I'm using OpenGL for rendering, and when I write linear values to the default framebuffer (without any gamma correction) they appear linear on my monitor. This goes against everything I thought I knew about gamma correction (as explained here: http://gamedevelopment.tutsplus.com/articles/gamma-correction-and-why-it-matters--gamedev-14466 ). Without gamma correction, I would expect to see mid-range colors darkened non-linearly by my monitor.
But here is what I actually see; first with no gamma correction on my part, then with gamma correction:
Here's my fragment shader without gamma correction (drawn on a fullscreen quad to the default framebuffer). This results in the linear image on the left:
out vec4 fsOut0;
void main( void )
{
// split the screen into 10 discrete color bands
float yResolution = 768.0;
int intVal = int(gl_FragCoord.y / yResolution * 10.0);
fsOut0.rgb = vec3( float(intVal) / 10.0 );
fsOut0.a = 1.0;
}
And here's the shader with added gamma correction (from linear space to sRGB). This results in the brighter-than-linear image on the right:
out vec4 fsOut0;
void main( void )
{
// split the screen into 10 discrete color bands
float yResolution = 768.0;
int intVal = int(gl_FragCoord.y / yResolution * 10.0);
fsOut0.rgb = vec3( float(intVal) / 10.0 );
// gamma correction
fsOut0.rgb = pow( fsOut0.rgb, vec3(1.0/2.2) );
fsOut0.a = 1.0;
}
I'm verifying whether or not the colors are linear just by looking at them, and by using the color picker in Photoshop and looking at the differences in RGB values between color bands. For the linear-looking image the difference between each color is (mostly) constant.
I have also tried requesting an sRGB-capable default framebuffer. In this case, writing linear values with no gamma correction looks like the second image (non-linear).
What am I doing wrong? Or could it be that my two monitors are both miscalibrated AND that Photoshop does not pick colors in linear space? Or is my "non-linear" image actually the correct linear result, but it just doesn't seem linear to my eyes?
My question is sort of a duplicate of this: Do I need to gamma correct the final color output on a modern computer/monitor
Unfortunately the accepted answer is extremely confusing and the parts of it I was able to follow seem contradictory, or at least not fully explained for someone less knowledgeable than the answerer.
Well, both your left and right pictures are as is to be expected. They are perfectly fine, and yes, I know my stuff.
It's just that our eyes are not very linear either, so e.g. 1/5th of linear intensity (luminous intensity) is perceived as "half as bright as white". This is what you see on the right, in the corrected image, near the bottom.
This is the reason for gamma being there in the first place - to help encoding by mimicking the eye's response. IOW, gamma makes the non-linear ramp look linear.
However, a physically linear ramp (as on the right) is therefore quite counter to being perceived as linear. Remember that the real world has a quite large dynamic range (in terms of luminous intensity), and our eyes are compensating for that. This is confusing you, but unlike many others, you actually got the numbers right.
I'm trying to implement a 'raypicker' for selecting objects within my project. I do not fully understand how to implement this, but I understand conceptually how it should work. I've been trying to learn how to do this, but most tutorials I find go way over my head. My current code is based on one of the recent tutorials I found, here.
After several hours of revisions, I believe the problem I'm having with my raypicker is actually the creation of the ray in the first place. If I substitute/hardcode my near/far planes with a coordinate that would undisputably be located within the region of a triangle, the picker identifies it correctly.
My problem is this: my ray creation doesn't seem to fully take my current "camera" or perspective into account, so camera rotation won't affect where my mouse is.
I believe to remedy this I need something like using gluUnProject() or something, but whenever I used this the x,y,z coordinates returned would be incredibly small,
My current ray creation is a mess. I tried to use methods that others proposed initially, but it seemed like whatever method I tried it never worked with my picker/intersection function.
Here's the code for my ray creation:
void oglWidget::mousePressEvent(QMouseEvent *event)
{
QVector3D nearP = QVector3D(event->x()+camX, -event->y()-camY, -1.0);
QVector3D farP = QVector3D(event->x()+camX, -event->y()-camY, 1.0);
int i = -1;
for (int x = 0; x < tileCount; x++)
{
bool rayInter = intersect(nearP, farP, tiles[x]->vertices);
if (rayInter == true)
i = x;
}
if (i != -1)
{
tiles[i]->showSelection();
}
else
{
for (int x = 0; x < tileCount; x++)
tiles[x]->hideSelection();
}
//tiles[0]->showSelection();
}
To repeat, I used to load up the viewport, model & projection matrices, and unproject the mouse coordinates, but within a 1920x1080 window, all I get is values in the range of -2 to 2 for x y & z for each mouse event, which is why I'm trying this method, but this method doesn't work with camera rotation and zoom.
