I have four arbitrary points (lt,rt,rb,lb) in 3d space and I would like these points to define my near clipping plane (lt stands for left-top, rt for right-top and so on).
Unfortunately, these points are not necessarily a rectangle (in screen space). They are however a rectangle in world coordinates.
The context is that I want to have a mirror surface by computing the mirrored world into a texture. The mirror is an arbitary translated and rotated rectangle in 3d space.
I do not want to change the texture coordinates on the vertices, because that would lead to ugly pixelisation when you e.g. look at the mirror from the side. When I would do that, also culling would not work correctly which would lead to huge performance impacts in my case (small mirror, huge world).
I also cannot work with the stencil buffer, because in some scenarios I have mirrors facing each other which would also lead to a huge performance drop. Furthermore, I would like to keep my rendering pipeline simple.
Can anyone tell me how to compute the according projection matrix?
Edit: Of cause I already have moved my camera accordingly. That is not the problem here.
Instead of tweaking the projection matrix (which I don't think can be done in the general case), you should define an additional clipping plane. You do that by enabling:
glEnable(GL_CLIP_DISTANCE0);
And then set gl_ClipDistance vertex shader output to be the distance of the vertex from the mirror:
gl_ClipDistance[0] = dot(vec4(vertex_position, 1.0), mirror_plane);
Related
I want to create skybox, which is just textured cube around camera. But actually i don't understand how this can work, because the camera viewing volume is frustum and the skybox is cube. According to this source:
http://www.songho.ca/opengl/gl_projectionmatrix.html
Note that the frustum culling (clipping) is performed in the clip
coordinates, just before dividing by wc. The clip coordinates, xc, yc
and zc are tested by comparing with wc. If any clip coordinate is less
than -wc, or greater than wc, then the vertex will be discarded.
vertexes of skybox faces should be clipped, if they are outside of frustum.
So it looks for me that the cube should be actually a frustum and should match exactly the gl frustum faces, so my whole scene is wrapped inside of that skybox, but i am sure this is bad. Is there any way how to fill whole screen with something, that wraps whole gl frustum?
The formulation from your link is rather bad. It is not actually vertices that get clipped, but rather fragments. Drawing a primitive with vertices completely off-screen does not prevent the fragments that would intersect with the screen from getting drawn. (The picture in the link also actually shows this being the case.)
That having been said, however, it may (or may not, depending on the design of your rendering code) be easier to simply draw a full-screen quad, and use the inverse of the projection matrix to calculate the texture coordinates instead.
I've been learning OpenGL, and the one topic that continues to baffle me is the far clipping plane. While I can understand the reasoning behind the near clipping plane, and the side clipping planes (which never have any real effect because objects outside them would never be rendered anyway), the far clipping plane seems only to be an annoyance.
Since those behind OpenGL have obviously thought this through, I know there must be something I am missing. Why does OpenGL have a far clipping plane? More importantly, because you cannot turn it off, what are the recommended idioms and practices to use when drawing things at huge distances (for objects such as stars thousands of units away in a space game, a skybox, etc.)? Are you expected just to make the clipping plane very far away, or is there a more elegant solution? How is this done in production software?
The only reason is depth-precision. Since you only have a limited number of bits in the depth buffer, you can also just represent a finite amount of depth with it.
However, you can set the far plane to infinitely far away: See this. It just won't work very well with the depth buffer - you will see a lot of artifacts if you have occlusion far away.
So since this revolves around the depth buffer, you won't have a problem dealing with further-away stuff, as long as you don't use it. For example, a common technique is to render the scene in "slabs" that each only use the depth buffer internally (for all the stuff in one slab) but some form of painter's algorithm externally (for the slabs, so you draw the furthest one first)
Why does OpenGL have a far clipping plane?
Because computers are finite.
There are generally two ways to attempt to deal with this. One way is to construct the projection by taking the limit as z-far approaches infinity. This will converge on finite values, but it can play havoc with your depth precision for distant objects.
An alternative (if you're willing to have objects beyond a certain distance fail to depth-test correctly at all) is to turn on depth clamping with glEnable(GL_DEPTH_CLAMP). This will prevent clipping against the near and far planes; it's just that any fragments that would have normalized z coordinates outside of the [-1, 1] range will be clamped to that range. As previously indicated, it screws up depth tests between fragments that are being clamped, but usually those objects are far away.
