A brief background: I'm working on a web-based drawing application and need to draw 1px thick splines that pass through their control points.
The issue I'm struggling with is that I need to draw each of the pixels between p1 and p2 as if I were using a 1px pencil tool. So, no anti-aliasing and one pixel at a time. This needs to be done manually without the use of any line/curve library code as my brush system depends upon having a pixel coordinate to apply the brush tip to the canvas.
Essentially, I need to combine the one pixel stepping from something like the Bresenham algorithm with the coordinates returned by the Catmull-Rom equation. I'm having trouble because the Catmull-Rom points are not uniformly distributed (so I can't just say there should be 100 pixels in the curve and run the equation 100 times). I tried using an estimated starting value of the maximum of the X and Y deltas and filling in the gaps with Bresenham, but due to rounding I still end up with some "dirty" sections (ie. the line is clearly moving up and to the right but I still get two pixels with the same Y component, resulting in a "fat" section of the line).
I'm positive this has been solved because nearly every graphics program that draws splines has to support the clean pixel curves that I'm after. After quite a bit of math research, though, I'm a bit confused and still without a solution. Any advice?
EDIT: Here's an example of a curve that I might have to render:
Which might have an expected result looking like this (note that this is an estimate):
Using the Catmull-Rom spline equation, we need four points to create a segment. P0 and P3 are used as tangents for incoming and outgoing direction from the P1->P2 segment. With a Catmull-Rom spline, the blue section is all that gets interpolated as t moves from 0 to 1. P0 and P3 can be duplicated to ensure that the green portion gets rendered, so that is not an issue for me.
For simplicity's sake, I need to render the pixels on the curve between P1 and P2, given that I have tangents in the form of P0 and P3. I don't necessarily need to use Catmull-Rom splines, but they seem to be the right tool for this job being that control points must be passed through. The non-uniform distribution of interpolation points is what's throwing me for a loop.
EDIT2: Here's an example of what I mean when I say my resulting curve is dirty:
The red arrows point out a few locations where there should not be a pixel. This is occurring because the X and Y components of the coordinate that get calculated do not change at the same rate. So, when each of the components gets rounded (so I have an exact pixel location) it can be the case that either X or Y doesn't get bumped up because the calculated coordinate is, say, (42.4999, 50.98). Swapping the round for a floor or ceil doesn't solve the problem, as it just changes where it occurs.
Here you have a paper describing method for the re-parametrization of splines in order to get equally spaced points along the curve length. I think this can solve your problem if you can adapt it to Catmull-Rom curves (shouldn't be too difficult, I guess)
Related
I have many images like the following (only white and black):
My final problem is to find well matching ellipses. Unfortunately the real used images are not always that nice like this. They could be deformed a bit, which makes ellipse matching probably harder.
My idea is to find "break points". I markes them in the following picture:
Maybe these points could help to make a matching for the ellipses. The end result should be something like this:
Has someone an idea what algorithm may be used to find these break points? Or even better to make good ellipse matching?
Thank you very much
Sample the circumference points
Just scan your image and select All Black pixels with any White neighbor. You can do this by recoloring the remaining black pixels to any unused color (Blue).
After whole image is done you can recolor the inside back from unused color (Blue) to white.
form a list of ordered circumference points per cluster/ellipse
Just scan your image and find first black pixel. Then use A* to order the circumference points and store the path in some array or list pnt[] and handle it as circular array.