I don't want to do pixel color picking, because who knows I may need this technique later on, and I'd rather not give up after the amount of effort I put in so far
As you seem to have problems constructing your rays, here's how I would do it. This has not been tested directly. You could do it like this, making sure that all vectors are in the same space. If you use multiple model matrices (or stacks thereof) the calculation needs to be repeated separately with each of them.
use pos = gluUnproject(winx, winy, near, ...) to get the position of the mouse coordinate on the near plane in model space; near being the value given to glFrustum() or gluPerspective()
origin of the ray is the camera position in model space: rayorig = inv(modelmat) * camera_in_worldspace
the direction of the ray is the normalized vector from the position from 1. to the ray origin: raydir = normalize(pos - rayorig)
On the website linked they use two points for the ray and they don't seem to normalize the ray direction vector, so this is optional.
Ok, so this is the beginning of my trail of breadcrumbs.
I was somehow having issues with the QT datatypes for the matrices, and the logic pertaining to matrix transformations.
This particular problem in this question resulted from not actually performing any transformations whatsoever.
Steps to solving this problem were:
Converting mouse coordinates into NDC space (within the range of -1 to 1: x/screen width * 2 - 1, y - height / height * 2 - 1)
grabbing the 4x4 matrix for my view matrix (can be the one used when rendering, or re calculated)
In a new vector, have it equal the inverse view matrix multiplied by the inverse projection matrix.
In order to build the ray, I had to do the following:
Take the previously calculated value for the matrices that were multiplied together. This will be multiplied by a vector 4 (array of 4 spots), where it will hold the previously calculated x and y coordinates, as well as -1, then +1.
Then this vector will be divided by the last spot value of the entire vector
Create another vector 4 which was just like the last, but instead of -1, put "1" .
Once again divide that by its last spot value.
Now the coordinates for the ray have been created at the far and near planes, so it can intersect with anything along it in the scene.
I opened a series of questions (because of great uncertainty with my series of problems), so parts of my problem overlap in them too.
In here, I learned that I needed to take the screen height into consideration for switching the origin of the y axis for a Cartesian system, since windows has the y axis start at the top left. Additionally, retrieval of matrices was redundant, but also wrong since they were never declared "properly".
In here, I learned that unProject wasn't working because I was trying to pull the model and view matrices using OpenGL functions, but I never actually set them in the first place, because I built the matrices by hand. I solved that problem in 2 fold: I did the math manually, and I made all the matrices of the same data type (they were mixed data types earlier, leading to issues as well).
And lastly, in here, I learned that my order of operations was slightly off (need to multiply matrices by a vector, not the reverse), that my near plane needs to be -1, not 0, and that the last value of the vector which would be multiplied with the matrices (value "w") needed to be 1.
Credits goes to those individuals who helped me solve these problems:
srobins of facepunch, in this thread
derhass from here, in this question, and this discussion
Take a look at
http://www.realtimerendering.com/intersections.html
Lot of help in determining intersections between various kinds of geometry
http://geomalgorithms.com/code.html also has some c++ functions one of them serves your purpose
I am implementing a 3D engine for spatial visualisation, and am writing a camera with the following navigation features:
Rotate the camera (ie, analogous to rotating your head)
Rotate around an arbitrary 3D point (a point in space, which is probably not in the center of the screen; the camera needs to rotate around this keeping the same relative look direction, ie the look direction changes too. This does not look directly at the chosen rotation point)
Pan in the camera's plane (so move up/down or left/right in the plane orthogonal to the camera's look vector)
The camera is not supposed to roll - that is, 'up' remains up. Because of this I represent the camera with a location and two angles, rotations around the X and Y axes (Z would be roll.) The view matrix is then recalculated using the camera location and these two angles. This works great for pan and rotating the eye, but not for rotating around an arbitrary point. Instead I get the following behaviour:
The eye itself apparently moving further up or down than it should
The eye not moving up or down at all when m_dRotationX is 0 or pi. (Gimbal lock? How can I avoid this?)
