Calculate largest inscribed rectangle in a rotated rectangle - algorithm

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))

Related

2D Circular search pattern

I need an algorithm to give me coordinates to the nearest cells (in order of distance) to another cell in a 2D grid. Its for a search algorithm that then checks those coordinates for all sorts of things for suitability. Anyways, so far I came up with this:
function testy(cx, cy, idx) {
var radius = Math.floor(Math.sqrt(idx / Math.PI));
var segment = Math.round(idx - (radius * Math.PI));
var angle = segment / radius;
var x = Math.round(cx + radius * Math.cos(angle));
var y = Math.round(cy + radius * Math.sin(angle));
return [x, y];
}
addEventListener("load", function() {
var canv = document.createElement("canvas");
document.body.appendChild(canv);
canv.width = 800;
canv.height = 600;
var ctx = canv.getContext("2d");
var scale = 5;
var idx = 0;
var idx_end = 10000;
var func = function() {
var xy = testy(0,0,idx++);
var x = xy[0] * scale + canv.width / 2;
var y = xy[1] * scale + canv.height / 2;
ctx.rect(x, y, scale, scale);
ctx.fill();
if (idx < idx_end) setTimeout(func, 0);
}
func();
});
but as you can tell, its kinda crap because it skips some cells. There's a few assumptions I'm making there:
That the circumference of a circle of a certain radius corresponds to the number of cells on the path of that circle. I didn't think that would be too great of a problem though since the actual number of cells in a radius should be lower than the circumference leading to duplication(which in small amounts is ok) but not exclusion(not ok).
That the radius of a circle by the n-th index specified would be slightly more than Math.floor(Math.sqrt(idx / Math.PI)) because each increase of 1 to the radius corresponds to 2 * Math.PI being added to the circumference of the circle. Again, should lead to slight duplication but no exclusion.
Other than that I have no idea what could be wrong with it, I fail at math any more complex than this so probably something to do with that.
Perhaps there is another algorithm like this already out there though? One that doesn't skip cells? Language doesn't really matter, I'm using js to prototype it but it can be whatever.
Instead of thinking about the full circle, think about a quadrant. Adapting that to the full circle later should be fairly easy. Use (0,0) as the center of the circle for convenience. So you want to list grid cells with x,y ≥ 0 in order of non-decreasing x² + y².
One useful data structure is a priority queue. It can be used to keep track of the next y value for every x value, and you can extract the one with minimal x² + y² easily.
q = empty priority queue, for easy access to element with minimal x²+y²
Insert (0,0) into queue
while queue is not empty:
remove minimal element from queue and call it (x,y)
insert (x,y+1) into queue unless y+1 is off canvas
if y = 0:
insert (x+1,0) into queue unless x+1 is off canvas
do whatever you want to do with (x,y)
So for a canvas of size n this will enumerate all the n² points, but the priority queue will only contain n elements at most. The whole loop runs in O(n² log(n)). And if you abort the loop eraly because you found what you were looking for, it gets cheaper still, in contrast to simply sorting all the points. Another benefit is that you can use integer arithmetic exclusively, so numeric errors won't be an issue. One drawback is that JavaScript does not come with a priority queue out of the box, but I'm sure you can find an implementation you can reuse, e.g. tiniqueue.
When doing full circle, you'd generate (−x,y) unless x=0, and likewise for (x,−y) and (−x,−y). You could exploit symmetry a bit more by only having the loop over ⅛ of the circle, i.e. not inserting (x,y+1) if x=y, and then also generating (y,x) as a separate point unless x=y. Difference in performance should be marginal for many use cases.
"use strict";
function distCompare(a, b) {
const a2 = a.x*a.x + a.y*a.y;
const b2 = b.x*b.x + b.y*b.y;
return a2 < b2 ? -1 : a2 > b2 ? 1 : 0;
}
// Yields points in the range -w <= x <= w and -h <= y <= h
function* aroundOrigin(w,h) {
const q = TinyQueue([{x:0, y:0}], distCompare);
while (q.length) {
const p = q.pop();
yield p;
if (p.x) yield {x:-p.x, y:p.y};
if (p.y) yield {x:p.x, y:-p.y};
if (p.x && p.y) yield {x:-p.x, y:-p.y};
if (p.y < h) q.push({x:p.x, y:p.y+1});
if (p.y == 0 && p.x < w) q.push({x:p.x + 1, y:0});
}
}
// Yields points around (cx,cy) in range 0 <= x < w and 0 <= y < h
function* withOffset(cx, cy, w, h) {
const delegate = aroundOrigin(
Math.max(cx, w - cx - 1), Math.max(cy, h - cy - 1));
for(let p of delegate) {
p = {x: p.x + cx, y: p.y + cy};
if (p.x >= 0 && p.x < w && p.y >= 0 && p.y < h) yield p;
}
}
addEventListener("load", function() {
const canv = document.createElement("canvas");
document.body.appendChild(canv);
const cw = 800, ch = 600;
canv.width = cw;
canv.height = ch;
const ctx = canv.getContext("2d");
const scale = 5;
const w = Math.ceil(cw / scale);
const h = Math.ceil(ch / scale);
const cx = w >> 1, cy = h >> 1;
const pointgen = withOffset(cx, cy, w, h);
let cntr = 0;
var func = function() {
const {value, done} = pointgen.next();
if (done) return;
if (cntr++ % 16 === 0) {
// lighten older parts so that recent activity is more visible
ctx.fillStyle = "rgba(255,255,255,0.01)";
ctx.fillRect(0, 0, cw, ch);
ctx.fillStyle = "rgb(0,0,0)";
}
ctx.fillRect(value.x * scale, value.y*scale, scale, scale);
setTimeout(func, 0);
}
func();
});
<script type="text/javascript">module={};</script>
<script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/mourner/tinyqueue/54dc3eb1/index.js"></script>