It's just "the fact" that OpenGL depth test was performed in Window Space Coordinates (Normalized device coordinates in [-1,1]^3. With extra scaling glViewport and glDepthRange).
So from my point of view it's one of the design point of view of the OpenGL library.
One of approach to eliminate this OpenGL extension/OpenGL core functionality https://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/ARB/depth_clamp.txt if it is available in your OpenGL version.
I want to describe that in the perspective projection there is nothing about "far clipping plane".
3.1 For perspective projection you need to setup point \vec{c} as center of projection and plane on which projection will be performed. Let's call it
image plane T: (\vec{r}-\vec{r_0},\vec{n})
3.2 Let's assume that projected plane T split arbitary point \vec{r} and \vec{c} central of projection. In other case \vec{r} and \vec{c} are in one hafe-space and point \vec{r} should be discarded.
3.4 The idea of projection is to find intersection \vec{i} with plane T
\vec{i}=(1-t)\vec{c}+t\vec{r}
3.5 As it is
(\vec{i}-\vec{r_0},\vec{n})=0
=>
( (1-t)\vec{c}+t\vec{r}-\vec{r_0},\vec{n})=0
=>
( \vec{c}+t(\vec{r}-\vec{c})-\vec{r_0},\vec{n})=0
3.6. From "3.5" derived t can be subtitute into "3.4" and you will receive projection into plane T.
3.7. After projection you point will lie in the plane. But if assume that image plane is parallel to OXY plane, then I can suggest to use original "depth" for point after projection.
So from geometry point of view it is possible not to use far plane at all. As also not to use [-1,1]^3 model explicitly at all.
p.s. I don't know how to type latex formulas in correct way, s.t. they will be rendered.
Does the OpenGL fixed function pipeline compute lighting in view-space?
If the answer is yes, then how does it cope with view transformations with non-uniform scale? Actually, how does it cope with view transformations incorporating any scale at all?
If this is true then scaling the view space will result in different light-to-vertex distances, meaning the lighting intensity for point-lights will change as the view matrix is scaled.
Lighting in world-space would make the computed point-light intensity independent of view space scaling, but would require:
That an object-to-world matrix is supplied to the API (such as in DirectX, where the light positions are specified in world-space).
That the API transform all geometry twice when drawing. Once by world*view*proj into clip space, and again by world, in order to compute lighting at the vertices in world space.
Points awarded for a good answer with any additional background info you can dig up on fixed-function lighting pipelines in general.
I think your question comes from a confusion of "view space" with "post-projection space". They are not the same.
View space, or camera space, is the space of the scene relative to the camera. Thus, the camera is sitting at the origin, looking down the -Z axis, with +Y being up. In terms of OpenGL fixed-function, camera space is the space after multiplying positions and normals by the GL_MODELVIEW matrix.
Post-projection space is what you get after multiplying camera space values by the GL_PROJECTION matrix. This is in fact why there are two separate matrices. You do lighting in camera space, and you send the post-projection positions off for rasterization.
OpenGL does not do lighting in post-projection space. So the aspect ratio, camera zoom, and so forth does not affect lighting. Nor does the perspective divide.
Does the OpenGL fixed function pipeline compute lighting in view-space?
Yes, and so should you.
If the answer is yes, then how does it cope with view transformations with non-uniform scale? Actually, how does it cope with view transformations incorporating any scale at all?
The exact same way that it copes with the model-to-world transform incorporating scale.
It's just a matrix. The math neither knows nor cares where a particular scale transform happens to be, whether it is in the model-to-world part or the world-to-camera part. All that matters is that a scale is present. Or a skew or any other form of transform.
And remember: it is far more likely that the model-to-world transform uses scales than the world-to-camera transform does. You are more likely to need to rescale geometry to fit into the world than you are to need to rescale geometry for the camera matrix. The scaling for camera zooms, aspect ratio, and the like is a part of the perspective matrix, not the camera matrix.
It "copes" with this in the usual way: normals are transformed by the inverse-transpose of the model-to-view matrix. This alters the normals (full disclosure: that's my eBook tutorial) so that they still fit the model after the scaling. This is necessary regardless of what space you're in.