The eye's rotation being inverted (changing the rotation makes it look further up when it should look further down, down when it should look further up) when m_dRotationX is between pi and 2pi.
(a) What is causing this 'drift' in rotation?
This may be gimbal lock. If so, the standard answer to this is 'use quaternions to represent rotation', said many times here on SO (1, 2, 3 for example), but unfortunately without concrete details (example. This is the best answer I've found so far; it's rare.) I've struggled to implemented a camera using quaternions combining the above two types of rotations. I am, in fact, building a quaternion using the two rotations, but a commenter below said there was no reason - it's fine to immediately build the matrix.
This occurs when changing the X and Y rotations (which represent the camera look direction) when rotating around a point, but does not occur simply when directly changing the rotations, i.e. rotating the camera around itself. To me, this doesn't make sense. It's the same values.
(b) Would a different approach (quaternions, for example) be better for this camera? If so, how do I implement all three camera navigation features above?
If a different approach would be better, then please consider providing a concrete implemented example of that approach. (I am using DirectX9 and C++, and the D3DX* library the SDK provides.) In this second case, I will add and award a bounty in a couple of days when I can add one to the question. This might sound like I'm jumping the gun, but I'm low on time and need to implement or solve this quickly (this is a commercial project with a tight deadline.) A detailed answer will also improve the SO archives, because most camera answers I've read so far are light on code.
Thanks for your help :)
Some clarifications
Thanks for the comments and answer so far! I'll try to clarify a few things about the problem:
The view matrix is recalculated from the camera position and the two angles whenever one of those things changes. The matrix itself is never accumulated (i.e. updated) - it is recalculated afresh. However, the camera position and the two angle variables are accumulated (whenever the mouse moves, for example, one or both of the angles will have a small amount added or subtracted, based on the number of pixels the mouse moved up-down and/or left-right onscreen.)
Commenter JCooper states I'm suffering from gimbal lock, and I need to:
add another rotation onto your transform that rotates the eyePos to be
completely in the y-z plane before you apply the transformation, and
then another rotation that moves it back afterward. Rotate around the
y axis by the following angle immediately before and after applying
the yaw-pitch-roll matrix (one of the angles will need to be negated;
trying it out is the fastest way to decide which).
double fixAngle = atan2(oEyeTranslated.z,oEyeTranslated.x);
Unfortunately, when implementing this as described, my eye shoots off above the scene at a very fast rate due to one of the rotations. I'm sure my code is simply a bad implementation of this description, but I still need something more concrete. In general, I find unspecific text descriptions of algorithms are less useful than commented, explained implementations. I am adding a bounty for a concrete, working example that integrates with the code below (i.e. with the other navigation methods, too.) This is because I would like to understand the solution, as well as have something that works, and because I need to implement something that works quickly since I am on a tight deadline.
Please, if you answer with a text description of the algorithm, make sure it is detailed enough to implement ('Rotate around Y, then transform, then rotate back' may make sense to you but lacks the details to know what you mean. Good answers are clear, signposted, will allow others to understand even with a different basis, are 'solid weatherproof information boards.')
In turn, I have tried to be clear describing the problem, and if I can make it clearer please let me know.
My current code
To implement the above three navigation features, in a mouse move event moving based on the pixels the cursor has moved:
// Adjust this to change rotation speed when dragging (units are radians per pixel mouse moves)
// This is both rotating the eye, and rotating around a point
static const double dRotatePixelScale = 0.001;
// Adjust this to change pan speed (units are meters per pixel mouse moves)
static const double dPanPixelScale = 0.15;
switch (m_eCurrentNavigation) {
case ENavigation::eRotatePoint: {
// Rotating around m_oRotateAroundPos
const double dX = (double)(m_oLastMousePos.x - roMousePos.x) * dRotatePixelScale * D3DX_PI;
const double dY = (double)(m_oLastMousePos.y - roMousePos.y) * dRotatePixelScale * D3DX_PI;
// To rotate around the point, translate so the point is at (0,0,0) (this makes the point
// the origin so the eye rotates around the origin), rotate, translate back
// However, the camera is represented as an eye plus two (X and Y) rotation angles
// This needs to keep the same relative rotation.