Understanding Bresenham's error accumulation part of the 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.

Binary Image "Lines-of-Sight" Edge Detection

Consider this binary image:
A normal edge detection algorithm (Like Canny) takes the binary image as input and results into the contour shown in red. I need another algorithm that takes a point "P" as a second piece of input data. "P" is the black point in the previous image. This algorithm should result into the blue contour. The blue contours represents the point "P" lines-of-sight edge of the binary image.
I searched a lot of an image processing algorithm that achieve this, but didn't find any. I also tried to think about a new one, but I still have a lot of difficulties.
Since you've got a bitmap, you could use a bitmap algorithm.
Here's a working example (in JSFiddle or see below). (Firefox, Chrome, but not IE)
Pseudocode:
// part 1: occlusion
mark all pixels as 'outside'
for each pixel on the edge of the image
draw a line from the source pixel to the edge pixel and
for each pixel on the line starting from the source and ending with the edge
if the pixel is gray mark it as 'inside'
otherwise stop drawing this line
// part 2: edge finding
for each pixel in the image
if pixel is not marked 'inside' skip this pixel
if pixel has a neighbor that is outside mark this pixel 'edge'
// part 3: draw the edges
highlight all the edges
At first this sounds pretty terrible... But really, it's O(p) where p is the number of pixels in your image.
Full code here, works best full page:
var c = document.getElementById('c');
c.width = c.height = 500;
var x = c.getContext("2d");
//////////// Draw some "interesting" stuff ////////////
function DrawScene() {
x.beginPath();
x.rect(0, 0, c.width, c.height);
x.fillStyle = '#fff';
x.fill();
x.beginPath();
x.rect(c.width * 0.1, c.height * 0.1, c.width * 0.8, c.height * 0.8);
x.fillStyle = '#000';
x.fill();
x.beginPath();
x.rect(c.width * 0.25, c.height * 0.02 , c.width * 0.5, c.height * 0.05);
x.fillStyle = '#000';
x.fill();
x.beginPath();
x.rect(c.width * 0.3, c.height * 0.2, c.width * 0.03, c.height * 0.4);
x.fillStyle = '#fff';
x.fill();
x.beginPath();
var maxAng = 2.0;
function sc(t) { return t * 0.3 + 0.5; }
function sc2(t) { return t * 0.35 + 0.5; }
for (var i = 0; i < maxAng; i += 0.1)
x.lineTo(sc(Math.cos(i)) * c.width, sc(Math.sin(i)) * c.height);
for (var i = maxAng; i >= 0; i -= 0.1)
x.lineTo(sc2(Math.cos(i)) * c.width, sc2(Math.sin(i)) * c.height);
x.closePath();
x.fill();
x.beginPath();
x.moveTo(0.2 * c.width, 0.03 * c.height);
x.lineTo(c.width * 0.9, c.height * 0.8);
x.lineTo(c.width * 0.8, c.height * 0.8);
x.lineTo(c.width * 0.1, 0.03 * c.height);
x.closePath();
x.fillStyle = '#000';
x.fill();
}
//////////// Pick a point to start our operations: ////////////
var v_x = Math.round(c.width * 0.5);
var v_y = Math.round(c.height * 0.5);
function Update() {
if (navigator.appName == 'Microsoft Internet Explorer'
|| !!(navigator.userAgent.match(/Trident/)
|| navigator.userAgent.match(/rv 11/))
|| $.browser.msie == 1)
{
document.getElementById("d").innerHTML = "Does not work in IE.";
return;
}
DrawScene();
//////////// Make our image binary (white and gray) ////////////
var id = x.getImageData(0, 0, c.width, c.height);
for (var i = 0; i < id.width * id.height * 4; i += 4) {
id.data[i + 0] = id.data[i + 0] > 128 ? 255 : 64;
id.data[i + 1] = id.data[i + 1] > 128 ? 255 : 64;
id.data[i + 2] = id.data[i + 2] > 128 ? 255 : 64;
}
// Adapted from http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Bitmap/Bresenham's_line_algorithm#JavaScript
function line(x1, y1) {
var x0 = v_x;
var y0 = v_y;
var dx = Math.abs(x1 - x0), sx = x0 < x1 ? 1 : -1;
var dy = Math.abs(y1 - y0), sy = y0 < y1 ? 1 : -1;
var err = (dx>dy ? dx : -dy)/2;
while (true) {
var d = (y0 * c.height + x0) * 4;
if (id.data[d] === 255) break;
id.data[d] = 128;
id.data[d + 1] = 128;
id.data[d + 2] = 128;
if (x0 === x1 && y0 === y1) break;
var e2 = err;
if (e2 > -dx) { err -= dy; x0 += sx; }
if (e2 < dy) { err += dx; y0 += sy; }
}
}
for (var i = 0; i < c.width; i++) line(i, 0);
for (var i = 0; i < c.width; i++) line(i, c.height - 1);
for (var i = 0; i < c.height; i++) line(0, i);
for (var i = 0; i < c.height; i++) line(c.width - 1, i);