Find the "break points"
They can be detect by peak in the angle between neighbors of found points. something like
float a0=atan2(pnt[i].y-pnt[i-1].y,pnt[i].x-pnt[i-1].x);
float a1=atan2(pnt[i+1].y-pnt[i].y,pnt[i+1].x-pnt[i].x);
float da=fabs(a0-a1); if (da>M_PI) da=2.0*M_PI-da;
if (da>treshold) pnt[i] is break point;
or use the fact that on break point the slope angle delta change sign:
float a1=atan2(pnt[i-1].y-pnt[i-2].y,pnt[i-1].x-pnt[i-2].x);
float a1=atan2(pnt[i ].y-pnt[i-1].y,pnt[i ].x-pnt[i-1].x);
float a2=atan2(pnt[i+1].y-pnt[i ].y,pnt[i+1].x-pnt[i ].x);
float da0=a1-a0; if (da0>M_PI) da0=2.0*M_PI-da0; if (da0<-M_PI) da0=2.0*M_PI+da0;
float da1=a2-a1; if (da1>M_PI) da1=2.0*M_PI-da1; if (da1<-M_PI) da1=2.0*M_PI+da1;
if (da0*da1<0.0) pnt[i] is break point;
fit ellipses
so if no break points found you can fit the entire pnt[] as single ellipse. For example Find bounding box. It's center is center of ellipse and its size gives you semi-axises.
If break points found then first find the bounding box of whole pnt[] to obtain limits for semi-axises and center position area search. Then divide the pnt[] to parts between break points. Handle each part as separate part of ellipse and fit.
After all the pnt[] parts are fitted check if some ellipses are not the same for example if they are overlapped by another ellipse the they would be divided... So merge the identical ones (or average to enhance precision). Then recolor all pnt[i] points to white, clear the pnt[] list and loop #2 until no more black pixel is found.
how to fit ellipse from selection of points?
algebraically
use ellipse equation with "evenly" dispersed known points to form system of equations to compute ellipse parameters (x0,y0,rx,ry,angle).
geometrically
for example if you detect slope 0,90,180 or 270 degrees then you are at semi-axis intersection with circumference. So if you got two such points (one for each semi-axis) that is all you need for fitting (if it is axis-aligned ellipse).
for non-axis-aligned ellipses you need to have big enough portion of the circumference available. You can exploit the fact that center of bounding box is also the center of ellipse. So if you got the whole ellipse you know also the center. The semi-axises intersections with circumference can be detected with biggest and smallest tangent change. If you got center and two points its all you need. In case you got only partial center (only x, or y coordinate) you can combine with more axis points (find 3 or 4)... or approximate the missing info.
Also the half H,V lines axis is intersecting ellipse center so it can be used to detect it if not whole ellipse in the pnt[] list.
approximation search
You can loop through "all" possible combination of ellipse parameters within limits found in #4 and select the one that is closest to your points. That would be insanely slow of coarse so use binary search like approach something like mine approx class. Also see
Curve fitting with y points on repeated x positions (Galaxy Spiral arms)
on how it is used for similar fit to yours.
hybrid
You can combine geometrical and approximation approach. First compute what you can by geometrical approach. And then compute the rest with approximation search. you can also increase precision of the found values.
In rare case when two ellipses are merged without break point the fitted ellipse will not match your points. So if such case detected you have to subdivide the used points into groups until their fits matches ...
This is what I have in mind with this:
You probably need something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_Hough_Transform
Your edge points are simply black pixels with at least one white 4-neighbor.
Unfortunately, though, you say that your ellipses may be “tilted”. Generic ellipses are described by quadratic equations like
x² + Ay² + Bxy + Cx + Dy + E = 0
with B² < 4A (⇒ A > 0). This means that, compared to the circle problem, you don't have 3 dimensions but 5. This causes the Hough transform to be considerably harder. Luckily, your example suggests that you don't need a high resolution.
See also: algorithm for detecting a circle in an image
EDIT
The above idea for an algorithm was too optimistic, at least if applied in a straightforward way. The good news is that it seems that two smart guys (Yonghong Xie and Qiang Ji) have already done the homework for us:
https://www.ecse.rpi.edu/~cvrl/Publication/pdf/Xie2002.pdf
I'm not sure I would create my own algorithm. Why not leverage the work other teams have done to figure out all that curve fitting of bitmaps?
INKSCAPE (App Link)
Inkscape is an open source tool which specializes in vector graphics editing with some ability to work with raster (bitmap) parts too.
Here is a link to a starting point for Inkscape's API:
http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Script_extensions
It looks like you can script within Inkscape, or access Inkscape via external scripts.
