I have a 3-D surface polygonal mesh in which I've manually defined a closed contour, similar to this one
(the closed contour being the green curve).
I want to label only the points inside this contour but, as you can see in yellow, the surface contains holes and "bumps" which makes difficult this labeling. What I've decided is that I want to label only those points located in the "outer" surface, ie without going inside the holes or below the bumps (which in the end are just another type of holes).
At this point I've just come up with questions instead of ideas:
How to determine if a point is inside or outside the closed contour?
once solved the problem of points inside/outside:
How to take only those points inside of the closed contour but located at the outer surface?
Thanks for any suggestion!
It can be done by starting from point that is in region (inside contour) and iteratively expand region to points connected to already found points and stop if connection crosses contour or have some geometry property. Geometry tests can be:
next point has position too high or too low,
angle of connection from region point to new one is larger than some threshold.
I finally found a solution:
To determine if the point is inside/outside contour:
I projected each point in the mesh, as well as the contour, onto the z=0 plane, thus reducing the dimensionality of the problem (from 3-D to 2-D)
I constructed a polygon (2-D) corresponding to my contour. Then I applied the "Point in polygon" test using ray casting see Wikipedia
To take only points on the "outer" surface: I took average contour normal and then compare it with the normal of each point already labeled as inside the contour (previous step). If angle(normal_vertex, normal_contour) > threshold (in my case 60º) then I labeled the vertex as outside the contour.
At this point the algorithm is working as expected.
Thanks,
Miguel
Related
I have a set of 3d points that lie in a plane. Somewhere on the plane, there will be a hole (which is represented by the lack of points), as in this picture:
I am trying to find the contour of this hole. Other solutions out there involve finding convex/concave hulls but those apply to the outer boundaries, rather than an inner one.
Is there an algorithm that does this?
If you know the plane (which you could determine by PCA), you can project all points into this plane and continue with the 2D coordinates. Thus, your problem reduces to finding boundary points in a 2D data set.
Your data looks as if it might be uniformly sampled (independently per axis). Then, a very simple check might be sufficient: Calculate the centroid of the - let's say 30 - nearest neighbors of a point. If the centroid is very far away from the original point, you are very likely on a boundary.
A second approach might be recording the directions in which you have neighbors. I.e. keep something like a bit field for the discretized directions (e.g. angles in 10° steps, which will give you 36 entries). Then, for every neighbor, calculate its direction and mark that direction, including a few of the adjacent directions, as occupied. E.g. if your neighbor is in the direction of 27.4°, you could mark the direction bits 1, 2, and 3 as occupied. This additional surrounding space will influence how fine-grained the result will be. You might also want to make it depend on the distance of the neighbor (i.e. treat the neighbors as circles and find the angular range that is spanned by the circle). Finally, check if all directions are occupied. If not, you are on a boundary.
Alpha shapes can give you both the inner and outer boundaries.
convert to 2D by projecting the points onto your plane
see related QA dealing with this:
C++ plane interpolation from a set of points
find holes in 2D point set
simply apply this related QA:
Finding holes in 2d point sets?
project found holes back to 3D
again see the link in #1
Sorry for almost link only answer but booth links are here on SO/SE and deals exactly with your issue when combined. I was struggling first to flag your question as duplicate and leave this in a comment but this is more readable.
I have a list of coordinates (latitude, longitude) that define a polygon. Its edges are created by connecting two points with the arc that is the shortest path between those points.
My problem is to determine whether another point (let's call it U) lays in or out of the polygon. I've been searching web for hours looking for an algorithm that will be complete and won't have any flaws. Here's what I want my algorithm to support and what to accept (in terms of possible weaknesses):
The Earth may be treated as a perfect sphere (from what I've read it results in 0.3% precision loss that I'm fine with).
It must correctly handle polygons that cross International Date Line.
It must correctly handle polygons that span over the North Pole and South Pole.
I've decided to implement the following approach (as a modification of ray casting algorithm that works for 2D scenario).
I want to pick the point S (latitude, longitude) that is outside of the polygon.
For each pair of vertices that define a single edge, I want to calculate the great circle (let's call it G).
I want to calculate the great circle for pair of points S and U.
For each great circle defined in point 2, I want to calculate whether this great circle intersects with G. If so, I'll check if the intersection point lays on the edge of the polygon.
I will count how many intersections there are, and based on that (even/odd) I'll decide if point U is inside/outside of the polygon.
I know how to implement the calculations from points 2 to 5, but I don't have a clue how to pick a starting point S. It's not that obvious as on 2D plane, since I can't just pick a point that is to the left of the leftmost point.
Any ideas on how can I pick this point (S) and if my approach makes sense and is optimal?
Thanks for any input!
If your polygons are local, you can just take the plane tangent to the earth sphere at the point B, and then calculate the projection of the polygon vertices on that plane, so that the problem becomes reduced to a 2D one.
This method introduces a small error as you are approximating the spherical arcs with straight lines in the projection. If your polygons are small it would probably be insignificant, otherwise, you can add intermediate points along the arcs when doing the projection.
You should also take into account the polygons on the antipodes of B, but those could be discarded taking into account the polygons orientation, or checking the distance between B and some polygon vertex.
Finally, if you have to query too many points for that, you may like to pick some fixed projection planes (for instance, those forming an octahedron wrapping the sphere) and precalculate the projection of the polygons on then. You could even create some 2d indexing structure as a quadtree for every one in order to speed up the lookup.
The biggest issue is to define what we mean by 'inside the polygon'.