// Outline-finding algorithm
function gb(x, y) {
var v = id.data[(y * id.height + x) * 4];
return v !== 128 && v !== 0;
}
for (var y = 0; y < id.height; y++) {
var py = Math.max(y - 1, 0);
var ny = Math.min(y + 1, id.height - 1);
console.log(y);
for (var z = 0; z < id.width; z++) {
var d = (y * id.height + z) * 4;
if (id.data[d] !== 128) continue;
var pz = Math.max(z - 1, 0);
var nz = Math.min(z + 1, id.width - 1);
if (gb(pz, py) || gb(z, py) || gb(nz, py) ||
gb(pz, y) || gb(z, y) || gb(nz, y) ||
gb(pz, ny) || gb(z, ny) || gb(nz, ny)) {
id.data[d + 0] = 0;
id.data[d + 1] = 0;
id.data[d + 2] = 255;
}
}
}
x.putImageData(id, 0, 0);
// Draw the starting point
x.beginPath();
x.arc(v_x, v_y, c.width * 0.01, 0, 2 * Math.PI, false);
x.fillStyle = '#800';
x.fill();
}
Update();
c.addEventListener('click', function(evt) {
var x = evt.pageX - c.offsetLeft,
y = evt.pageY - c.offsetTop;
v_x = x;
v_y = y;
Update();
}, false);
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.2.3/jquery.min.js"></script>
<center><div id="d">Click on image to change point</div>
<canvas id="c"></canvas></center>
I would just estimate P's line of sight contour with ray collisions.
RESOLUTION = PI / 720;
For rad = 0 To PI * 2 Step RESOLUTION
ray = CreateRay(P, rad)
hits = Intersect(ray, contours)
If Len(hits) > 0
Add(hits[0], lineOfSightContour)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_surface_determination with e.g. a Z-Buffer is relatively easy. Edge detection looks a lot trickier and probably needs a bit of tuning. Why not take an existing edge detection algorithm from a library that somebody else has tuned, and then stick in some Z-buffering code to compute the blue contour from the red?
First approach
Main idea
Run an edge detection algorithm (Canny should do it just fine).
For each contour point C compute the triplet (slope, dir, dist), where:
slope is the slope of the line that passes through P and C
dir is a bit which is set if C is to the right of P (on the x axis) and reset if it is to the left; it used in order to distinguish in between points having the same slope, but on opposite sides of P
dist is the distance in between P and C.
Classify the set of contour points such that a class contains the points with the same key (slope, dir) and keep the one point from each such class having the minimum dist. Let S be the set of these closest points.
Sort S in clockwise order.
Iterate once more through the sorted set and, whenever two consecutive points are too far apart, draw a segment in between them, otherwise just draw the points.
Notes
You do not really need to compute the real distance in between P and C since you only use dist to determine the closest point to P at step 3. Instead you can keep C.x - P.x in dist. This piece of information should also tell you which of two points with the same slope is closest to P. Also, C.x - P.x swallows the dir parameter (in the sign bit). So you do not really need dir either.
The classification in step 3 can ideally be done by hashing (thus, in linear number of steps), but since doubles/floats are subject to rounding, you might need to allow small errors to occur by rounding the values of the slopes.
Second approach
Main idea
You can perform a sort of BFS starting from P, like when trying to determine the country/zone that P resides in. For each pixel, look at the pixels around it that were already visited by BFS (called neighbors). Depending on the distribution of the neighbor pixels that are in the line of sight, determine if the currently visited pixel is in the line of sight too or not. You can probably apply a sort of convolution operator on the neighbor pixels (like with any other filter). Also, you do not really need to decide right away if a pixel is for sure in the line of sight. You could instead compute some probability of that to be true.
Notes
Due to the fact that your graph is a 2D image, BFS should be pretty fast (since the number of edges is linear in the number of vertices).
This second approach eliminates the need to run an edge detection algorithm. Also, if the country/zone P resides in is considerably smaller than the image the overall performance should be better than running an edge detection algorithm solely.