// Rotate the eye around the point
const D3DXVECTOR3 oEyeTranslated = m_oEyePos - m_oRotateAroundPos;
D3DXMATRIX oRotationMatrix;
D3DXMatrixRotationYawPitchRoll(&oRotationMatrix, dX, dY, 0.0);
D3DXVECTOR4 oEyeRotated;
D3DXVec3Transform(&oEyeRotated, &oEyeTranslated, &oRotationMatrix);
m_oEyePos = D3DXVECTOR3(oEyeRotated.x, oEyeRotated.y, oEyeRotated.z) + m_oRotateAroundPos;
// Increment rotation to keep the same relative look angles
RotateXAxis(dX);
RotateYAxis(dY);
break;
}
case ENavigation::ePanPlane: {
const double dX = (double)(m_oLastMousePos.x - roMousePos.x) * dPanPixelScale;
const double dY = (double)(m_oLastMousePos.y - roMousePos.y) * dPanPixelScale;
m_oEyePos += GetXAxis() * dX; // GetX/YAxis reads from the view matrix, so increments correctly
m_oEyePos += GetYAxis() * -dY; // Inverted compared to screen coords
break;
}
case ENavigation::eRotateEye: {
// Rotate in radians around local (camera not scene space) X and Y axes
const double dX = (double)(m_oLastMousePos.x - roMousePos.x) * dRotatePixelScale * D3DX_PI;
const double dY = (double)(m_oLastMousePos.y - roMousePos.y) * dRotatePixelScale * D3DX_PI;
RotateXAxis(dX);
RotateYAxis(dY);
break;
}
The RotateXAxis and RotateYAxis methods are very simple:
void Camera::RotateXAxis(const double dRadians) {
m_dRotationX += dRadians;
m_dRotationX = fmod(m_dRotationX, 2 * D3DX_PI); // Keep in valid circular range
}
void Camera::RotateYAxis(const double dRadians) {
m_dRotationY += dRadians;
// Limit it so you don't rotate around when looking up and down
m_dRotationY = std::min(m_dRotationY, D3DX_PI * 0.49); // Almost fully up
m_dRotationY = std::max(m_dRotationY, D3DX_PI * -0.49); // Almost fully down
}
And to generate the view matrix from this:
void Camera::UpdateView() const {
const D3DXVECTOR3 oEyePos(GetEyePos());
const D3DXVECTOR3 oUpVector(0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f); // Keep up "up", always.
// Generate a rotation matrix via a quaternion
D3DXQUATERNION oRotationQuat;
D3DXQuaternionRotationYawPitchRoll(&oRotationQuat, m_dRotationX, m_dRotationY, 0.0);
D3DXMATRIX oRotationMatrix;
D3DXMatrixRotationQuaternion(&oRotationMatrix, &oRotationQuat);
// Generate view matrix by looking at a point 1 unit ahead of the eye (transformed by the above
// rotation)
D3DXVECTOR3 oForward(0.0, 0.0, 1.0);
D3DXVECTOR4 oForward4;
D3DXVec3Transform(&oForward4, &oForward, &oRotationMatrix);
D3DXVECTOR3 oTarget = oEyePos + D3DXVECTOR3(oForward4.x, oForward4.y, oForward4.z); // eye pos + look vector = look target position
D3DXMatrixLookAtLH(&m_oViewMatrix, &oEyePos, &oTarget, &oUpVector);
}
It seems to me that "Roll" shouldn't be possible given the way you form your view matrix. Regardless of all the other code (some of which does look a little funny), the call D3DXMatrixLookAtLH(&m_oViewMatrix, &oEyePos, &oTarget, &oUpVector); should create a matrix without roll when given [0,1,0] as an 'Up' vector unless oTarget-oEyePos happens to be parallel to the up vector. This doesn't seem to be the case since you're restricting m_dRotationY to be within (-.49pi,+.49pi).
Perhaps you can clarify how you know that 'roll' is happening. Do you have a ground plane and the horizon line of that ground plane is departing from horizontal?
As an aside, in UpdateView, the D3DXQuaternionRotationYawPitchRoll seems completely unnecessary since you immediately turn around and change it into a matrix. Just use D3DXMatrixRotationYawPitchRoll as you did in the mouse event. Quaternions are used in cameras because they're a convenient way to accumulate rotations happening in eye coordinates. Since you're only using two axes of rotation in a strict order, your way of accumulating angles should be fine. The vector transformation of (0,0,1) isn't really necessary either. The oRotationMatrix should already have those values in the (_31,_32,_33) entries.
