Related
I have a rectangle that I place on the screen using a simple scale matrix (S). Now I would like to place this rectangle into "3D space", but have it appear just like before on the screen. I found that I can do so by applying the view and projection matrices in inverse. Something like:
S' = (V⁻¹ P⁻¹ S)
Matrix = P V (V⁻¹ P⁻¹ S)
This works fine so far. My rectangle is like a billboard now and I can treat it like any other object, apply P and V and it will show up correctly. However, there is a degeneracy here: I don't specify at which depth the object is placed. It could be twice as far away but x times bigger!
The reason that this is important is that I want to animate the rectangle, say rotate it around the Z axis or move in 3D space. Then I want it to come to a stop and be positioned pixel-perfect on the screen.
How can I place a flat object at a given z distance, such that it appears on screen in a certain way? I already have with the scale matrix that I need to display it in OpenGL without any 3D transformation, that is the matrix for displaying it in NDC or screen coordinates. I also have the projection and view matrices I want to use. How can I go from this to the desired model matrix?
How can I place a flat object at a given z distance, such that it appears on screen in a certain way [...]
Actually you want to draw the object in view space. Define a model matrix for the object that contains only one translation component (0, 0, -z) and skip the view matrix when drawing the object.
Usually the order to transform 3D vertex v to 2D point p is written as a matrix multiplication. [Depending on the API you are using, the order might be reversed. The notation I used here is glsl - friendly]
p = P * V * M * S * v
v = vertex (usually 3D of the form x,y,z,1)
P = projection matrix
V = view (camera) matrix
M = model matrix (or world transformation)
S is a 4x4 object-scaling matrix
matrices are usually 4x4 with the last line/column 0,0,0,1
The model matrix M can be decomposed into a number of sub components such as T translation, S scale and R rotation. Of course here the order matters.
To rotate an object or vertex around itself, first rotate it (as if it is at the origin already) and then translate it to the position it needs to be, for example using vector v with coordinates (x,y,z).
R is a typical 3x3 rotation matrix embedded in a 4x4 with 0,0,0,1 on the last line
v is a 3D vector with coordinates (x,y,z)
T is a 4x4 translation matrix, all zeroes except the last column where it has x,y,z,1
M = T * R (first R, then T)
To rotate an object around an arbitrary point q, first translate it so that it is relative to that point (i.e. q is at the origin, so you subtracted q from v). Then rotate around q (at the origin) by applying R. Lastly place the object it back where it should be (so add q again).
R is your typical 3x3 rotation matrix embedded in a 4x4 with 0,0,0,1 on the last line
v is a 3D vector with coordinates (x,y,z)
T is a 4x4 translation matrix, all zeroes except the last column where it has x,y,z,1
L is another 4x4 translation matrix, but now with q instead of v
L' is the inverse transformation of L
M = T * L * R * L'
Also, scaling your object first (i.e. S is at the end of the multiplications) before translations will keep the translation in world units. Scale after all transformations, in fact scales all translations too, and the object will move over scaled distances.
Firstly, if you would like an explanation of the GLM lookAt algorithm, please look at the answer provided on this question: https://stackoverflow.com/a/19740748/1525061
mat4x4 lookAt(vec3 const & eye, vec3 const & center, vec3 const & up)
{
vec3 f = normalize(center - eye);
vec3 u = normalize(up);
vec3 s = normalize(cross(f, u));
u = cross(s, f);
mat4x4 Result(1);
Result[0][0] = s.x;
Result[1][0] = s.y;
Result[2][0] = s.z;
Result[0][1] = u.x;
Result[1][1] = u.y;
Result[2][1] = u.z;
Result[0][2] =-f.x;
Result[1][2] =-f.y;
Result[2][2] =-f.z;
Result[3][0] =-dot(s, eye);
Result[3][1] =-dot(u, eye);
Result[3][2] = dot(f, eye);
return Result;
}
Now I'm going to tell you why I seem to be having a conceptual issue with this algorithm. There are two parts to this view matrix, the translation and the rotation. The translation does the correct inverse transformation, bringing the camera position to the origin, instead of the origin position to the camera. Similarly, you expect the rotation that the camera defines to be inversed before being put into this view matrix as well. I can't see that happening here, that's my issue.
