I'm looking for some simple and somehow efficient way to detect collisions of Nodes (not necessarily Sprites) while ignoring collisions of transparent parts of Nodes' images.
It is easy to implement bounding Rects collision... but it does not reflect the transparency.
There were published other approach named "Pixel-perfect"... ok, but I see it as inefficient and somehow complicated. In cases of full-hd and bigger displays...
I suppose it could be possible to yield some "non-transparent" masks of both sprites, get them only in intersect of their bounding rects and finally perform AND operation on those masks...
Please, did anybody see something similar? Or better? Can I yield transparent and non-transparent parts of image of node?
I also found this and this well. Not studied yet but now I'd like use cocos2d-js .... :)
Thanks a lot
Give quadtrees a try. The algorithm works by splitting nodes into 4 quadrants recursively into a list with likely collideables. There are plenty of resources about them.
I combined this with pixel perfect check. I'm afraid it's the only way to properly check images' collisions short of using the per pixel algorithm to create unique concave and convex shapes to represent the collision space and then using other algorithms (such as Minkowski portal refinement). However if you images change or are animated, your game can takr an equal performance hit.
Interestingly enough, pp intersection was used in games like pong, with much less processing power. Pp also gives the most accurate intersection as compared to other algorithns.
You can use physics collisions. And set-up physics body to repeat not-transparent part of the node.
Related
I'm using the ORB algorithm to detect and get the coordinates of the crossings of rope shown in the image, which is represented by the red dot. I want to detect the coordinates of the four points surrounding the crossing represented by the blue dots. All the four points have the same distance from the red spot.
Any idea how to get their coordinates by getting use of the red spot coordinate.
Thank you in Advance
Although you're using ORB, you're still going to need an algorithm to segment the rope from the background, or at least some technique to identify image chunks that belong to the rope and that are equidistant from the red dot. There are a number of options to explore.
It's important to consider your lighting & imaging as separate problems to be solved if this is meant to be a real-world application. This looks a bit like a problem for a class rather than for a application you'll sell and support, but you should still consider lighting:
Will your algorithm(s) still work when light level is reduced?
How will detection be affected by changes in camera pose relative to the surface where the rope will be located?
If you'll be detecting "black" rope, will the algorithm also be required to detect rope of different colors? dirty rope? rope on different backgrounds?
Since you're object of interest is rope, you have to consider a class of algorithms suitable for detection of non-rigid objects. Always consider the simplest solution first!
Connected Components
Connected components labeling is a traditional image processing algorithm and still suitable as the starting point for many applications. The last I knew, this was implemented in OpenCV as findContours(). This can also be called "blob finding" or some variant thereof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connected-component_labeling
https://docs.opencv.org/2.4/modules/imgproc/doc/structural_analysis_and_shape_descriptors.html?highlight=findcontours
Depending on lighting, you may have to take different steps to binarize the image before running connected components. As a start, convert the color image to grayscale, which will simplify the task significantly.
Try a manual threshold since you can quickly test a number of values to see the effect. Don't be too discouraged if the binarization isn't quite right--this can often be fixed with preprocessing.
If a range of manual thresholds works (e.g. 52 - 76 in an 8-bit grayscale range), then use an algorithm that will automatically calculate the threshold for you: Otsu, entropy-based methods, etc., will all offer comparable performance. Whichever technique works best, the code/algorithm can be tweaked further to optimize for your rope application.
If thresholding and binarization don't work--which for your rope application seems unlikely, at least how you've presented it--then switch to thinking in terms of gradient-based (edge-based, energy-based) techniques.
But assuming you can separate the rope from the background, you're still going to need a method to start at the red dot [within the rope] and move equal distances out to the blue points. More about that later after a discussion of other rope segmentation methods.
Note: connected components labeling can work in scenarios beyond just binarizing black & white images. If you can create a texture field or some other 2D representation of the image that makes it possible to distinguish the black rope from the relatively light background, you may be able to use a connected components algorithm. (Finding a "more complicated" or "more modern" algorithm isn't necessarily going to be the right approach.)
