) to get c.
When you know all the parameters, you can do one pass on the image and correct it. You might also want to apply some anti-aliasing, but that's a different question.
Note also that you can in a similar way introduce quadratic correction to the formulas to account for additional distortions the camera usually has.
However, that's just a simple algorithm I came up with when I faced the same problem some time ago. I did not do much research, so I'll be glad to know if there is a better or well-established approach or even a ready software.
I'm trying to generate a scrolling starfield for a game with C++ and SDL. I'm using a simple, naive algorithm that just creates a lot of white pixels on black backround. However, this "starfield" looks too unnatural - probably because of the random number generator's poor quality (I use the rand() function).
Are there any special algorithms for generating starfields that look more or less realistic?
Thanks.
There's always this classic. Highlights:
[...] imagine the stars to be points in 3D space, all of them moving towards the viewer, along the Z-axis. At each time step, the 3D coordinates of the stars will be projected onto the screen, and displayed.
For a smoother effect, we can make the stars black when they first appear (so you don't notice them) then get brighter as they get closer.
There are two ways the sense of vastness can be modeled. The first is simply to model a huge area of space, which is impractical to say the least. The second is to make the stars move with a range of velocities.
I found this useful tutorial a while ago on creating a 'realistic' star field. It's not C++, but it should be easily adaptable once you get the idea.
You could use Lloyd's algorithm to relax the random points and make them semi-random. I read this idea in a map generator but it probably can be used do create an eventually distributed star field too.
You probably don't want it to be truly random. You will end up with blobs of pixels in some places when you really want individual pixels scattered around. Your best bet would probably be to code a smaller section and then just repeat it over and over to get the full starfield look.
I have some map files consisting of 'polylines' (each line is just a list of vertices) representing tunnels, and I want to try and find the tunnel 'center line' (shown, roughly, in red below).
I've had some success in the past using Delaunay triangulation but I'd like to avoid that method as it does not (in general) allow for easy/frequent modification of my map data.
Any ideas on how I might be able to do this?
An "algorithm" that works well with localized data changes.
The critic's view
The Good
The nice part is that it uses a mixture of image processing and graph operations available in most libraries, may be parallelized easily, is reasonable fast, may be tuned to use a relatively small memory footprint and doesn't have to be recalculated outside the modified area if you store the intermediate results.
The Bad
I wrote "algorithm", in quotes, just because I developed it and surely is not robust enough to cope with pathological cases. If your graph has a lot of cycles you may end up with some phantom lines. More on this and examples later.
And The Ugly
The ugly part is that you need to be able to flood fill the map, which is not always possible. I posted a comment a few days ago asking if your graphs can be flood filled, but didn't receive an answer. So I decided to post it anyway.
The Sketch
The idea is:
Use image processing to get a fine line of pixels representing the center path
Partition the image in chunks commensurated to the tunnel thinnest passages
At each partition, represent a point at the "center of mass" of the contained pixels
Use those pixels to represent the Vertices of a Graph
Add Edges to the Graph based on a "near neighbour" policy
Remove spurious small cycles in the induced Graph
End- The remaining Edges represent your desired path
The parallelization opportunity arises from the fact that the partitions may be computed in standalone processes, and the resulting graph may be partitioned to find the small cycles that need to be removed. These factors also allow to reduce the memory needed by serializing instead of doing calcs in parallel, but I didn't go trough this.
The Plot
I'll no provide pseudocode, as the difficult part is just that not covered by your libraries. Instead of pseudocode I'll post the images resulting from the successive steps.
I wrote the program in Mathematica, and I can post it if is of some service to you.
A- Start with a nice flood filled tunnel image
B- Apply a Distance Transformation
The Distance Transformation gives the distance transform of image, where the value of each pixel is replaced by its distance to the nearest background pixel.
You can see that our desired path is the Local Maxima within the tunnel
C- Convolve the image with an appropriate kernel
The selected kernel is a Laplacian-of-Gaussian kernel of pixel radius 2. It has the magic property of enhancing the gray level edges, as you can see below.
D- Cutoff gray levels and Binarize the image
To get a nice view of the center line!
Comment
Perhaps that is enough for you, as you ay know how to transform a thin line to an approximate piecewise segments sequence. As that is not the case for me, I continued this path to get the desired segments.
E- Image Partition
Here is when some advantages of the algorithm show up: you may start using parallel processing or decide to process each segment at a time. You may also compare the resulting segments with the previous run and re-use the previous results
F- Center of Mass detection
All the white points in each sub-image are replaced by only one point at the center of mass
XCM = (Σ i∈Points Xi)/NumPoints
YCM = (Σ i∈Points Yi)/NumPoints
The white pixels are difficult to see (asymptotically difficult with param "a" age), but there they are.
G- Graph setup from Vertices
Form a Graph using the selected points as Vertex. Still no Edges.
H- select Candidate Edges
Using the Euclidean Distance between points, select candidate edges. A cutoff is used to select an appropriate set of Edges. Here we are using 1.5 the subimagesize.
As you can see the resulting Graph have a few small cycles that we are going to remove in the next step.