You also may be able to do something with zero scripting, from the inkscape command line interface:
http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Frequently_asked_questions#Can_Inkscape_be_used_from_the_command_line.3F
COREL DRAW (App Link)
Corel Draw is recognized as the premier industry solution for vector graphics, and has some great tools for converting rasterized images into vector images.
Here's a link to their API:
https://community.coreldraw.com/sdk/api
Here's a link to Corel Draw batch image processing (non-script solution):
http://howto.corel.com/en/c/Automating_tasks_and_batch-processing_images_in_Corel_PHOTO-PAINT
I understand there are many methods to do this. I am specifically interested in the catmull romfor animation purposes. I am having trouble understanding it however. All the sites I have visited have identified key poses as points. However key poses can also contain joint angles. Are these treated the same as points when interpolating? And are there any good sites for learning catmull rom?
The Catmull-Rom spline calculation is a mathematical tool used to make a smooth curve from a set of points. It is routinely used to plan the path of the camera so that the camera will smoothly transition, and won't sharply change view angles, while still allowing for the anchor points to be fairly sparse. It could definitely also be used to map the transitions of animation skeletons, or the poses, including joints and other values. The spline can be applied to any scalar value. So you could apply the spline to the positions of the joint locations in an animation sequence. You would calculate the X, Y and Z values separately. But you could also apply it to joint angles, or other scalar values that change over time. The spline will just interpolate a value along a smooth curve.
The best Catmull-Rom implementation I have found is Centripetal Implementation, where I give a detailed solution with full implementation here.
Catmull-rom curve with no cusps and no self-intersections
The principle article that helped me the most is here: http://www.cemyuksel.com/research/catmullrom_param/catmullrom.pdf
The main thing you need to understand is that this is a spline tool that takes a set of points and uses them as "anchor" points for curves that try to create a smooth path that goes through the points. The path will always go through all of your points. You have to add on two control points to either end. If you are creating a closed curve where the first and last point are the same, the points you add to the beginning is the next to last point, and the point you add to the end is the second point. If the line is open, you can repeat the first and end points, or in fact, I recommend extending the first and last segments in the same direction so that your line starts out with momentum moving in the direction of your lines. Here are some of the artifacts from the various parameterizations. Remember that the results from the "Uniform" version are the same as the unparameterized version.
I have a map that is cut up into a number of regions by borders (contours) like countries on a world map. Each region has a certain surface-cover class S (e.g. 0 for water, 0.03 for grass...). The borders are defined by:
what value of S is on either side of it (0.03 on one side, 0.0 on the other, in the example below)
how many points the border is made of (n=7 in example below), and
n coordinate pairs (x, y).
This is one example.
0.0300 0.0000 7
2660607.5 6332685.5 2660565.0 6332690.5 2660541.5 6332794.5
2660621.7 6332860.5 2660673.8 6332770.5 2660669.0 6332709.5
2660607.5 6332685.5
I want to make a raster map in which each pixel has the value of S corresponding to the region in which the center of the pixel falls.
Note that the borders represent step changes in S. The various values of S represent discrete classes (e.g. grass or water), and are not values that can be averaged (i.e. no wet grass!).
Also note that not all borders are closed loops like the example above. This is a bit like country borders: e.g. the US-Canada border isn't a closed loop, but rather a line joining up at each end with two other borders: the Canada-ocean and the US-ocean "borders". (Closed-loop borders do exist nevertheless!)
Can anyone point me to an algorithm that can do this? I don't want to reinvent the wheel!
The general case for processing this sort of geometry in vector form can be quite difficult, especially since nothing about the structure you describe requires the geometry to be consistent. However, since you just want to rasterize it, then treating the problem as a Voronoi diagram of line segments can be more robust.
