I'm trying to render lines (railroads, roads etc) onto a globe. At present, I'm using THREE.LineBasicMaterial and using the linewidth property to control thickness, but it would look much better if the thickness of the line at a given point was inversely proportional to the distance of that point from the camera.
Is such a thing possible (perhaps with a custom shader) or is the only way to construct a tube that follows the same path as the line? (And if so, what would the best approach be?)
Related
A project I've been working on for the past few months is calculating the top area of an object taken with a 3D depth camera from top view.
workflow of my project:
capture a group of objects image(RGB,DEPTH data) from top-view
Instance Segmentation with RGB image
Calculate the real area of the segmented mask with DEPTH data
Some problem on the project:
All given objects have different shapes
The side of the object, not the top, begins to be seen as it moves to the outside of the image.
Because of this, the mask area to be segmented gradually increases.
As a result, the actual area of an object located outside the image is calculated to be larger than that of an object located in the center.
In the example image, object 1 is located in the middle of the angle, so only the top of the object is visible, but object 2 is located outside the angle, so part of the top is lost and the side is visible.
Because of this, the mask area to be segmented is larger for objects located on the periphery than for objects located in the center.
I only want to find the area of the top of an object.
example what I want image:
Is there a way to geometrically correct the area of an object located on outside of the image?
I tried to calibrate by multiplying the area calculated according to the angle formed by Vector 1 connecting the center point of the camera lens to the center point of the floor and Vector 2 connecting the center point of the lens to the center of gravity of the target object by a specific value.
However, I gave up because I couldn't logically explain how much correction was needed.
fig 3:
What I would do is convert your RGB and Depth image to 3D mesh (surface with bumps) using your camera settings (FOVs,focal length) something like this:
Align already captured rgb and depth images
and then project it onto ground plane (perpendicul to camera view direction in the middle of screen). To obtain ground plane simply take 3 3D positions of the ground p0,p1,p2 (forming triangle) and using cross product to compute the ground normal:
n = normalize(cross(p1-p0,p2-p1))
now you plane is defined by p0,n so just each 3D coordinate convert like this:
by simply adding normal vector (towards ground) multiplied by distance to ground, if I see it right something like this:
p' = p + n * dot(p-p0,n)
That should eliminate the problem with visible sides on edges of FOV however you should also take into account that by showing side some part of top is also hidden so to remedy that you might also find axis of symmetry, and use just half of top side (that is not hidden partially) and just multiply the measured half area by 2 ...
Accurate computation is virtually hopeless, because you don't see all sides.
Assuming your depth information is available as a range image, you can consider the points inside the segmentation mask of a single chicken, estimate the vertical direction at that point, rotate and project the points to obtain the silhouette.
But as a part of the surface is occluded, you may have to reconstruct it using symmetry.
There is no way to do this accurately for arbitrary objects, since there can be parts of the object that contribute to the "top area", but which the camera cannot see. Since the camera cannot see these parts, you can't tell how big they are.
Since all your objects are known to be chickens, though, you could get a pretty accurate estimate like this:
Use Principal Component Analysis to determine the orientation of each chicken.
Using many objects in many images, find a best-fit polynomial that estimates apparent chicken size by distance from the image center, and orientation relative to the distance vector.
For any given chicken, then, you can divide its apparent size by the estimated average apparent size for its distance and orientation, to get a normalized chicken size measurement.
I am setting up a particle system in threejs by adapting the buffer geometry drawcalls example in threejs. I want to create a series of points, but I want them to be round.
The documentation for threejs points says it accepts geometry or buffer geometry, but I also noticed there is a circleBufferGeometry. Can I use this?
Or is there another way to make the points round besides using sprites? I'm not sure, but it seems like loading an image for each particle would cause a lot of unnecessary overhead.
So, in short, is there a more performant or simple way to make a particle system of round particles (spheres or discs) in threejs without sprites?
If you want to draw each "point"/"particle" as a geometric circle, you can use THREE.InstancedBufferGeometry or take a look at this
The geometry of a Points object defines where the points exist in 3D space. It does not define the shape of the points. Points are also drawn as quads, so they're always going to be a square, though they don't have to appear that way.