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.

Circle-circle intersection points

How do I calculate the intersection points of two circles. I would expect there to be either two, one or no intersection points in all cases.
I have the x and y coordinates of the centre-point, and the radius for each circle.
An answer in python would be preferred, but any working algorithm would be acceptable.
Intersection of two circles
Written by Paul Bourke
The following note describes how to find the intersection point(s)
between two circles on a plane, the following notation is used. The
aim is to find the two points P3 = (x3,
y3) if they exist.
First calculate the distance d between the center
of the circles. d = ||P1 - P0||.
If d > r0 + r1 then there are no solutions,
the circles are separate. If d < |r0 -
r1| then there are no solutions because one circle is
contained within the other. If d = 0 and r0 =
r1 then the circles are coincident and there are an
infinite number of solutions.
Considering the two triangles P0P2P3
and P1P2P3 we can write
a2 + h2 = r02 and
b2 + h2 = r12
Using d = a + b we can solve for a, a =
(r02 - r12 +
d2 ) / (2 d)
It can be readily shown that this reduces to
r0 when the two circles touch at one point, ie: d =
r0 + r1
Solve for h by substituting a into the first
equation, h2 = r02 - a2
So P2 = P0 + a ( P1 -
P0 ) / d And finally, P3 =
(x3,y3) in terms of P0 =
(x0,y0), P1 =
(x1,y1) and P2 =
(x2,y2), is x3 =
x2 +- h ( y1 - y0 ) / d
y3 = y2 -+ h ( x1 - x0 ) /
d
Source: http://paulbourke.net/geometry/circlesphere/
Here is my C++ implementation based on Paul Bourke's article. It only works if there are two intersections, otherwise it probably returns NaN NAN NAN NAN.
class Point{
public:
float x, y;
Point(float px, float py) {
x = px;
y = py;
}
Point sub(Point p2) {
return Point(x - p2.x, y - p2.y);
}
Point add(Point p2) {
return Point(x + p2.x, y + p2.y);
}
float distance(Point p2) {
return sqrt((x - p2.x)*(x - p2.x) + (y - p2.y)*(y - p2.y));
}
Point normal() {
float length = sqrt(x*x + y*y);
return Point(x/length, y/length);
}
Point scale(float s) {
return Point(x*s, y*s);
}
};
class Circle {
public:
float x, y, r, left;
Circle(float cx, float cy, float cr) {
x = cx;
y = cy;
r = cr;
left = x - r;
}
pair<Point, Point> intersections(Circle c) {
Point P0(x, y);
Point P1(c.x, c.y);
float d, a, h;
d = P0.distance(P1);
a = (r*r - c.r*c.r + d*d)/(2*d);
h = sqrt(r*r - a*a);
Point P2 = P1.sub(P0).scale(a/d).add(P0);
float x3, y3, x4, y4;
x3 = P2.x + h*(P1.y - P0.y)/d;
y3 = P2.y - h*(P1.x - P0.x)/d;
x4 = P2.x - h*(P1.y - P0.y)/d;
y4 = P2.y + h*(P1.x - P0.x)/d;
return pair<Point, Point>(Point(x3, y3), Point(x4, y4));
}
};
Why not just use 7 lines of your favorite procedural language (or programmable calculator!) as below.