Approximating the Voronoi diagram can be done graphically in OpenGL by drawing each line segment as a pair of quads making a tent shape. The z-buffer is used to make the closest quad take precedence, and thus color the pixel based on whichever line is closest. The difference here is that you will want to color the polygons based on which side of the line they are on, instead of which line they represent. A good paper discussing a similar algorithm is Hoff et al's Fast Computation of Generalized Voronoi Diagrams Using Graphics Hardware
The 3d geometry will look something like this sketch with 3 red/yellow segments and 1 blue/green segment:
This procedure doesn't require you to convert anything into a closed loop, and doesn't require any fancy geometry libraries. Everything is handled by the z-buffer, and should be fast enough to run in real time on any modern graphics card. A refinement would be to use homogeneous coordinates to make the bases project to infinity.
I implemented this algorithm in a Python script at http://www.pasteall.org/9062/python. One interesting caveat is that using cones to cap the ends of the lines didn't work without distorting the shape of the cone, because the cones representing the end points of the segments were z-fighting. For the sample geometry you provided, the output looks like this:
I'd recommend you to use a geometry algorithm library like CGAL. Especially the second example in the "2D Polygons" page of the reference manual should provide you what you need. You can define each "border" as a polygon and check if certain points are inside the polygons. So basically it would be something like
for every y in raster grid
for every x in raster grid
for each defined polygon p
if point(x,y) is inside polygon p
pixel[X][Y] = inside_color[p]
I'm not so sure about what to do with the outside_color because the outside regions will overlap, won't they? Anyway, looking at your example, every outside region could be water, so you just could do a final
if pixel[X][Y] still undefined then pixel[X][Y] = water_value
(or as an alternative, set pixel[X][Y] to water_value before iterating through the polygon list)
first, convert all your borders into closed loops (possibly including the edges of your map), and indentify the inside colour. this has to be possible, otherwise you have an inconsistency in your data
use bresenham's algorithm to draw all the border lines on your map, in a single unused colour
store a list of all the "border pixels" as you do this
then for each border
triangulate it (delaunay)
iterate through the triangles till you find one whose centre is inside your border (point-in-polygon test)
floodfill your map at that point in the border's interior colour
once you have filled in all the interior regions, iterate through the list of border pixels, seeing which colour each one should be
choose two unused colors as markers "empty" and "border"
fill all area with "empty" color
draw all region borders by "border" color
iterate through points to find first one with "empty" color
determine which region it belongs to (google "point inside polygon", probably you will need to make your borders closed as Martin DeMello suggested)
perform flood-fill algorithm from this point with color of the region
go to next "empty" point (no need to restart search - just continue)
and so on till no "empty" points will remain
The way I've solved this is as follows:
March along each segment; stop at regular intervals L.
At each stop, place a tracer point immediately to the left and to the right of the segment (at a certain small distance d from the segment). The tracer points are attributed the left and right S-value, respectively.
Do a nearest-neighbour interpolation. Each point on the raster grid is attributed the S of the nearest tracer point.
This works even when there are non-closed lines, e.g. at the edge of the map.
This is not a "perfect" analytical algorithm. There are two parameters: L and d. The algorithm works beautifully as long as d << L. Otherwise you can get inaccuracies (usually single-pixel) near segment junctions, especially those with acute angles.
As a followup to my previous question about determining camera parameters I have formulated a new problem.
I have two pictures of the same rectangle:
The first is an image without any transformations and shows the rectangle as it is.
The second image shows the rectangle after some 3d transformation (XYZ-rotation, scaling, XY-translation) is applied. This has caused the rectangle to look a trapezoid.
I hope the following picture describes my problem:
alt text http://wilco.menge.nl/application.data/cms/upload/transformation%20matrix.png
How do determine what transformations (more specifically: what transformation matrix) have caused this tranformation?
I know the pixel locations of the corners in both images, hence i also know the distances between the corners.
I'm confused. Is this a 2d or a 3d problem?
The way I understand it, you have a flat rectangle embedded in 3d space, and you're looking at two 2d "pictures" of it - one of the original version and one based on the transformed version. Is this correct?
If this is correct, then there is not enough information to solve the problem. For example, suppose the two pictures look exactly the same. This could be because the translation is the identity, or it could be because the translation moves the rectangle twice as far away from the camera and doubles its size (thus making it look exactly the same).