Consider the forward vector, this is where your camera looks at. Consequently, this forward vector needs to be mapped to the -Z axis, which is the forward direction used by openGL. The way this view matrix is suppose to work is by creating an orthonormal basis in the columns of the view matrix, so when you multiply a vertex on the right hand side of this matrix, you are essentially just converting it's coordinates to that of different axes.
When I play the rotation that occurs as a result of this transformation in my mind, I see a rotation that is not the inverse rotation of the camera, like what's suppose to happen, rather I see the non-inverse. That is, instead of finding the camera forward being mapped to the -Z axis, I find the -Z axis being mapped to the camera forward.
If you don't understand what I mean, consider a 2D example of the same type of thing that is happening here. Let's say the forward vector is (sqr(2)/2 , sqr(2)/2), or sin/cos of 45 degrees, and let's also say a side vector for this 2D camera is sin/cos of -45 degrees. We want to map this forward vector to (0,1), the positive Y axis. The positive Y axis can be thought of as the analogy to the -Z axis in openGL space. Let's consider a vertex in the same direction as our forward vector, namely (1,1). By using the logic of GLM.lookAt, we should be able to map (1,1) to the Y axis by using a 2x2 matrix that consists of the forward vector in the first column and the side vector in the second column. This is an equivalent calculation of that calculation http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28sqr%282%29%2F2+%2C+sqr%282%29%2F2%29++1+%2B+%28sqr%282%29%2F2%2C+-sqr%282%29%2F2+%29+1.
Note that you don't get your (1,1) vertex mapped the positive Y axis like you wanted, instead you have it mapped to the positive X axis. You might also consider what happened to a vertex that was on the positive Y axis if you applied this transformation. Sure enough, it is transformed to the forward vector.
Therefore it seems like something very fishy is going on with the GLM algorithm. However, I doubt this algorithm is incorrect since it is so popular. What am I missing?
Have a look at GLU source code in Mesa: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/glu/tree/src/libutil/project.c
First in the implementation of gluPerspective, notice the -1 is using the indices [2][3] and the -2 * zNear * zFar / (zFar - zNear) is using [3][2]. This implies that the indexing is [column][row].
Now in the implementation of gluLookAt, the first row is set to side, the next one to up and the final one to -forward. This gives you the rotation matrix which is post-multiplied by the translation that brings the eye to the origin.
GLM seems to be using the same [column][row] indexing (from the code). And the piece you just posted for lookAt is consistent with the more standard gluLookAt (including the translational part). So at least GLM and GLU agree.
Let's then derive the full construction step by step. Noting C the center position and E the eye position.
Move the whole scene to put the eye position at the origin, i.e. apply a translation of -E.
Rotate the scene to align the axes of the camera with the standard (x, y, z) axes.
2.1 Compute a positive orthonormal basis for the camera:
f = normalize(C - E) (pointing towards the center)
s = normalize(f x u) (pointing to the right side of the eye)
u = s x f (pointing up)
with this, (s, u, -f) is a positive orthonormal basis for the camera.
2.2 Find the rotation matrix R that aligns maps the (s, u, -f) axes to the standard ones (x, y, z). The inverse rotation matrix R^-1 does the opposite and aligns the standard axes to the camera ones, which by definition means that:
(sx ux -fx)
R^-1 = (sy uy -fy)
(sz uz -fz)
Since R^-1 = R^T, we have:
( sx sy sz)
R = ( ux uy uz)
(-fx -fy -fz)
Combine the translation with the rotation. A point M is mapped by the "look at" transform to R (M - E) = R M - R E = R M + t. So the final 4x4 transform matrix for "look at" is indeed:
( sx sy sz tx ) ( sx sy sz -s.E )
L = ( ux uy uz ty ) = ( ux uy uz -u.E )
(-fx -fy -fz tz ) (-fx -fy -fz f.E )
( 0 0 0 1 ) ( 0 0 0 1 )
So when you write:
That is, instead of finding the camera forward being mapped to the -Z
axis, I find the -Z axis being mapped to the camera forward.
it is very surprising, because by construction, the "look at" transform maps the camera forward axis to the -z axis. This "look at" transform should be thought as moving the whole scene to align the camera with the standard origin/axes, it's really what it does.
