I implemented a grid of vectors in 2D (in Obj-C actually, but I guess it's not really language dependent) which I'm able to fill with Simplex noise for example, to generate a flow field for particles.
I've been searching around and googling a lot, but as I'm not a mathematics expert I can't find a way to fill my grid with a Vortex (or at least a circular) flow field.
For the circle flow I thought about getting my vectors from tangents of circles getting from the outer grid lines to the inner ones.
But, for the vortex I just can't find any solution by myself.
The vortex is supposed to be symmetric and centered in my grid, but if there's an easy way to make it asymmetric in the same grid, well...
Still some questions marks on the field. But if i get you right it is a velocity field you want. In other words a velocity in each vertex.
For circular field you only need to take the orthogonal relative position vector to create a to get a circular field.
v_t = (Py-Ry,Rx-Px)
where P is the position of the vertex and R is the center of the field. The suffix x and y is just the corresponding coordinates.
To add a radial component to the velocity field just add some velocity in the radial direction. I can't tell if this will be stable when you simulate.
The radial direction is easily described as
v_r = (Rx-Px,Ry-Py)
and the use
v = a*v_r+(1-a)*v_t
with a good value for a, probably rather low.
Related
I have got a binary image/contour containing four human beings, and I want to detect/count all humans. Since there are occlusions, so I think it is best to get the head/maxima in the contour of all the humans. In that case human can be counted.
I am able to get the global maxima\topmost point (in terms of calculus language), but I want to get all the local maximas
The code for finding the topmost point is as suggested by Adrian in his blogpost i.e.:
topmost = tuple(biggest_contour[biggest_contour[:,:,1].argmin()][0])
Can anyone please suggest how to get all the local maximas, instead of just topmost location?
Here is the sample of my Image:
The definition of "local maximum" can be tricky to pin down, but if you start with a simple method you'll develop an intuition to look further. Even if there are methods available on the web to do this work for you, it's worth implementing a few basic techniques yourself before you go googling.
One simple method I've used in the path goes something like this:
Find the contours as arrays/lists/containers of (x,y) coordinates.
At each element N (a pixel) in the list, get the pixels at N - D and N + D; that is the pixels D ahead of the current pixel and D behind the current pixel
Calculate the point-to-point distance
Calculate the distance along the contour from N-D to N+D
Calculate (distanceAlongContour)/(point-to-point distance)
...
There are numerous other ways to do this, but this is quick to implement from scratch, and I think a reasonable starting point: Compare the "geodesic" distance and the Euclidean distance.
A few other possibilities:
Do a bunch of curve fits to chunks of pixels from the contour. (Lots of details to investigate here.)
Use Ramer-Puecker-Douglas to render the outlines as polygons, then choose parameters to ensure those polygons are appropriately simplified. (Second time I've mentioned R-P-D today; it's handy.) Check for vertices with angles that deviate much from 180 degrees.
Try a corner detector. Crude, but easy to implement.
Implement an edge follower that moves from one pixel to the next in the contour list, and calculate some kind of "inertia" as the pixel shifts direction. This wouldn't be useful on a pixel-by-pixel basis, but you could compare, say, pixels N-1,N,N+1 to pixels N+1,N+2,N+3. Or just calculate the angle between them.
There a is an ellipse on the picture,just as following.
I have got the points of the contour by using opencv. But you can see the pictrue,because the resolution is low, there is a straight line on the contour.How can i fit it into curve like the blue line?
One Of the method to solve your problem is to vectorize your shape (moving from simple intensity space to vectors space).
I am not aware of the state-of-art in this field. However, from school information, I can suggest this solution.
Bezier curves, you can try to model your shape using simple bezier curve.This is not a hard operation you can google for dozen of them. Then, you can resizing it as much as you want after that you may render it to simple image.
Be aware that you may also Splines instead of Bezier.
Another method would be more simple but less efficient. Since you mentioned OpenCV, you can apply the cv::fitEllipse on the points. Be aware that this will return a RotatedRect which contains the ellipse. You can infer your ellipse simply like this:
Center = Center of RotatedRect.
Longest Radius = The Line which pass from the center and intersect with the two small sides of the RotatedRect.
Smallest Radius = The Line which pass from the center and intersect with the two long sides of the RotatedRect.
After you got your Ellipse Parameters, You can resize it as you want then just repaint it in the size you want using cv::ellipse.
I know that this is a pseudo answer. However, I think every thing is easy to apply. If you faced any problem implementing it, just give me a comment.
I have an algorithmic problem on a Cartesian plane.. I need to efficiently search for geometric shapes that intersect with a given point. There are several shapes(rectangle, circle, triangle and polygon) but those are not important, because the determining the actual point inclusion is not a problem here, I will implement those on my own. The problem lies in determining which shapes need to be verified for the inclusion with the given point. Iterating through all of my shapes on plane and running the point inclusion method on each one of them is inefficient as the number of instances of shapes will be quite large. My first idea was to divide the plane for segments(the plane is finite, but too large for any kind of 3D array) and when adding a shape to the database, i would determine which segments it would intersect with and save them within object of the shape. Then when the point for inclusion verification is given, I would only need to determine the segment in which the point is located and then verify the inclusion only with objects which intersect with that segment.
Is that the way to go? I don't know if the method I described is optimal or if i am not missing something. Any help would be appreciated..
Thanks in advance
P.S.: I will be writing this in C++. That is not really relevant as it is more of an algorithmic problem but I wanted to put that out if someone was curious...
The gridding approach can be used here.