This is a math problem, not programming ..
you need to define a set of equations (your transformation matrix, my guess is 3 equations) and then solve it for the 4 transformations of the corner-points.
I've only ever described this using German words ... so the above will sound strange ..
Based on the information you have, this is not that easy. I will give you some ideas to play with, however. If you had the 3D coordinates of the corners, you'd have an easier time. Here's the basic idea.
Move a corner to the origin. Thereafter, rotations will take place about the origin.
Determine vectors of the axes. Do this by subtracting the adjacent corners from the origin point. These will be a local x and y axis for your world.
Determine angles using the vectors. You can use the dot and cross products to determine the angle between the local x axis and the global x axis (1, 0, 0).
Rotate by the angle in step 3. This will give you a new x axis which should match the global x axis and a new local y axis. You can then determine another rotation about the x axis which will bring the y axis into alignment with the global y axis.
Without the z coordinates, you can see that this will be difficult, but this is the general process. I hope this helps.
The solution will not be unique, as Alex319 points out.
If the second image is really a trapezoid as you say, then this won't be too hard. It is a trapezoid (not a parallelogram) because of perspective, so it must be an isosceles trapezoid.
Draw the two diagonals. They intersect at the center of the rectangle, so that takes care of the translation.
Rotate the trapezoid until its parallel sides are parallel to two sides of the original rectangle. (Which two? It doesn't matter.)
Draw a third parallel through the center. Scale this to the sides of the rectangle you chose.
Now for the rotation out of the plane. Measure the distance from the center to one of the parallel sides and use the law of sines.
If it's not a trapezoid, just a quadralateral, then it'll be harder, you'll have to use the angles between the diagonals to find the axis of rotation.
I've been working on a visualization project for 2-dimensional continuous data. It's the kind of thing you could use to study elevation data or temperature patterns on a 2D map. At its core, it's really a way of flattening 3-dimensions into two-dimensions-plus-color. In my particular field of study, I'm not actually working with geographical elevation data, but it's a good metaphor, so I'll stick with it throughout this post.
Anyhow, at this point, I have a "continuous color" renderer that I'm very pleased with:
The gradient is the standard color-wheel, where red pixels indicate coordinates with high values, and violet pixels indicate low values.
The underlying data structure uses some very clever (if I do say so myself) interpolation algorithms to enable arbitrarily deep zooming into the details of the map.
At this point, I want to draw some topographical contour lines (using quadratic bezier curves), but I haven't been able to find any good literature describing efficient algorithms for finding those curves.
To give you an idea for what I'm thinking about, here's a poor-man's implementation (where the renderer just uses a black RGB value whenever it encounters a pixel that intersects a contour line):
There are several problems with this approach, though:
Areas of the graph with a steeper slope result in thinner (and often broken) topo lines. Ideally, all topo lines should be continuous.
Areas of the graph with a flatter slope result in wider topo lines (and often entire regions of blackness, especially at the outer perimeter of the rendering region).
So I'm looking at a vector-drawing approach for getting those nice, perfect 1-pixel-thick curves. The basic structure of the algorithm will have to include these steps:
At each discrete elevation where I want to draw a topo line, find a set of coordinates where the elevation at that coordinate is extremely close (given an arbitrary epsilon value) to the desired elevation.
Eliminate redundant points. For example, if three points are in a perfectly-straight line, then the center point is redundant, since it can be eliminated without changing the shape of the curve. Likewise, with bezier curves, it is often possible to eliminate cetain anchor points by adjusting the position of adjacent control points.
Assemble the remaining points into a sequence, such that each segment between two points approximates an elevation-neutral trajectory, and such that no two line segments ever cross paths. Each point-sequence must either create a closed polygon, or must intersect the bounding box of the rendering region.
For each vertex, find a pair of control points such that the resultant curve exhibits a minimum error, with respect to the redundant points eliminated in step #2.
Ensure that all features of the topography visible at the current rendering scale are represented by appropriate topo lines. For example, if the data contains a spike with high altitude, but with extremely small diameter, the topo lines should still be drawn. Vertical features should only be ignored if their feature diameter is smaller than the overall rendering granularity of the image.