Using your 2D example:
By using the logic of GLM.lookAt, we should be able to map (1,1) to the Y
axis by using a 2x2 matrix that consists of the forward vector in the
first column and the side vector in the second column.
That's the opposite, following the construction I described, you need a 2x2 matrix with the forward and row vector as rows and not columns to map (1, 1) and the other vector to the y and x axes. To use the definition of the matrix coefficients, you need to have the images of the standard basis vectors by your transform. This gives directly the columns of the matrix. But since what you are looking for is the opposite (mapping your vectors to the standard basis vectors), you have to invert the transformation (transpose, since it's a rotation). And your reference vectors then become rows and not columns.
These guys might give some further insights to your fishy issue:
glm::lookAt vertical camera flips when z <= 0
The answer might be of interest to you?
I'm currently attempting to draw a 3d representation of euler angles within a 2d image (no opengl or 3d graphic windows). The image output can be similar to as below.
Essentially I am looking for research or an algorithm which can take a Rotation Matrix or a set of Euler angles and then output them onto a 2d image, like above. This will be implemented in a C++ application that uses OpenCV. It will be used to output annotation information on a OpenCV window based on the state of the object.
I think I'm over thinking this because I should be able to decompose the unit vectors from a rotation matrix and then extract their x,y components and draw a line in cartesian space from (0,0). Am i correct in this thinking?
EDIT: I'm looking for an Orthographic Projection. You can assume the image above has the correct camera/viewing angle.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
EDIT: The example source code can now be found in my repo.
Header: https://bitbucket.org/jluzwick/tennisspindetector/src/6261524425e8d80772a58fdda76921edb53b4d18/include/projection_matrix.h?at=master
Class Definitions: https://bitbucket.org/jluzwick/tennisspindetector/src/6261524425e8d80772a58fdda76921edb53b4d18/src/projection_matrix.cpp?at=master
It's not the best code but it works and shows the steps necessary to get the projection matrix described in the accepted answer.
Also here is a youtube vid of the projection matrix in action (along with scale and translation added): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSgTFBFb_68
Here are my two cents. Hope it helps.
If I understand correctly, you want to rotate 3D system of coordinates and then project it orthogonally onto a given 2D plane (2D plane is defined with respect to the original, unrotated 3D system of coordinates).
"Rotating and projecting 3D system of coordinates" is "rotating three 3D basis vectors and projecting them orthogonally onto a 2D plane so they become 2D vectors with respect to 2D basis of the plane". Let the original 3D vectors be unprimed and the resulting 2D vectors be primed. Let {e1, e2, e3} = {e1..3} be 3D orthonormal basis (which is given), and {e1', e2'} = {e1..2'} be 2D orthonormal basis (which we have to define). Essentially, we need to find such operator PR that PR * v = v'.
While we can talk a lot about linear algebra, operators and matrix representation, it'd be too long of a post. It'll suffice to say that :
For both 3D rotation and 3D->2D projection operators there are real matrix representations (linear transformations; 2D is subspace of 3D).
These are two transformations applied consequently, i.e. PR * v = P * R * v = v', so we need to find rotation matrix R and projection matrix P. Clearly, after we rotated v using R, we can project the result vector vR using P.
You have the rotation matrix R already, so we consider it is a given 3x3 matrix. So for simplicity we will talk about projecting vector vR = R * v.
Projection matrix P is a 2x3 matrix with i-th column being a projection of i-th 3D basis vector ei onto {e1..2'} basis.
Let's find P projection matrix such as a 3D vector vR is linearly transformed into 2D vector v' on a 2D plane with an orthonormal basis {e1..2'}.