In a binarized image, blobs can be nested: on a white background you can have several black blobs, inside of one or more of which are white blobs, inside of which are black blobs, etc. An earlier version of OpenCV handled this reasonably well. (OpenCV is a nice starting point, and a touchpoint for many, but for a number of reasons it doesn't always compare favorably to other open source and commercial packages; popularity notwithstanding, OpenCV has some issues.)
Once you have a "blob" (a 4-connected region of pixels) in a 2D digital image, you can treat the blob as an object, at which point you have a number of options:
Edge tracing: trace around the inside and outside edges of the blob. From what I recall, OpenCV does (or at least should) have some relatively straightforward method to get the edges.
Split the blob into component blobs, each of which can be treated separately
Convert the blob to a polygon
...
A connected components algorithm should be high on the list of techniques to try if you have a non-rigid object.
Boolean Operations
Once you have the rope as a connected component (and possibly even without this), you can use boolean image operations to find the spots at the blue dots in your image:
Create a circular region in data, or even in the image
Find the intersection of the circle (an annulus) and the black region representing the rope. Using your original image, you should have four regions.
Find the center point of the intersection regions.
You could even try this without using connected components at all, but using connected components as part of the solution could make it more robust.
Polygon Simplification
If you have a blob, which in your application would be a connected set of black pixels representing the rope on the floor, then you can consider converting this blob to one or more polygons for further processing. There are advantages to working with polygons.
If you consider only the outside boundary of the rope, then you can see that the set of pixels defining the boundary represents a polygon. It's a polygon with a lot of points, and not a convex polygon, but a polygon nonetheless.
To simplify the polygon, you can use an algorithm such as Ramer-Douglas-Puecker:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramer%E2%80%93Douglas%E2%80%93Peucker_algorithm
Once you have a simplified polygon, you can try a few techniques to render useful data from the polygon
Angle Bisector Network
Triangulation (e.g. using ear clipping)
Triangulation is typically dependent on initial conditions, so the resulting triangulation for slighting different polygons (that is, rope -> blob -> polygon -> simplified polygon). So in your application it might be useful to triangulate the dark rope region, and then to connect the center of one triangle to the center of the next nearest triangle. You'll also have to deal with crossings, such as the rope overlap. Ultimately this can yield a "skeletonization" of the rope. Speaking of which...
Skeletonization
If the rope problem was posed to you as a class exercise, then it may have been a prompt to try skeletonization. You can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_skeleton
Skeletonization and thinning have their own problems to solve, but you should dig into them a bit and see those problems themselves.
The Medial Axis Transform (MAT) is a related concept. Long story there.
Edge-based techniques
There are a number of techniques to generate "edge images" based on edge strength, energy, entropy, etc. Making them robust takes a little effort. If you've had academic training in image processing you've likely heard of Harris, Sobel, Canny, and similar processing methods--none are magic bullets, but they're simple and dependable and will yield data you need.
An "edge image" consists of pixels representing the image gradient strength [and sometimes the gradient direction]. People may call this edge image something else, but it's the concept that matters.
What you then do with the edge data is another subject altogether. But one reason to think of edge images (or at least object borders) is that it reduces the amount of information your algorithm(s) will need to process.
Mean Shift (and related)
To get back to segmentation mentioned in the section on connected components, there are other methods for segmenting figures from a background: K-means, mean shift, and so on. You probably won't need any of those, but they're neat and worth studying.
Stroke Width Transform
This is an intriguing technique used to extract text from noisy backgrounds. Although it's intended for OCR, it could work for rope since the rope width is relatively constant, the rope shape varies, there are crossings, etc.
In short, and simplifying quite a bit, you can think of SWT as a means to find "strokes" (thick lines) by finding gradients antiparallel to each other. On either side of a stroke (or line), the edge gradient points normal to the object edge. The normal on one side of the stroke points opposite the direction of the normal on the other side of the stroke. By filtering for pixel-gradient pairs within a certain distance of each other, you can isolate certain strokes--even automatically. For your example the collection of points representing edge pairs for the rope would be much more common than other point pairs.
Non-Rigid Matching
There are techniques for matching non-rigid shapes, but they would not be worth exploring. If any of the techniques I mentioned above is unfamiliar to you, explore some of those first before you try any fancier algorithms.