But even under those constraints, I can still think of several different heuristics for finding the lines:
Find the high-point within the rendering bounding-box. From that high point, travel downhill along several different trajectories. Any time the traversal line crossest an elevation threshold, add that point to an elevation-specific bucket. When the traversal path reaches a local minimum, change course and travel uphill.
Perform a high-resolution traversal along the rectangular bounding-box of the rendering region. At each elevation threshold (and at inflection points, wherever the slope reverses direction), add those points to an elevation-specific bucket. After finishing the boundary traversal, start tracing inward from the boundary points in those buckets.
Scan the entire rendering region, taking an elevation measurement at a sparse regular interval. For each measurement, use it's proximity to an elevation threshold as a mechanism to decide whether or not to take an interpolated measurement of its neighbors. Using this technique would provide better guarantees of coverage across the whole rendering region, but it'd be difficult to assemble the resultant points into a sensible order for constructing paths.
So, those are some of my thoughts...
Before diving deep into an implementation, I wanted to see whether anyone else on StackOverflow has experience with this sort of problem and could provide pointers for an accurate and efficient implementation.
Edit:
I'm especially interested in the "Gradient" suggestion made by ellisbben. And my core data structure (ignoring some of the optimizing interpolation shortcuts) can be represented as the summation of a set of 2D gaussian functions, which is totally differentiable.
I suppose I'll need a data structure to represent a three-dimensional slope, and a function for calculating that slope vector for at arbitrary point. Off the top of my head, I don't know how to do that (though it seems like it ought to be easy), but if you have a link explaining the math, I'd be much obliged!
UPDATE:
Thanks to the excellent contributions by ellisbben and Azim, I can now calculate the contour angle for any arbitrary point in the field. Drawing the real topo lines will follow shortly!
Here are updated renderings, with and without the ghetto raster-based topo-renderer that I've been using. Each image includes a thousand random sample points, represented by red dots. The angle-of-contour at that point is represented by a white line. In certain cases, no slope could be measured at the given point (based on the granularity of interpolation), so the red dot occurs without a corresponding angle-of-contour line.
Enjoy!
(NOTE: These renderings use a different surface topography than the previous renderings -- since I randomly generate the data structures on each iteration, while I'm prototyping -- but the core rendering method is the same, so I'm sure you get the idea.)
Here's a fun fact: over on the right-hand-side of these renderings, you'll see a bunch of weird contour lines at perfect horizontal and vertical angles. These are artifacts of the interpolation process, which uses a grid of interpolators to reduce the number of computations (by about 500%) necessary to perform the core rendering operations. All of those weird contour lines occur on the boundary between two interpolator grid cells.
Luckily, those artifacts don't actually matter. Although the artifacts are detectable during slope calculation, the final renderer won't notice them, since it operates at a different bit depth.
UPDATE AGAIN:
Aaaaaaaand, as one final indulgence before I go to sleep, here's another pair of renderings, one in the old-school "continuous color" style, and one with 20,000 gradient samples. In this set of renderings, I've eliminated the red dot for point-samples, since it unnecessarily clutters the image.
Here, you can really see those interpolation artifacts that I referred to earlier, thanks to the grid-structure of the interpolator collection. I should emphasize that those artifacts will be completely invisible on the final contour rendering (since the difference in magnitude between any two adjacent interpolator cells is less than the bit depth of the rendered image).
Bon appetit!!
The gradient is a mathematical operator that may help you.
If you can turn your interpolation into a differentiable function, the gradient of the height will always point in the direction of steepest ascent. All curves of equal height are perpendicular to the gradient of height evaluated at that point.
Your idea about starting from the highest point is sensible, but might miss features if there is more than one local maximum.
I'd suggest
pick height values at which you will draw lines
create a bunch of points on a fine, regularly spaced grid, then walk each point in small steps in the gradient direction towards the nearest height at which you want to draw a line
create curves by stepping each point perpendicular to the gradient; eliminate excess points by killing a point when another curve comes too close to it-- but to avoid destroying the center of hourglass like figures, you might need to check the angle between the oriented vector perpendicular to the gradient for both of the points. (When I say oriented, I mean make sure that the angle between the gradient and the perpendicular value you calculate is always 90 degrees in the same direction.)