H- Remove Small Cycles
Using a Cycle detection routine we remove the small cycles up to a certain length. The cutoff length depends on a few parms and you should figure it empirically for your graphs family
I- That's it!
You can see that the resulting center line is shifted a little bit upwards. The reason is that I'm superimposing images of different type in Mathematica ... and I gave up trying to convince the program to do what I want :)
A Few Shots
As I did the testing, I collected a few images. They are probably the most un-tunnelish things in the world, but my Tunnels-101 went astray.
Anyway, here they are. Remember that I have a displacement of a few pixels upwards ...
HTH !
.
Update
Just in case you have access to Mathematica 8 (I got it today) there is a new function Thinning. Just look:
This is a pretty classic skeletonization problem; there are lots of algorithms available. Some algorithms work in principle on outline contours, but since almost everyone uses them on images, I'm not sure how available such things will be. Anyway, if you can just plot and fill the sewer outlines and then use a skeletonization algorithm, you could get something close to the midline (within pixel resolution).
Then you could walk along those lines and do a binary search with circles until you hit at least two separate line segments (three if you're at a branch point). The midpoint of the two spots you first hit, or the center of a circle touching the three points you first hit, is a good estimate of the center.
Well in Python using package skimage it is an easy task as follows.
import pylab as pl
from skimage import morphology as mp
tun = 1-pl.imread('tunnel.png')[...,0] #your tunnel image
skl = mp.medial_axis(tun) #skeleton
pl.subplot(121)
pl.imshow(tun,cmap=pl.cm.gray)
pl.subplot(122)
pl.imshow(skl,cmap=pl.cm.gray)
pl.show()
Greetings,
I'm working on a game project that uses a 3D variant of hexagonal tile maps. Tiles are actually cubes, not hexes, but are laid out just like hexes (because a square can be turned to a cube to extrapolate from 2D to 3D, but there is no 3D version of a hex). Rather than a verbose description, here goes an example of a 4x4x4 map:
(I have highlighted an arbitrary tile (green) and its adjacent tiles (yellow) to help describe how the whole thing is supposed to work; but the adjacency functions are not the issue, that's already solved.)
I have a struct type to represent tiles, and maps are represented as a 3D array of tiles (wrapped in a Map class to add some utility methods, but that's not very relevant).
Each tile is supposed to represent a perfectly cubic space, and they are all exactly the same size. Also, the offset between adjacent "rows" is exactly half the size of a tile.
That's enough context; my question is:
Given the coordinates of two points A and B, how can I generate a list of the tiles (or, rather, their coordinates) that a straight line between A and B would cross?
That would later be used for a variety of purposes, such as determining Line-of-sight, charge path legality, and so on.
BTW, this may be useful: my maps use the (0,0,0) as a reference position. The 'jagging' of the map can be defined as offsetting each tile ((y+z) mod 2) * tileSize/2.0 to the right from the position it'd have on a "sane" cartesian system. For the non-jagged rows, that yields 0; for rows where (y+z) mod 2 is 1, it yields 0.5 tiles.
I'm working on C#4 targeting the .Net Framework 4.0; but I don't really need specific code, just the algorithm to solve the weird geometric/mathematical problem. I have been trying for several days to solve this at no avail; and trying to draw the whole thing on paper to "visualize" it didn't help either :( .
Thanks in advance for any answer
Until one of the clever SOers turns up, here's my dumb solution. I'll explain it in 2D 'cos that makes it easier to explain, but it will generalise to 3D easily enough. I think any attempt to try to work this entirely in cell index space is doomed to failure (though I'll admit it's just what I think and I look forward to being proved wrong).
So you need to define a function to map from cartesian coordinates to cell indices. This is straightforward, if a little tricky. First, decide whether point(0,0) is the bottom left corner of cell(0,0) or the centre, or some other point. Since it makes the explanations easier, I'll go with bottom-left corner. Observe that any point(x,floor(y)==0) maps to cell(floor(x),0). Indeed, any point(x,even(floor(y))) maps to cell(floor(x),floor(y)).
Here, I invent the boolean function even which returns True if its argument is an even integer. I'll use odd next: any point point(x,odd(floor(y)) maps to cell(floor(x-0.5),floor(y)).
Now you have the basics of the recipe for determining lines-of-sight.
You will also need a function to map from cell(m,n) back to a point in cartesian space. That should be straightforward once you have decided where the origin lies.
Now, unless I've misplaced some brackets, I think you are on your way. You'll need to:
decide where in cell(0,0) you position point(0,0); and adjust the function accordingly;
decide where points along the cell boundaries fall; and
generalise this into 3 dimensions.
Depending on the size of the playing field you could store the cartesian coordinates of the cell boundaries in a lookup table (or other data structure), which would probably speed things up.
Perhaps you can avoid all the complex math if you look at your problem in another way:
I see that you only shift your blocks (alternating) along the first axis by half the blocksize. If you split up your blocks along this axis the above example will become (with shifts) an (9x4x4) simple cartesian coordinate system with regular stacked blocks. Now doing the raytracing becomes much more simple and less error prone.