Your first option is to (as you pointed out) load a texture for each point. I don't really see how this would introduce "a lot" of overhead, because the texture would only be loaded once, and would be applied to all points. But, I'm sure you have your reasons.
Your other option is to create your own shader to draw the point as a circle. This method takes the point as a square, and discards any fragments (multiple fragments make up a pixel) outside the circle.
I have an image with arbitrary regions shape (say objects), let's assume the background pixels are labeled as zeros whereas any object has a unique label (pixels of object 1 are labeled as 1, object 2 pixels are labeled as 2,...). Now for every object, I need to find the best elliptical fit of its pixels. This requires finding the center of the object, the major and minor axis, and the rotation angle. How can I find these?
Thank you;
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is one way to go. See Wikipedia here.
The centroid is easy enough to find if your shapes are convex - just a weighted average of intensities over the xy positions - and PCA will give you the major and minor axes, hence the orientation.
Once you have the centre and axes, you have the basis for a set of ellipses that cover your shape. Extending the axes - in proportion - and testing each pixel for in/out, you can find the ellipse that just covers your shape. Or if you prefer, you can project each pixel position onto the major and minor axes and find the rough limits in one pass and then test in/out on "corner" cases.
It may help if you post an example image.
As you seem to be using Matlab, you can simply use the regionprops command, given that you have the Image Processing Toolbox.
It can extract all the information you need (and many more properties of image regions) and it will do the PCA for you, if the PCA-based based approach suits your needs.
Doc is here, look for the 'Centroid', 'Orientation', 'MajorAxisLength' and 'MinorAxisLength' parameters specifically.
I have a surface to which a set of 3d objects is drawn. The task is to determine an object by the given coordinates on the surface.
For example: some objects are drawn on the desktop application, I need to determine on which object user clicked.
Could you please advise, how such task is usually resolved? Am I need to create remember a top-most object for each pixel? I don't think it is the best approach.
Any thoughts are welcome!
Thanks!
The name for this task is picking (which ought to help you Google for more help on it). There are two main approaches:
Ray-casting: find the line that starts at the camera position and passes through the surface point you are interested in. (The line "under the mouse", or "under your finger" for a touch screen.) Depending on which 3D system you are using, there may be an API call to generate this line: for example Camera.ViewportPointToRay in Unity3D, or you may have to generate it yourself by inverting the camera transform. Find all the points of intersection between this line and the objects in your scene. Which of these points is closest to the near plane of the camera? You can use space partitioning to speed this up.
Rendering: do an extra render pass, in which instead of writing textures to the frame buffer, you record which objects were drawn. You don't do the render pass for the whole screen, you just do it for the area (e.g. the pixel) you are interested in. (This is GL_SELECT mode in OpenGL: see the Picking Tutorial for details.)
If you've described the surface somehow in 3D space, then the ray, defined by your point of observation and a 3D point that is a solution for where you clicked, should intersect one or more objects in your world, if indeed you clicked on one of them.
Given the equations for the surfaces of the objects, you can determine where this ray intersects the objects, if at all, since you also know the equation for the ray in the same coordinate system.
The object that has the closest intersection point to your point of observation (assuming you're looking at the objects from above) is the winner.
Is there a way to draw a line along a curved path with a gradient that varies in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the line? I am using the GDI+ framework for my graphics.
The simple answer is no. You can create a GraphicsPath in order to describe what you would like to draw, using AddPoint/AddLine/AddBezier and so forth as needed to describe the complex path of what you want to draw. When you draw the path you can provide a Brush which can be something like LinearGradientBrush or RadialGradientBrush. Neither of those gradient brushes reacts to the actual path being drawn in the sense of changing direction as the drawing occurs. You have to specify the angles etc as constant for the entire gradient area.
One possible method you can use is to set the clip region of the Graphics object to be that of the line only. Then draw a Linear Gradient over the extremes of the line e.g.
GraphicsPath gp = new GraphicsPath();
gp.AddArc(); // etc...
graphics.SetClip( gp );
graphics.FillRectangle( myLinearGradientBrush, gp.GetBounds());
The above code might give you what you are looking for.