See the plane as a raster image where you draw all your shapes using a scan conversion algorithm, making sure that all pixels even partially covered are filled. For every image pixel, keep a list of the shapes that filled it.
A query is then straightforward: find the pixel where the query point falls in time O(1) and check every shape in the list, in time O(K), where K is the list length, approximately equal to the number of intersecting shapes.
If your image is made of N² pixels and you have M objects having an average area A pixels, you will need to store N²+M.A list elements (a shape identifier + a link to the next). You will choose the pixel size to achieve a good compromise between accuracy and storage cost. In any case, you must limit yourself to N²<Q.M, where Q is the total number of queries, otherwise the cost of just initializing the image could exceed the total query time.
In case your scene is very sparse (more voids than shapes), you can use a compressed representation of the image, using a quadtree.
I am using OpenTK(OpenGL) and a general hint will be helpful.
I have a 3d terrain. I have one point on this terrain O(x,y,z) and two perpendicular lines passing through this point that will serve as my X and Y axes.
Now I have a set of 2d points with are in polar coordinates (range,theta). I need to find which points on the terrain correspond to these points. I am not sure what is the best way to do it. I can think of two ideas:
Lets say I am drawing A(x1,y1).
Find the intersection of plane passing through O and A which is perpendicular to the XY plane. This will give me a polyline (semantics may be off). Now on this line, I find a point that is visible from O and is at a distance of the range.
Create a circle which is perpendicular to the XY plane with radius "range", find intersection points on the terrain, find which ones are visible from O and drop rest.
I understand I can find several points which satisfy the conditions, so I will do further check based on topography, but for now I need to get a smaller set which satisfy this condition.
I am new to opengl, but I get geometry pretty well. I am wondering if something like this exists in opengl since it is a standard problem with ground measuring systems.
As you say, both of the options you present will give you more than the one point you need. As I understand your problem, you need only to perform a change of bases from polar coordinates (r, angle) to cartesian coordinates (x,y).
This is fairly straight forward to do. Assuming that the two coordinate spaces share the origin O and that the angle is measured from the x-axis, then point (r_i, angle_i) maps to x_i = r_i*cos(angle_i) and y_i = r_i*sin(angle_i). If those assumptions aren't correct (i.e. if the origins aren't coincident or the angle is not measured from a radii parallel to the x-axis), then the transformation is a bit more complicated but can still be done.
If your terrain is represented as a height map, or 2D array of heights (e.g. Terrain[x][y] = z), once you have the point in cartesian coordinates (x_i,y_i) you can find the height at that point. Of course (x_i, y_i) might not be exactly one of the [x] or [y] indices of the height map.
In that case, I think you have a few options:
Choose the closest (x,y) point and take that height; or
Interpolate the height at (x_i,y_i) based on the surrounding points in the height map.
Unfortunately I am also learning OpenGL and can not provide any specific insights there, but I hope this helps solve your problem.
Reading your description I see a bit of confusion... maybe.
You have defined point O(x,y,z). Fine, this is your pole for the 3D coordinate system. Then you want to find a point defined by polar coordinates. That's fine also - it gives you 2D location. Basically all you need to do is to pinpoint the location in 3D A'(x,y,0), because we are assuming you know the elevation of the A at (r,t), which you of course do from the terrain there.
Angle (t) can be measured only from one axis. Choose which axis will be your polar north and stick to. Then you measure r you have and - voila! - you have your location. What's the point of having 2D coordinate set if you don't use it? Instead, you're adding visibility to the mix - I assume it is important, but highest terrain point on azimuth (t) NOT NECESSARILY will be in the range (r).
You have specific coordinates. Just like RonL suggest, convert to (x,y), find (z) from actual terrain and be done with it.
Unless that's not what you need. But in that case a different question is in order: what do you look for?
I have some 3D Points that roughly, but clearly form a segment of a circle. I now have to determine the circle that fits best all the points. I think there has to be some sort of least squares best fit but I cant figure out how to start.
The points are sorted the way they would be situated on the circle. I also have an estimated curvature at each point.
I need the radius and the plane of the circle.
I have to work in c/c++ or use an extern script.
You could use a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to map your coordinates from three dimensions down to two dimensions.
Compute the PCA and project your data onto the first to principal components. You can then use any 2D algorithm to find the centre of the circle and its radius. Once these have been found/fitted, you can project the centre back into 3D coordinates.
Since your data is noisy, there will still be some data in the third dimension you squeezed out, but bear in mind that the PCA chooses this dimension such as to minimize the amount of data lost, i.e. by maximizing the amount of data that is represented in the first two components, so you should be safe.
A good algorithm for such data fitting is RANSAC (Random sample consensus). You can find a good description in the link so this is just a short outline of the important parts:
In your special case the model would be the 3D circle. To build this up pick three random non-colinear points from your set, compute the hyperplane they are embedded in (cross product), project the random points to the plane and then apply the usual 2D circle fitting. With this you get the circle center, radius and the hyperplane equation. Now it's easy to check the support by each of the remaining points. The support may be expressed as the distance from the circle that consists of two parts: The orthogonal distance from the plane and the distance from the circle boundary inside the plane.
Edit:
The reason because i would prefer RANSAC over ordinary Least-Squares(LS) is its superior stability in the case of heavy outliers. The following image is showing an example comparision of LS vs. RANSAC. While the ideal model line is created by RANSAC the dashed line is created by LS.
The arguably easiest algorithm is called Least-Square Curve Fitting.
You may want to check the math,
or look at similar questions, such as polynomial least squares for image curve fitting
However I'd rather use a library for doing it.