CNNs, machine learning, etc.
Just don't even think of these methods as a starting point.
Other Considerations
If this were an application for industry, security, or whatnot, you'd have to determine how well your image processing worked under all environmental considerations. That's not an easy task, and can make all the difference between a setup that "works" in the lab and a setup that actually works in practice.
I hope that's of some help. Feel free to post a reply if I've confused more than helped, or if you want to explore some idea in more detail. Though I tried to touch on some common(ish) techniques, I didn't mention all the different ways of addressing this problem.
And briefly: once you have a skeleton, point network, or whatever representing a reduced data set for the rope and the red dot (the identified feature), a few techniques to find the items at the blue dots:
For a skeleton, trace along each "branch" of the rope outward from the know until the geodesic distance or straight-line 2D distance is the distance D that you want.
To use geometry, create a circle of width 1 - 2 pixels. Find the intersection of that circle and the rope. Find the center point of the intersections of circle and rope. (Also described above.)
Good luck!
I performed edge detection on images (with Python 2-7 and OpenCV 3.2) and have results like the following picture, i.e. one-pixel-wide edges not necessarily closed (can have "loose ends"), and with possible holes :
Now I would like to get the "derivative" of these edges, meaning the "slope" at each point, as in the following image :
For the moment, the only way I managed to do it is very locally. For each point of the edge (in red in next "zoomed" picture), I create a circle around it (in pink), mask the circle with the edge to get the red point's neighbors, then compute the slope of these two neighbors.
However, it can be quite messy if edges have holes (which they often do) or are close to other edges (which they often are) and masking all the points is pretty computationally intensive, so I wonder if there is a better way.
My first idea was spline interpolation, but you need to give as input an ordered list of points, which you can't have for a given edge unless you use a pixel neighbor tracking algorithm which can also get quite messy in case of not-that-good edges.
I also thought of findContours but it needs closed edges or else it yields the contour of a one-pixel-wide edge, i.e. two lines on both side of the edges, started at an arbitrary location on the edge, in short it's a mess.
Is there a cleaner and more efficient way than my actual method to achieve what I want ? Does OpenCV have any resources or is its job done after edge detection (I think the latter is more probable !) ?
P.S. : "I don't think there is a better way" is an answer I'm ready to accept !
So, if I understood everything correctly, what you need is an ordered list of your points free from holes, because after that it seems you know how to proceed to obtain your result. So, you should concentrate in getting an ordered gapless list.
FindContours does output an ordered list, but probably not in the order you need. It groups connected pixels with a TOP-DOWN / LEFT-RIGHT priority. So, it swipes each row sequentially, when it hits a white pixel, it finds the first contour. So, in your image, the first contour it finds is actually the one on the right, since it has the closest to 0 Y value.
In the case of this particular image, if you rotate it 90 degrees you'll realize that it will actually order your contours and points in the way you need. But will this always be the case? Only you can tell. If there is a pre-process method to apply to your images that will guarantee that findContours will order your pixels in the correct way, the rest will be easy. If not, I suggest you create your own pixel-connectivity algorithm that will work as you need it to, since all your problems depends on getting an ordered list.
Once you have the ordered list, just interpolate the missing pixels.
If you have an ordered set of pixels, "closing the gaps" is easy, since you just need to find the gaps and interpolate between them as an approximation that probably wont hurt your algorithm.
how to make marching squares proceed after it finds the first contour?
the contours in the image am working on are going to change quite often and because am in an embedded environment(android/ios) i would like a fast performance solution above all.
and using an external library isn't an option.
i tried connected component labeling but never got it to work as i have a PNG which isn't black and white (isn't thresholded) and if am not mistaken the CCL only works on black and white (binary) images.
i thought about saving the blob information to another vector and check if the newly found pixels fall within the earlier found blobs but i don't think that's fast enough as the vector gets filled with more and more blobs it gets more and more expensive to check every blob inside the vector.
which leaves me with my almost finished current approach which is erasing the contours i find and repeat until there's nothing left? but that's my currently used approach which seems expensive too.
and if there is no fast solution then can anyone suggest a different approach...even if that means a different algorithm.