If this is true then scaling the view space will result in different light-to-vertex distances, meaning the lighting intensity for point-lights will change as the view matrix is scaled.
... and? Since all of the objects are transformed by the same camera matrix (within a single scene), all of the objects will have the same scale applied. Therefore, if they were all in the same scale in world-space, they will all be in the same scale in camera-space.
So what's the problem? Yes, the attenuation changes, but it changes equally for all objects. Thus, there isn't a problem, so long as your attenuation factors are designed for this camera space.
I've been writing a 2D basic game engine in OpenGL/C++ and learning everything as I go along. I'm still rather confused about defining vertices and their "position". That is, I'm still trying to understand the vertex-to-pixels conversion mechanism of OpenGL. Can it be explained briefly or can someone point to an article or something that'll explain this. Thanks!
This is rather basic knowledge that your favourite OpenGL learning resource should teach you as one of the first things. But anyway the standard OpenGL pipeline is as follows:
The vertex position is transformed from object-space (local to some object) into world-space (in respect to some global coordinate system). This transformation specifies where your object (to which the vertices belong) is located in the world
Now the world-space position is transformed into camera/view-space. This transformation is determined by the position and orientation of the virtual camera by which you see the scene. In OpenGL these two transformations are actually combined into one, the modelview matrix, which directly transforms your vertices from object-space to view-space.
Next the projection transformation is applied. Whereas the modelview transformation should consist only of affine transformations (rotation, translation, scaling), the projection transformation can be a perspective one, which basically distorts the objects to realize a real perspective view (with farther away objects being smaller). But in your case of a 2D view it will probably be an orthographic projection, that does nothing more than a translation and scaling. This transformation is represented in OpenGL by the projection matrix.
After these 3 (or 2) transformations (and then following perspective division by the w component, which actually realizes the perspective distortion, if any) what you have are normalized device coordinates. This means after these transformations the coordinates of the visible objects should be in the range [-1,1]. Everything outside this range is clipped away.
In a final step the viewport transformation is applied and the coordinates are transformed from the [-1,1] range into the [0,w]x[0,h]x[0,1] cube (assuming a glViewport(0, w, 0, h) call), which are the vertex' final positions in the framebuffer and therefore its pixel coordinates.
When using a vertex shader, steps 1 to 3 are actually done in the shader and can therefore be done in any way you like, but usually one conforms to this standard modelview -> projection pipeline, too.
The main thing to keep in mind is, that after the modelview and projection transforms every vertex with coordinates outside the [-1,1] range will be clipped away. So the [-1,1]-box determines your visible scene after these two transformations.
So from your question I assume you want to use a 2D coordinate system with units of pixels for your vertex coordinates and transformations? In this case this is best done by using glOrtho(0.0, w, 0.0, h, -1.0, 1.0) with w and h being the dimensions of your viewport. This basically counters the viewport transformation and therefore transforms your vertices from the [0,w]x[0,h]x[-1,1]-box into the [-1,1]-box, which the viewport transformation then transforms back to the [0,w]x[0,h]x[0,1]-box.
These have been quite general explanations without mentioning that the actual transformations are done by matrix-vector-multiplications and without talking about homogenous coordinates, but they should have explained the essentials. This documentation of gluProject might also give you some insight, as it actually models the transformation pipeline for a single vertex. But in this documentation they actually forgot to mention the division by the w component (v" = v' / v'(3)) after the v' = P x M x v step.
EDIT: Don't forget to look at the first link in epatel's answer, which explains the transformation pipeline a bit more practical and detailed.
It is called transformation.
Vertices are set in 3D coordinates which is transformed into a viewport coordinates (into your window view). This transformation can be set in various ways. Orthogonal transformation can be easiest to understand as a starter.
http://www.songho.ca/opengl/gl_transform.html
http://www.opengl.org/wiki/Vertex_Transformation
http://www.falloutsoftware.com/tutorials/gl/gl5.htm
Firstly be aware that OpenGL not uses standard pixel coordinates. I mean by that for particular resolution, ie. 800x600 you dont have horizontal coordinates in range 0-799 or 1-800 stepped by one. You rather have coordinates ranged from -1 to 1 later send to graphic card rasterizing unit and after that matched to particular resolution.