A 2D plane can be easily defined by a vector normal to it. For example, from the figures in the OP, it seems that our 2D plane (the plane of the paper) has normal unit vector n = 1/sqrt(3) * ( 1, 1, 1 ). We need to find a 2D basis in the 2D plane defined by this n. Since any two linearly independent vectors lying in our 2D plane would form such basis, here are infinite number of such basis. From the problem's geometry and for the sake of simplicity, let's impose two additional conditions: first, the basis should be orthonormal; second, should be visually appealing (although, this is somewhat a subjective condition). As it can be easily seen, such basis is formed trivially in the primed system by setting e1' = ( 1, 0 )' = x'-axis (horizontal, positive direction from left to right) and e2' = ( 0, 1 )' = y'-axis (vertical, positive direction from bottom to top).
Let's now find this {e1', e2'} 2D basis in {e1..3} 3D basis.
Let's denote e1' and e2' as e1" and e2" in the original basis. Noting that in our case e1" has no e3-component (z-component), and using the fact that n dot e1" = 0, we get that e1' = ( 1, 0 )' -> e1" = ( -1/sqrt(2), 1/sqrt(2), 0 ) in the {e1..3} basis. Here, dot denotes dot-product.
Then e2" = n cross e1" = ( -1/sqrt(6), -1/sqrt(6), 2/sqrt(6) ). Here, cross denotes cross-product.
The 2x3 projection matrix P for the 2D plane defined by n = 1/sqrt(3) * ( 1, 1, 1 ) is then given by:
( -1/sqrt(2) 1/sqrt(2) 0 )
( -1/sqrt(6) -1/sqrt(6) 2/sqrt(6) )
where first, second and third columns are transformed {e1..3} 3D basis onto our 2D basis {e1..2'}, i.e. e1 = ( 1, 0, 0 ) from 3D basis has coordinates ( -1/sqrt(2), -1/sqrt(6) ) in our 2D basis, and so on.
To verify the result we can check few obvious cases:
n is orthogonal to our 2D plane, so there should be no projection. Indeed, P * n = P * ( 1, 1, 1 ) = 0.
e1, e2 and e3 should be transformed into their representation in {e1..2'}, namely corresponding column in P matrix. Indeed, P * e1 = P * ( 1, 0 ,0 ) = ( -1/sqrt(2), -1/sqrt(6) ) and so on.
To finalize the problem. We now constructed a projection matrix P from 3D into 2D for an arbitrarily chosen 2D plane. We now can project any vector, previously rotated by rotation matrix R, onto this plane. For example, rotated original basis {R * e1, R * e2, R * e3}. Moreover, we can multiply given P and R to get a rotation-projection transformation matrix PR = P * R.
P.S. C++ implementation is left as a homework exercise ;).
The rotation matrix will be easy to display,
A Rotation matrix can be constructed by using a normal, binormal and tangent.
You should be able to get them back out as follows:-
Bi-Normal (y') : matrix[0][0], matrix[0][1], matrix[0][2]
Normal (z') : matrix[1][0], matrix[1][1], matrix[1][2]
Tangent (x') : matrix[2][0], matrix[2][1], matrix[2][2]
Using a perspective transform you can the add perspective (x,y) = (x/z, y/z)
To acheive an orthographic project similar to that shown you will need to multiply by another fixed rotation matrix to move to the "camera" view (45° right and then up)
You can then multiply your end points x(1,0,0),y(0,1,0),z(0,0,1) and center(0,0,0) by the final matrix, use only the x,y coordinates.
center should always transform to 0,0,0
You can then scale these values to draw to you 2D canvas.
I know perspective division is done by dividing x,y, and z by w, to get normalized device coordinates. But I am not able to understand the purpose of doing that. Also, does it have anything to do with clipping?
Some details that complement the general answers:
The idea is to project a point (x,y,z) on screen to have (xs,ys,d).
The next figure shows this for the y coordinate.
We know from school that
tan(alpha) = ys / d = y / z
This means that the projection is computed as
ys = d*y/z = y /w
w = z / d
This is enough to apply a projection.
However in OpenGL, you want (xs,ys,zs) to be normalized device coordinates in [-1,1] and yes this has something to do with clipping.