Mark1: i chose marching squares because i only need the outline of the contours even if there are holes in theme.
i solved my problem by using an implementation of the marching squares algorithm that i found in the chipmunk2d physics library.
I have a path made up of a list of 2D points. I want to turn these into a strip of triangles in order to render a textured line with a specified thickness (and other such things). So essentially the list of 2D points need to become a list of vertices specifying the outline of a polygon that if rendered would render the line. The problem is handling the corner joins, miters, caps etc. The resulting polygon needs to be "perfect" in the sense of no overdraw, clean joins, etc. so that it could feasibly be extruded or otherwise toyed with.
Are there any simple resources around that can provide algorithm insight, code or any more information on doing this efficiently?
I absolutely DO NOT want a full fledged 2D vector library (cairo, antigrain, OpenVG, etc.) with curves, arcs, dashes and all the bells and whistles. I've been digging in multiple source trees for OpenVG implementations and other things to find some insight, but it's all terribly convoluted.
I'm definitely willing to code it myself, but there are many degenerate cases (small segments + thick widths + sharp corners) that create all kinds of join issues. Even a little help would save me hours of trying to deal with them all.
EDIT: Here's an example of one of those degenerate cases that causes ugliness if you were simply to go from vertex to vertex. Red is the original path. The orange blocks are rectangles drawn at a specified width aligned and centered on each segment.
Oh well - I've tried to solve that problem myself. I wasted two month on a solution that tried to solve the zero overdraw problem. As you've already found out you can't deal with all degenerated cases and have zero overdraw at the same time.
You can however use a hybrid approach:
Write yourself a routine that checks if the joins can be constructed from simple geometry without problems. To do so you have to check the join-angle, the width of the line and the length of the joined line-segments (line-segments that are shorter than their width are a PITA). With some heuristics you should be able to sort out all the trivial cases.
I don't know how your average line-data looks like, but in my case more than 90% of the wide lines had no degenerated cases.
For all other lines:
You've most probably already found out that if you tolerate overdraw, generating the geometry is a lot easier. Do so, and let a polygon CSG algorithm and a tesselation algorithm do the hard job.
I've evaluated most of the available tesselation packages, and I ended up with the GLU tesselator. It was fast, robust, never crashed (unlike most other algorithms). It was free and the license allowed me to include it in a commercial program. The quality and speed of the tesselation is okay. You will not get delaunay triangulation quality, but since you just need the triangles for rendering that's not a problem.
Since I disliked the tesselator API I lifted the tesselation code from the free SGI OpenGL reference implementation, rewrote the entire front-end and added memory pools to get the number of allocations down. It took two days to do this, but it was well worth it (like factor five performance improvement). The solution ended up in a commercial OpenVG implementation btw :-)
If you're rendering with OpenGL on a PC, you may want to move the tesselation/CSG-job from the CPU to the GPU and use stencil-buffer or z-buffer tricks to remove the overdraw. That's a lot easier and may be even faster than CPU tesselation.
I just found this amazing work:
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/226569/Drawing-polylines-by-tessellation
It seems to do exactly what you want, and its licence allows to use it even in commercial applications. Plus, the author did a truly great job to detail his method. I'll probably give it a shot at some point to replace my own not-nearly-as-perfect implementation.
A simple method off the top of my head.
Bisect the angle of each 2d Vertex, this will create a nice miter line. Then move along that line, both inward and outward, the amount of your "thickness" (or thickness divided by two?), you now have your inner and outer polygon points. Move to the next point, repeat the same process, building your new polygon points along the way. Then apply a triangualtion to get your render-ready vertexes.
I ended up having to get my hands dirty and write a small ribbonizer to solve a similar problem.
For me the issue was that I wanted fat lines in OpenGL that did not have the kinds of artifacts that I was seeing with OpenGL on the iPhone. After looking at various solutions; bezier curves and the like - I decided it was probably easiest to just make my own. There are a couple of different approaches.
One approach is to find the angle of intersection between two segments and then move along that intersection line a certain distance away from the surface and treat that as a ribbon vertex. I tried that and it did not look intuitive; the ribbon width would vary.