Update
Given that it's not roll, here's the problem: you create a rotation matrix to move the eye in world coordinates, but you want the pitch to happen in camera coordinates. Since roll isn't allowed and yaw is performed last, yaw is always the same in both the world and camera frames of reference. Consider the images below:
Your code works fine for local pitch and yaw because those are accomplished in camera coordinates.
But when you rotate around a reference point, you are creating a rotation matrix that is in world coordinates and using that to rotate the camera center. This works okay if the camera's coordinate system happens to line up with the world's. However, if you don't check to see if you're up against the pitch limit before you rotate the camera position, you will get crazy behavior when you hit that limit. The camera will suddenly start to skate around the world--still 'rotating' around the reference point, but no longer changing orientation.
If the camera's axes don't line up with the world's, strange things will happen. In the extreme case, the camera won't move at all because you're trying to make it roll.
The above is what would normally happen, but since you handle the camera orientation separately, the camera doesn't actually roll.
Instead, it stays upright, but you get strange translation going on.
One way to handle this would be to (1)always put the camera into a canonical position and orientation relative to the reference point, (2)make your rotation, and then (3)put it back when you're done (e.g., similar to the way that you translate the reference point to the origin, apply the Yaw-Pitch rotation, and then translate back). Thinking more about it, however, this probably isn't the best way to go.
Update 2
I think that Generic Human's answer is probably the best. The question remains as to how much pitch should be applied if the rotation is off-axis, but for now, we'll ignore that. Maybe it'll give you acceptable results.
The essence of the answer is this: Before mouse movement, your camera is at c1 = m_oEyePos and being oriented by M1 = D3DXMatrixRotationYawPitchRoll(&M_1,m_dRotationX,m_dRotationY,0). Consider the reference point a = m_oRotateAroundPos. From the point of view of the camera, this point is a'=M1(a-c1).
You want to change the orientation of the camera to M2 = D3DXMatrixRotationYawPitchRoll(&M_2,m_dRotationX+dX,m_dRotationY+dY,0). [Important: Since you won't allow m_dRotationY to fall outside of a specific range, you should make sure that dY doesn't violate that constraint.] As the camera changes orientation, you also want its position to rotate around a to a new point c2. This means that a won't change from the perspective of the camera. I.e., M1(a-c1)==M2(a-c2).
So we solve for c2 (remember that the transpose of a rotation matrix is the same as the inverse):
M2TM1(a-c1)==(a-c2) =>
-M2TM1(a-c1)+a==c2
Now if we look at this as a transformation being applied to c1, then we can see that it is first negated, then translated by a, then rotated by M1, then rotated by M2T, negated again, and then translated by a again. These are transformations that graphics libraries are good at and they can all be squished into a single transformation matrix.
#Generic Human deserves credit for the answer, but here's code for it. Of course, you need to implement the function to validate a change in pitch before it's applied, but that's simple. This code probably has a couple typos since I haven't tried to compile:
case ENavigation::eRotatePoint: {
const double dX = (double)(m_oLastMousePos.x - roMousePos.x) * dRotatePixelScale * D3DX_PI;
double dY = (double)(m_oLastMousePos.y - roMousePos.y) * dRotatePixelScale * D3DX_PI;
dY = validatePitch(dY); // dY needs to be kept within bounds so that m_dRotationY is within bounds
D3DXMATRIX oRotationMatrix1; // The camera orientation before mouse-change
D3DXMatrixRotationYawPitchRoll(&oRotationMatrix1, m_dRotationX, m_dRotationY, 0.0);
D3DXMATRIX oRotationMatrix2; // The camera orientation after mouse-change
D3DXMatrixRotationYawPitchRoll(&oRotationMatrix2, m_dRotationX + dX, m_dRotationY + dY, 0.0);
D3DXMATRIX oRotationMatrix2Inv; // The inverse of the orientation
D3DXMatrixTranspose(&oRotationMatrix2Inv,&oRotationMatrix2); // Transpose is the same in this case
D3DXMATRIX oScaleMatrix; // Negative scaling matrix for negating the translation
D3DXMatrixScaling(&oScaleMatrix,-1,-1,-1);
D3DXMATRIX oTranslationMatrix; // Translation by the reference point
D3DXMatrixTranslation(&oTranslationMatrix,
m_oRotateAroundPos.x,m_oRotateAroundPos.y,m_oRotateAroundPos.z);
D3DXMATRIX oTransformMatrix; // The full transform for the eyePos.