The extrema values for (xs,ys,zs) represent the unit cube and everything outside it will be clipped.
So a projection matrix usually takes into consideration the clipping limits (Frustum) to make a single transformation that, with the perspective division, simultaneously apply a projection and transform the projected coordinates along with the z to normalized device coordinates.
I mean why do we need that?
In layman terms: To make perspective distortion work. In a perspective projection matrix, the Z coordinate gets "mixed" into the W output component. So the smaller the value of the Z coordinate, i.e. the closer to the origin, the more things get scaled up, i.e. bigger on screen.
To really distill it to the basic concept, and why the op is division (instead of e.g. square root or some such), consider that an object twice as far should appear with dimensions exactly one half as large. Obtain 1/2 from 2 by... division.
There are many geometric ways to arrive at the same conclusion. A diagram serves as visual proof for this, really.
Dividing x, y, z by w is a "trick" you do with "homogeneous coordinates". To convert a R⁴ vector back to R³ by dividing by the 4th component (or w component as you said). A process called dehomogenizing.
Why you use homogeneous coordinate? That topic is a little bit more involved, I try to explain. I hope I do it justice.
However I will use the x1, x2, x3, x4 as the components of a vector instead of x, y, z, w:
Consider a 3x3 Matrix M and column vectors x, a, b, c of R³. x=(x1, x2, x3) and x1,x2,x3 being scalars or components of x.
With the 3x3 Matrix can do all linear transformations on a vector x you could do with the linear combination:
x' = x1*a + x2*b + x3*c (1).
(x' is the transformed vector that holds the result of transforming x).
Khan Academy on his Course Linear Algebra has a section explaining the fact that every linear transformation can be written as a matrix product with a vector.
You can try this out for example by putting the column vectors a, b, c in the columns of the Matrix M = [ a b c ].
So with the matrix product you essentially get the upper linear combination:
x' = M * x = [a b c] * x = a*x1 + b*x2 + c*x3 (2).
However this operation only accounts for rotation, scaling and shearing transformations. The origin (0, 0, 0) will always stay at (0, 0, 0).
For this you need another kind of transformation named "translation" (moving a vector or adding a vector to the vector).
Consider the translation column vector t = (t1, t2, t3) and the linear combination
x' = x1*a + x2*b + x3*c + t (3).
With this linear combination you can translate, rotate, scale and shear a vector. As you can see this Linear Combination does actually move the origin vector (0, 0, 0) to (0+t1, 0+t2, 0+t3).
However you can't put this translation into a 3x3 Matrix.
So what Graphics Programmers or Mathematicians came up with is adding another dimension to the Matrix and Vectors like this:
M is 4x4 Matrix, x~ vector in R⁴ with x~=(x1, x2, x3, x4). a, b, c, t also being column vectors of R⁴ (last components of a,b,c being 0 and last component for t being 1 - I keep the names the same to later show the similarity between homogeneous linear combination and (3) ). x~ is the homogeneous coordinate of x.
Now watch what happens if we take a vector x of R³ and put it into x~ of R⁴.
This vector will be in homogeneous coordinates in R⁴ x~=(x1, x2, x3, 1). The last component simply being 1 if it is a point and 0 if it's simply a direction (which couldn't be translated anyway).
So you have the linear combination:
x~' = M * x = [a b c t] * x = x1*a + x2*b + x3*c + x4*t (4).
(x~' is the result vector when transforming the homogeneous vector x~)
Since we took a vector from R³ and put it into R⁴ our x4 component is 1 we have:
x~' = x1*a + x2*b + x3*c + 1*t
<=> x~' = x1*a + x2*b + x3*c + t (5).
which is exactly the upper linear transformation (3) with the translation t. This is called an affine transformation (linear transf. + translation).
So with a 3x3 Matrix and a vector of R³ you couldn't do translations. However adding another dimension having a vector in R⁴ and a Matrix in R^4x4 you actually can do it.
However when you want to return to R³ you have to divide the first components with the last one. This is called "dehomogenizing". Which is the the x4 component or in your variable naming the w-component. So x is the original coordinate in R³. Be x~ in R⁴ and the homogenized vector of x. And x' in R³ of x~.
x' = (x1/x4, x2/x4, x3/x4) (6).