On a sphere, every polygon (as long as the lines are not intersecting) defines two regions of the sphere. Both regions are equally qualified to be called the inside of the polygon.
Consider a simple, 1-meter on a side, yellow square around the south pole.
You can think of the yellow area to be the inside of the square OR you can think of the square enclosing everything north of each line (the rest of the earth).
So, technically, any point on the sphere 'validly' inside the polygon.
The only way to disambiguate is to select which side of the polygon you want. For example, define the interior to always be the area to the right of each edge.
I am given a lot of points and the points are suppose to be from a rectangle. I'm required to calculate the boundary of the rectangle.(which is relatively easy) But I also have to figure out radius of a candle(cylinder) that could be anywhere in the rectangle. All of this from just the given points. I would appreciate if someone could suggest ways to achieve this.
The points in my case are measurements of a robot wandering through this rectangle, and the empty circle is a pole of a certain unknown radius inside the rectangle that the robot can hit. So I need to figure out the radius of the pole in order to avoid that. I need to estimate the pole. It doesn't have to be exact. I'm expecting robot measurements to be enough that they'd give me pretty good idea where pole is.
If you can afford it, just rasterize the area, mark the affected pixels, then start "growing" areas around them until they meet (this will give you raster versions of their Voronoi regions). The pixel (inside the rectangle) with the largest distance to any point will likely be the empty circle's center.
Alternatively, you can do a Delauney triangulation, find the largest triangle inside the rectangle, and add its neighbours while they form a convex shape. That shape will be an approximation of the circle.
On a discrete grid-based plane (think: pixels of an image), I have a closed contour that can be expressed either by:
a set of 2D points (x1,y1);(x2,y2);(x3,y3);...
or a 4-connected Freeman code, with a starting point: (x1,y1) + 00001112...
I know how to switch from one to the other of these representations. This will be the input data.
I want to get the set of grid coordinates that are bounded by the contour.
Consider this example, where the red coordinates are the contour, and the gray one the starting point:
If the gray coordinate is, say, at (0,0), then I want a vector holding:
(1,1),(2,1),(3,1),(3,2)
Order is not important, and the output vector can also hold the contour itself.
Language of choice is C++, but I'm open to any existing code, algorithm, library, pointer, whatever...
I though that maybe CGAL would have something like this, but I am unfamiliar with it and couldn't find my way through the manual, so I'm not even sure.
I also looked toward Opencv but I think it does not provide this algorithm (but I can be wrong?).
I was thinking about finding the bounding rectangle, then checking each of the points in the rectangle to see if they are inside/outside, but this seems suboptimal. Any idea ?
One way to solve this is drawContours, and you have contours points with you.
Create blank Mat and draw contour with thickness = 1(boundary).
Create another blank Mat and draw contour with thickness = CV_FILLED(whole area including boundary).
Now bitwise_and between above two(you got filled area excluding boundary).
Finally check for non-zero pixel.
Suppose I have an image of a scene as depicted above. A sort of a pole with a blob on it next to possibly similar objects with no blobs.
How can I find the blob marked by the red circle (a binary image indicating which pixels belong to the blob).
Note that the pole together with the blob may be rotated arbitrarily and also size may vary.
Can you try to do it in below 4 steps?
Circle detection like: writing robust (color and size invariant) circle detection with opencv (based on Hough transform or other features)
Line detection, like: Finding location of rectangles in an image with OpenCV
Identify rectangle position by combining neighboring lines (For each line segment you have the start and end point position, you also know the direction of each line segment. So that you can figure out if two connecting line segments (whose endpoints are close) are orthogonal. Your goal is to find 3 such segments for each rectangle.)
Check the relative position of each circle and rectangle to see if any pair can form the knob shape.
One approach could be using Viola-Jones object detection framework.
Though the framework is mostly used for face detection - it is actually designed for generic objects you feed to the algorithm.
The algorithm basic idea is to feed samples of "good object" (what you are looking for) and "bad objects" to a machine learning algorithm - which generates patterns from the images as its features.
During Classification - using a sliding window the algorithm will search for a "match" to the object (the classifier returned a positive answer).
The algorithm uses supervised learning and thus requires a labeled set of examples (both positive and negative ones)
I'm sure there is some boundary-map algorithm in image processing to do this.
Otherwise, here is a quick fix: pick a pixel at the center of the
"undiscovered zone", which initially is the whole image.
trace the horizantal and vertical lines at 4 directions each ending at the
borders of the zone and find the value changes from 0 to 1 or the vice verse.
Trace each such value switch and complete the boundary of each figure (Step-A).
Do the same for the zones
that still are undiscovered: start at some center
point and skim thru the lines connecting the center to the image border or to a
pixel at the boundary of a known zone.
In Step-A, you can also check to see whether the boundary you traced is
a line or a curve. Whenever it is a curve, you need only two points on it--
points at some distance from one another for the accuracy of the calculation.
The lines perpendicular each to these two points of tangency
intersect at the center of the circle red in your figure.
You can segment the image. Then use only the pixels in the segments to contribute to a Hough-transform to find the circles.
Then you will only have segments with circle in them. You can use a modified hough transform to find rectangles. The 'best' rectangle and square combination will then be your match. This is very computationally intentsive.
Another approach, if you already have these binary pictures, is to transform to a (for example 256 bin) sample by taking the distance to the centroid compared to the distance travelled along the edge. If you start at the point furthest away from the centroid you have a fairly rotational robust featurevector.