// We assume the matrix multiply protects against variable aliasing
D3DXMatrixMultiply(&oTransformMatrix,&oScaleMatrix,&oTranslationMatrix);
D3DXMatrixMultiply(&oTransformMatrix,&oTransformMatrix,&oRotationMatrix1);
D3DXMatrixMultiply(&oTransformMatrix,&oTransformMatrix,&oRotationMatrix2Inv);
D3DXMatrixMultiply(&oTransformMatrix,&oTransformMatrix,&oScaleMatrix);
D3DXMatrixMultiply(&oTransformMatrix,&oTransformMatrix,&oTranslationMatrix);
D3DXVECTOR4 oEyeFinal;
D3DXVec3Transform(&oEyeFinal, &m_oEyePos, &oTransformMatrix);
m_oEyePos = D3DXVECTOR3(oEyeFinal.x, oEyeFinal.y, oEyeFinal.z)
// Increment rotation to keep the same relative look angles
RotateXAxis(dX);
RotateYAxis(dY);
break;
}
I think there is a much simpler solution that lets you sidestep all rotation issues.
Notation: A is the point we want to rotate around, C is the original camera location, M is the original camera rotation matrix that maps global coordinates to the camera's local viewport.
Make a note of the local coordinates of A, which are equal to A' = M × (A - C).
Rotate the camera like you would in normal "eye rotation" mode. Update the view matrix M so that it is modified to M2 and C remains unchanged.
Now we would like to find C2 such that A' = M2 × (A - C2).
This is easily done by the equation C2 = A - M2-1 × A'.
Voilà, the camera has been rotated and because the local coordinates of A are unchanged, A remains at the same location and the same scale and distance.
As an added bonus, the rotation behavior is now consistent between "eye rotation" and "point rotation" mode.
You rotate around the point by repeatedly applying small rotation matrices, this probably cause the drift (small precision errors add up) and I bet you will not really do a perfect circle after some time. Since the angles for the view use simple 1-dimension double, they have much less drift.
A possible fix would be to store a dedicated yaw/pitch and relative position from the point when you enter that view mode, and using those to do the math. This requires a bit more bookkeeping, since you need to update those when moving the camera. Note that it will also make the camera move if the point move, which I think is an improvement.
If I understand correctly, you are satisfied with the rotation component in the final matrix (save for inverted rotation controls in the problem #3), but not with the translation part, is that so?
The problem seems to come from the fact that you treating them differently: you are recalculating the rotation part from scratch every time, but accumulate the translation part (m_oEyePos). Other comments mention precision problems, but it's actually more significant than just FP precision: accumulating rotations from small yaw/pitch values is simply not the same---mathematically---as making one big rotation from the accumulated yaw/pitch. Hence the rotation/translation discrepancy. To fix this, try recalculating eye position from scratch simultaneously with the rotation part, similarly to how you find "oTarget = oEyePos + ...":
oEyePos = m_oRotateAroundPos - dist * D3DXVECTOR3(oForward4.x, oForward4.y, oForward4.z)
dist can be fixed or calculated from the old eye position. That will keep the rotation point in the screen center; in the more general case (which you are interested in), -dist * oForward here should be replaced by the old/initial m_oEyePos - m_oRotateAroundPos multiplied by the old/initial camera rotation to bring it to the camera space (finding a constant offset vector in camera's coordinate system), then multiplied by the inverted new camera rotation to get the new direction in the world.
This will, of course, be subject to gimbal lock when the pitch is straight up or down. You'll need to define precisely what behavior you expect in these cases to solve this part. On the other hand, locking at m_dRotationX=0 or =pi is rather strange (this is yaw, not pitch, right?) and might be related to the above.
I'm making a software rasterizer for school, and I'm using an unusual rendering method instead of traditional matrix calculations. It's based on a pinhole camera. I have a few points in 3D space, and I convert them to 2D screen coordinates by taking the distance between it and the camera and normalizing it
Vec3 ray_to_camera = (a_Point - plane_pos).Normalize();
This gives me a directional vector towards the camera. I then turn that direction into a ray by placing the ray's origin on the camera and performing a ray-plane intersection with a plane slightly behind the camera.