Then x' is the dehomogenized vector of the vector x~.
Coming back to perspective division:
(I will leave it out, because many here have explained the divide by z already. It's because of the relationship of a right triangle, being similar which leads you to simplify that with a given focal length f a z values with y coordinate lands at y' = f*y/z. Also since you stated [I hope I didn't misread that you already know why this is done I simply leave a link to a YT-Video here, I find it very well explained on the course lecture CMU 15-462/662 ).
When dehomogenizing the division by the w-component is a pretty handy property when returning to R³. When you apply homogeneous perspective Matrix of 4x4 on a vector you simply put the z component into the w component and let the dehomogenizing process (as in (6) ) perform the perspective divide. So you can setup the w-Component in a way that the division by w divides by z and also maps the values from 0 to 1 (basically you put the range of z-near to z-far values into a range floating points are precise at).
This is also described by Ravi Ramamoorthi in his Course CSE167 when he explains how to set up the perspective projection matrix.
I hope this helped to understand the rational of putting z into the w component. Sorry for my horrible formatting and lengthy text. Yet I hope it helped more than it confused.
Best of luck!
Actually, via standard notational convention from a 4x4 perspective matrix with sightline along a 'z' direction, 'w' differs by 1 from the distance ratio. Also that ratio, though interpreted correctly, is normally expressed as -z/d where 'z' is negative (therefore producing the correct ratio) because, again, in common notational convention, the camera is looking in the negative 'z' direction.
The reason for the offset by 1 needs to be explained. Many references put the origin at the image plane rather than the center of projection. With that convention (again with the camera looking along the negative 'z' direction) the distance labeled 'z' in the similar triangles diagram is thereby replaced by (d-z). Then substituting that for 'z' the expression for 'w' becomes, instead of 'z/d', (d-z)/d = [1-z/d]. To some these conventions may seem unorthodox but they are quite popular among analysts.
I'm studying perspective projections and I stumbled upon this concept:
Basically it says that if I have a point (x,y,z) I can project it into my perspective screen (camera space) by doing
x' = x/z
y' = y/z
z' = f(z-n) / z(f-n)
I can't understand why x' = x/z or y' = y/z
Geometrically, it is a matter of similar triangles.
In your diagram, because (x,y,x) is on the same dotted line as (x',y',z'):
triangle [(0,0,0), (0,0,z), (x,y,z)]
is similar to
triangle [(0,0,0), (0,0,z'), (x',y',z')]
This means that the corresponding sides have a fixed ratio. And, further, the original vector is proportional to the projected vector. Finally, note that the notional projection plane is at z' = 1:
(x,y,z) / z = (x',y',z') / z'
-> so, since z' = 1:
x'/z' = x' = x/z
y'/z' = y' = y/z
[Warning: note that the z' in my answer is different from its occurrence in the question. The question's z' = f(z-n) / z(f-n) doesn't correspond directly to a physical point: it is a "depth value", which is used to do things like hidden surface removal.]
One way to look at this, is that what you are trying to do, is intersect a line which passes through both the viewer position (assumed to be at the origin: 0,0,0), and the point in space you wish to project (P).
So you take the equation of the line, which is P' = P * a, where a is simply a scalar value and solve for P'.Z = 1 (which is where your projection plane is). This is trivially true when the scalar multiple is 1 / P.Z, so the projected point is (P.X, P.Y, P.Z) * (1 / P.Z)
Homogenous coordinates give us the power to represent a point/line at infinity.
we add 1 to the vector representation. The more the distance of a point in 3d space, It tends to move toward the optical centre.
cartesian to homogenous
p=(x,y)to(x,y,1)
homogenous to cartesian
(X, Y, Z)to(X/Z, Y/Z)
For instance,
1. you are travelling in an aeroplane and when you look down, it doesn't seem like points move faster from one instant to another. This is distance is very large, Distance =1/Disparity(drift of the same point in two frames).
2. Try with substituting Infinity in the disparity, it means distance is 0.