Assuming you are given P0 coords (x0,y0), P1 coords (x1,y1), r0 and r1 and you want to find P3 coords (x3,y3):
d=sqr((x1-x0)^2 + (y1-y0)^2)
a=(r0^2-r1^2+d^2)/(2*d)
h=sqr(r0^2-a^2)
x2=x0+a*(x1-x0)/d
y2=y0+a*(y1-y0)/d
x3=x2+h*(y1-y0)/d // also x3=x2-h*(y1-y0)/d
y3=y2-h*(x1-x0)/d // also y3=y2+h*(x1-x0)/d
Here's an implementation in Javascript using vectors. The code is well documented, you should be able to follow it. Here's the original source
See live demo here:
// Let EPS (epsilon) be a small value
var EPS = 0.0000001;
// Let a point be a pair: (x, y)
function Point(x, y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
// Define a circle centered at (x,y) with radius r
function Circle(x,y,r) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.r = r;
}
// Due to double rounding precision the value passed into the Math.acos
// function may be outside its domain of [-1, +1] which would return
// the value NaN which we do not want.
function acossafe(x) {
if (x >= +1.0) return 0;
if (x <= -1.0) return Math.PI;
return Math.acos(x);
}
// Rotates a point about a fixed point at some angle 'a'
function rotatePoint(fp, pt, a) {
var x = pt.x - fp.x;
var y = pt.y - fp.y;
var xRot = x * Math.cos(a) + y * Math.sin(a);
var yRot = y * Math.cos(a) - x * Math.sin(a);
return new Point(fp.x+xRot,fp.y+yRot);
}
// Given two circles this method finds the intersection
// point(s) of the two circles (if any exists)
function circleCircleIntersectionPoints(c1, c2) {
var r, R, d, dx, dy, cx, cy, Cx, Cy;
if (c1.r < c2.r) {
r = c1.r; R = c2.r;
cx = c1.x; cy = c1.y;
Cx = c2.x; Cy = c2.y;
} else {
r = c2.r; R = c1.r;
Cx = c1.x; Cy = c1.y;
cx = c2.x; cy = c2.y;
}
// Compute the vector <dx, dy>
dx = cx - Cx;
dy = cy - Cy;
// Find the distance between two points.
d = Math.sqrt( dx*dx + dy*dy );
// There are an infinite number of solutions
// Seems appropriate to also return null
if (d < EPS && Math.abs(R-r) < EPS) return [];
// No intersection (circles centered at the
// same place with different size)
else if (d < EPS) return [];
var x = (dx / d) * R + Cx;
var y = (dy / d) * R + Cy;
var P = new Point(x, y);
// Single intersection (kissing circles)
if (Math.abs((R+r)-d) < EPS || Math.abs(R-(r+d)) < EPS) return [P];
// No intersection. Either the small circle contained within
// big circle or circles are simply disjoint.
if ( (d+r) < R || (R+r < d) ) return [];
var C = new Point(Cx, Cy);
var angle = acossafe((r*r-d*d-R*R)/(-2.0*d*R));
var pt1 = rotatePoint(C, P, +angle);
var pt2 = rotatePoint(C, P, -angle);
return [pt1, pt2];
}
Try this;
def ri(cr1,cr2,cp1,cp2):
int1=[]
int2=[]
ori=0
if cp1[0]<cp2[0] and cp1[1]!=cp2[1]:
p1=cp1
p2=cp2
r1=cr1
r2=cr2
if cp1[1]<cp2[1]:
ori+=1
elif cp1[1]>cp2[1]:
ori+=2