Vec3 plane_pos = m_Position + (m_Direction * m_ScreenDistance);
float dot = ray_to_camera.GetDotProduct(m_Direction);
if (dot < 0)
{
float time = (-m_ScreenDistance - plane_pos.GetDotProduct(m_Direction)) / dot;
// if time is smaller than 0 the ray is either parallel to the plane or misses it
if (time >= 0)
{
// retrieving the actual intersection point
a_Point -= (m_Direction * ((a_Point - plane_pos).GetDotProduct(m_Direction)));
// subtracting the plane origin from the intersection point
// puts the point at world origin (0, 0, 0)
Vec3 sub = a_Point - plane_pos;
// the axes are calculated by saying the directional vector of the camera
// is the new z axis
projected.x = sub.GetDotProduct(m_Axis[0]);
projected.y = sub.GetDotProduct(m_Axis[1]);
}
}
This works wonderful, but I'm wondering: can the algorithm be made any faster? Right now, for every triangle in the scene, I have to calculate three normals.
float length = 1 / sqrtf(GetSquaredLength());
x *= length;
y *= length;
z *= length;
Even with a fast reciprocal square root approximation (1 / sqrt(x)) that's going to be very demanding.
My questions are thus:
Is there a good way to approximate the three normals?
What is this rendering technique called?
Can the three vertex points be approximated using the normal of the centroid? ((v0 + v1 + v2) / 3)
Thanks in advance.
P.S. "You will build a fully functional software rasterizer in the next seven weeks with the help of an expert in this field. Begin." I ADORE my education. :)
EDIT:
Vec2 projected;
// the plane is behind the camera
Vec3 plane_pos = m_Position + (m_Direction * m_ScreenDistance);
float scale = m_ScreenDistance / (m_Position - plane_pos).GetSquaredLength();
// times -100 because of the squared length instead of the length
// (which would involve a squared root)
projected.x = a_Point.GetDotProduct(m_Axis[0]).x * scale * -100;
projected.y = a_Point.GetDotProduct(m_Axis[1]).y * scale * -100;
return projected;
This returns the correct results, however the model is now independent of the camera position. :(
It's a lot shorter and faster though!
This is called a ray-tracer - a rather typical assignment for a first computer graphics course* - and you can find a lot of interesting implementation details on the classic Foley/Van Damm textbook (Computer Graphics Principes and Practice). I strongly suggest you buy/borrow this textbook and read it carefully.
*Just wait until you get started on reflections and refraction... Now the fun begins!
It is difficult to understand exactly what your code doing, because it seems to be performing a lot of redundant operations! However, if I understand what you say you're trying to do, you are:
finding the vector from the pinhole to the point
normalizing it
projecting backwards along the normalized vector to an "image plane" (behind the pinhole, natch!)
finding the vector to this point from a central point on the image plane
doing dot products on the result with "axis" vectors to find the x and y screen coordinates
If the above description represents your intentions, then the normalization should be redundant -- you shouldn't have to do it at all! If removing the normalization gives you bad results, you are probably doing something slightly different from your stated plan... in other words, it seems likely that you have confused yourself along with me, and that the normalization step is "fixing" it to the extent that it looks good enough in your test cases, even though it probably still isn't doing quite what you want it to.
The overall problem, I think, is that your code is massively overengineered: you are writing all your high-level vector algebra as code to be executed in the inner loop. The way to optimize this is to work out all your vector algebra on paper, find the simplest expression possible for your inner loop, and precompute all the necessary constants for this at camera setup time. The pinhole camera specs would only be the inputs to the camera setup routine.
Unfortunately, unless I miss my guess, this should reduce your pinhole camera to the traditional, boring old matrix calculations. (ray tracing does make it easy to do cool nonstandard camera stuff -- but what you describe should end up perfectly standard...)
Your code is a little unclear to me (plane_pos?), but it does seem that you could cut out some unnecessary calculation.
Instead of normalizing the ray (scaling it to length 1), why not scale it so that the z component is equal to the distance from the camera to the plane-- in fact, scale x and y by this factor, you don't need z.
float scale = distance_to_plane/z;
x *= scale;
y *= scale;
This will give the x and y coordinates on the plane, no sqrt(), no dot products.
Well, off the bat, you can calculate normals for every triangle when your program starts up. Then when you're actually running, you just have to access the normals. This sort of startup calculation to save costs later tends to happen a lot in graphics. This is why we have large loading screens in a lot of our video games!