I ommited one step here - before all that you have an ModelViewProjection matrix (or viewProjection matrix in some simple cases) which before all that will cast coordinates you use to an projection plane. Default use of that is to implement a camera which converts 3D space of world (View for placing an camera into right position and Projection for casting 3d coordinates into screen plane. In ModelViewProjection it's also step of placing a model into right place in world).
Another case (and you can use Projection matrix this way to achieve what you want) is to use these matrixes to convert one range of resolutions to another.
And there's a trick you will need. You should read about modelViewProjection matrix and camera in openGL if you want to go serious. But for now I will tell you that with proper matrix you can just cast your own coordinate system (and ie. use ranges 0-799 horizontaly and 0-599 verticaly) to standarized -1:1 range. That way you will not see that underlying openGL api uses his own -1 to 1 system.
The easiest way to achieve this is glOrtho function. Here's the link to documentation:
http://www.opengl.org/sdk/docs/man/xhtml/glOrtho.xml
This is example of proper usage:
glMatrixMode (GL_PROJECTION)
glLoadIdentity ();
glOrtho (0, 800, 600, 0, 0, 1)
glMatrixMode (GL_MODELVIEW)
Now you can use own modelView matrix ie. for translation (moving) objects but don't touch your projection example. This code should be executed before any drawing commands. (Can be after initializing opengl in fact if you wont use 3d graphics).
And here's working example: http://nehe.gamedev.net/tutorial/2d_texture_font/18002/
Just draw your figures instead of drawing text. And there is another thing - glPushMatrix and glPopMatrix for choosen matrix (in this example projection matrix) - you wont use that until you combining 3d with 2d rendering.
And you can still use model matrix (ie. for placing tiles somewhere in world) and view matrix (in example for zooming view, or scrolling through world - in this case your world can be larger than resolution and you could crop view by simple translations)
After looking at my answer I see it's a little chaotic but If you confused - just read about Model, View, and Projection matixes and try example with glOrtho. If you're still confused feel free to ask.
MSDN has a great explanation. It may be in terms of DirectX but OpenGL is more-or-less the same.
Google for "opengl rendering pipeline". The first five articles all provide good expositions.
The key transition from vertices to pixels (actually, fragments, but you won't be too far off if you think "pixels") is in the rasterization stage, which occurs after all vertices have been transformed from world-coordinates to screen coordinates and clipped.
I have a very general question. I wish to determine the boundary points of a number of objects (comprising 30-50 closed polygons (z) each having around 300 points(x,y,z)). I am working with a fixed viewport which is rotated about x,y and z-axes (alpha, beta, gamma) wrt origin of coordinate system for polygons.
As I see it there are two possibilities: perspective projection or raytracing. Perspective projection would seem to requires a large number of matrix operations for each point to determine its position is within or without the viewport.
Or given the large number of points would I better to raytrace the viewport pixels to object?
i.e. determine whether there is an intersection and then whether intersection occurs within or without object(s).
In either case I will write this result as 0 (outside) or 1 (inside) to 200x200 an integer matrix representing the viewport
Thank you in anticipation
Perspective projection (and then scan-converting the polygons in image coordinates) is going to be a lot faster.
The matrix transform that is required in the case of perspective projection (essentially the world-to-camera matrix) is required in exactly the same way when raytracing. However, with perspective projection, you're only transforming the corner points, whereas with raytracing, you're transforming all the points in the image.
You should be able to use perspective projection and a perspective projection matrix to compute the position of the vertices in screen space? It's hard to understand what you want to do really. If you want to create an image of that 3D scene then with only few polygons it would be hard to see any difference anyway between ray tracing and rasterisation if your code is optimised (you will still need to use an acceleration structure for the ray tracing approach), however yes rasterisation is likely to be faster anyway.
Now if you need to compute the distance from between the eye (the camera's origin) and the geometry visible through the camera's view, the I don't see why you can't use the depth value of any sample for any pixel in the image and use the inverse of the perspective projection matrix to find its distance in camera space.
Why is speed an issue in your problem? Otherwise use RT indeed.
Most of this information can be found on www.scratchapixel.com