In response to your comment to #erickson and to answer the point about calculating the gradient of your function. Instead of calculating the derivatives of your 300 term function you could do a numeric differentiation as follows.
Given a point [x,y] in your image you could calculate the gradient (direction of steepest decent)
g={ ( f(x+dx,y)-f(x-dx,y) )/(2*dx),
{ ( f(x,y+dy)-f(x,y-dy) )/(2*dy)
where dx and dy could be the spacing in your grid. The contour line will run perpendicular to the gradient. So, to get the contour direction, c, we can multiply g=[v,w] by matrix, A=[0 -1, 1 0] giving
c = [-w,v]
Alternately, there is the marching squares algorithm which seems appropriate to your problem, although you may want to smooth the results if you use a coarse grid.
The topo curves you want to draw are isosurfaces of a scalar field over 2 dimensions. For isosurfaces in 3 dimensions, there is the marching cubes algorithm.
I've wanted something like this myself, but haven't found a vector-based solution.
A raster-based solution isn't that bad, though, especially if your data is raster-based. If your data is vector-based too (in other words, you have a 3D model of your surface), you should be able to do some real math to find the intersection curves with horizontal planes at varying elevations.
For a raster-based approach, I look at each pair of neighboring pixels. If one is above a contour level, and one is below, obviously a contour line runs between them. The trick I used to anti-alias the contour line is to mix the contour line color into both pixels, proportional to their closeness to the idealized contour line.
Maybe some examples will help. Suppose that the current pixel is at an "elevation" of 12 ft, a neighbor is at an elevation of 8 ft, and contour lines are every 10 ft. Then, there is a contour line half way between; paint the current pixel with the contour line color at 50% opacity. Another pixel is at 11 feet and has a neighbor at 6 feet. Color the current pixel at 80% opacity.
alpha = (contour - neighbor) / (current - neighbor)
Unfortunately, I don't have the code handy, and there might have been a bit more to it (I vaguely recall looking at diagonal neighbors too, and adjusting by sqrt(2) / 2). I hope this enough to give you the gist.
It occurred to me that what you're trying to do would be pretty easy to do in MATLAB, using the contour function. Doing things like making low-density approximations to your contours can probably be done with some fairly simple post-processing of the contours.
Fortunately, GNU Octave, a MATLAB clone, has implementations of the various contour plotting functions. You could look at that code for an algorithm and implementation that's almost certainly mathematically sound. Or, you might just be able to offload the processing to Octave. Check out the page on interfacing with other languages to see if that would be easier.
Disclosure: I haven't used Octave very much, and I haven't actually tested it's contour plotting. However, from my experience with MATLAB, I can say that it will give you almost everything you're asking for in just a few lines of code, provided you get your data into MATLAB.
Also, congratulations on making a very VanGough-esque slopefield plot.
I always check places like http://mathworld.wolfram.com before going to deep on my own :)
Maybe their curves section would help? Or maybe the entry on maps.
compare what you have rendered with a real-world topo map - they look identical to me! i wouldn't change a thing...
Write the data out as an HGT file (very simple digital elevation data format used by USGS) and use the free and open-source gdal_contour tool to create contours. That works very well for terrestrial maps, the constraint being that the data points are signed 16-bit numbers, which fits the earthly range of heights in metres very well, but may not be enough for your data, which I assume not to be a map of actual terrain - although you do mention terrain maps.
I recommend the CONREC approach:
Create an empty line segment list
Split your data into regular grid squares
For each grid square, split the square into 4 component triangles:
For each triangle, handle the cases (a through j):
If a line segment crosses one of the cases:
Calculate its endpoints
Store the line segment in the list
Draw each line segment in the line segment list
If the lines are too jagged, use a smaller grid. If the lines are smooth enough and the algorithm is taking too long, use a larger grid.