elif cp1[0]>cp2[0] and cp1[1]!=cp2[1]:
p1=cp2
p2=cp1
r1=cr2
r2=cr1
if p1[1]<p2[1]:
ori+=1
elif p1[1]>p2[1]:
ori+=2
elif cp1[0]==cp2[0]:
ori+=4
if cp1[1]>cp2[1]:
p1=cp1
p2=cp2
r1=cr1
r2=cr2
elif cp1[1]<cp2[1]:
p1=cp2
p2=cp1
r1=cr2
r2=cr1
elif cp1[1]==cp2[1]:
ori+=3
if cp1[0]>cp2[0]:
p1=cp2
p2=cp1
r1=cr2
r2=cr1
elif cp1[0]<cp2[0]:
p1=cp1
p2=cp2
r1=cr1
r2=cr2
if ori==1:#+
D=calc_dist(p1,p2)
tr=r1+r2
el=tr-D
a=r1-el
b=r2-el
A=a+(el/2)
B=b+(el/2)
thta=math.degrees(math.acos(A/r1))
rs=p2[1]-p1[1]
rn=p2[0]-p1[0]
gd=rs/rn
yint=p1[1]-((gd)*p1[0])
dty=calc_dist(p1,[0,yint])
aa=p1[1]-yint
bb=math.degrees(math.asin(aa/dty))
d=90-bb
e=180-d-thta
g=(dty/math.sin(math.radians(e)))*math.sin(math.radians(thta))
f=(g/math.sin(math.radians(thta)))*math.sin(math.radians(d))
oty=yint+g
h=f+r1
i=90-e
j=180-90-i
l=math.sin(math.radians(i))*h
k=math.cos(math.radians(i))*h
iy2=oty-l
ix2=k
int2.append(ix2)
int2.append(iy2)
m=90+bb
n=180-m-thta
p=(dty/math.sin(math.radians(n)))*math.sin(math.radians(m))
o=(p/math.sin(math.radians(m)))*math.sin(math.radians(thta))
q=p+r1
r=90-n
s=math.sin(math.radians(r))*q
t=math.cos(math.radians(r))*q
otty=yint-o
iy1=otty+s
ix1=t
int1.append(ix1)
int1.append(iy1)
elif ori==2:#-
D=calc_dist(p1,p2)
tr=r1+r2
el=tr-D
a=r1-el
b=r2-el
A=a+(el/2)
B=b+(el/2)
thta=math.degrees(math.acos(A/r1))
rs=p2[1]-p1[1]
rn=p2[0]-p1[0]
gd=rs/rn
yint=p1[1]-((gd)*p1[0])
dty=calc_dist(p1,[0,yint])
aa=yint-p1[1]
bb=math.degrees(math.asin(aa/dty))
c=180-90-bb
d=180-c-thta
e=180-90-d
f=math.tan(math.radians(e))*p1[0]
g=math.sqrt(p1[0]**2+f**2)
h=g+r1
i=180-90-e
j=math.sin(math.radians(e))*h
jj=math.cos(math.radians(i))*h
k=math.cos(math.radians(e))*h
kk=math.sin(math.radians(i))*h
l=90-bb
m=90-e
tt=l+m+thta
n=(dty/math.sin(math.radians(m)))*math.sin(math.radians(thta))
nn=(g/math.sin(math.radians(l)))*math.sin(math.radians(thta))
oty=yint-n
iy1=oty+j
ix1=k
int1.append(ix1)
int1.append(iy1)
o=bb+90
p=180-o-thta
q=90-p
r=180-90-q
s=(dty/math.sin(math.radians(p)))*math.sin(math.radians(o))
t=(s/math.sin(math.radians(o)))*math.sin(math.radians(thta))
u=s+r1
v=math.sin(math.radians(r))*u
vv=math.cos(math.radians(q))*u
w=math.cos(math.radians(r))*u
ww=math.sin(math.radians(q))*u
ix2=v
otty=yint+t
iy2=otty-w
int2.append(ix2)
int2.append(iy2)
elif ori==3:#y
D=calc_dist(p1,p2)
tr=r1+r2
el=tr-D
a=r1-el
b=r2-el
A=a+(el/2)
B=b+(el/2)
b=math.sqrt(r1**2-A**2)
int1.append(p1[0]+A)
int1.append(p1[1]+b)
int2.append(p1[0]+A)
int2.append(p1[1]-b)
elif ori==4:#x
D=calc_dist(p1,p2)
tr=r1+r2
el=tr-D
a=r1-el
b=r2-el
A=a+(el/2)
B=b+(el/2)
b=math.sqrt(r1**2-A**2)
int1.append(p1[0]+b)
int1.append(p1[1]-A)
int2.append(p1[0]-b)
int2.append(p1[1]-A)
return [int1,int2]
def calc_dist(p1,p2):
return math.sqrt((p2[0] - p1[0]) ** 2 +
(p2[1] - p1[1]) ** 2)

Resources