Another approach is to actually compute a normal to the surface of the line segments and use that to compute the ideal ribbon edge for that segment and to do actual intersection tests between ribbon segments. This worked well except that for sharp corners the ribbon line segment intersections were too far away ( if the inter-segment angle approached 180' ).
I worked around the sharp angle issue with two approaches. The Paul Bourke line intersection algorithm ( which I used in an unoptimized way ) suggested detecting if the intersection was inside of the segments. Since both segments are identical I only needed to test one of the segments for intersection. I could then arbitrate how to resolve this; either by fudging a best point between the two ends or by putting on an end cap - both approaches look good - the end cap approach may throw off the polygon front/back facing ordering for opengl.
See http://paulbourke.net/geometry/lineline2d/
See my source code here : https://gist.github.com/1474156
I'm interested in this too, since I want to perfect my mapping application's (Kosmos) drawing of roads. One workaround I used is to draw the polyline twice, once with a thicker line and once with a thinner, with a different color. But this is not really a polygon, it's just a quick way of simulating one. See some samples here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kosmos_Rendering_Help#Rendering_Options
I'm not sure if this is what you need.
I think I'd reach for a tessellation algorithm. It's true that in most case where these are used the aim is to reduce the number of vertexes to optimise rendering, but in your case you could parameterise to retain all the detail - and the possibility of optimising may come in useful.
There are numerous tessellation algorithms and code around on the web - I wrapped up a pure C on in a DLL a few years back for use with a Delphi landscape renderer, and they are not an uncommon subject for advanced graphics coding tutorials and the like.
See if Delaunay triangulation can help.
In my case I could afford to overdraw. I just drow circles with radius = width/2 centered on each of the polyline's vertices.
Artifacts are masked this way, and it is very easy to implement, if you can live with "rounded" corners and some overdrawing.
From your image it looks like that you are drawing box around line segments with FILL on and using orange color. Doing so is going to create bad overdraws for sure. So first thing to do would be not render black border and fill color can be opaque.
Why can't you use GL_LINES primitive to do what you intent to do? You can specify width, filtering, smoothness, texture anything. You can render all vertices using glDrawArrays(). I know this is not something you have in mind but as you are focusing on 2D drawing, this might be easier approach. (search for Textured lines etc.)
I am currently working on a data visualization project.My aim is to produce contour lines ,in other words iso-lines, from gridded data.Data can be temperature, weather data or any kind of other environmental parameters but only condition is it must be regularly spaced.
I searched in internet , however i could not find a good algorithm, pseudo-code or source code for producing contour lines from grids.
Does anybody knows a library, source code or an algorithm for producing contour lines from gridded data?
it will be good if your suggestion has a good run time performance, i don't want to wait my users so much :)
Edit: thanks for response but isolines have some constrains like they should not intersects
so just generating bezier curves does not accomplish my goal.
See this question: How to approximate a vector contour from an elevation raster?
It's a near duplicate, but uses quite different terminology. You'll find that cartography and computer graphics solve many of the same problems, but use different terminology for them.
there's some reasonably good contouring available in GNUplot - if you're able to use GPL code that may help.
If your data is placed at regular intervals, this can be done fairly easily (assuming I understand your problem correctly). First you need to determine at what interval you want your contours. Next create the grid you are going to use to store the contour information (i'm assuming just a simple on/off or elevation at this contour level type of data), which should be one interval smaller than the source data.
Now the trick here is to offset the 2 grids by 1/2 an interval (won't actually show up in code like this, but its the concept I'm dealing with here) and compare the 4 coordinates surrounding the current point in the contour data grid you are calculating. If any of the 4 points are in a different interval range, then that 'pixel' in the contour grid should be set to true (or the value of the contour range being crossed).
With this method, there will be a problem when the interval is too fine which will cause several contours to overlap onto each other.
As the link from Paul Tomblin suggests, Bezier curves (which are a subset of B-splines) are a ripe solution for your problem. If runtime performance is an issue, Bezier curves have the added benefit of being constructable via the very fast de Casteljau algorithm, instead of drawing them according to the parametric equations. On the off chance you're working with DirectX, it has a library function for the de Casteljau, but it should not be challenging to brew one yourself using the 1001 web pages that describe it.