Let's define a curve as set of 2D points which can be computed to arbitrary precision. For instance, this is a curve:
A set of N intersecting curves is given (N can be arbitrarily large), like in the following image:
How to find the perimeter of the connected area (a bounding box is given if necessary) which is delimited by the set of curves; or, given the example above, the red curve? Note that the perimeter can be concave and it has no obvious parametrization.
A starting point of the red curve can be given
I am interested in efficient ideas to build up a generic algorithm however...
I am coding in C++ and I can use any opensource library to help with this
I do not know if this problem has a name or if there is a ready-made solution, in case please let me know and I will edit the title and the tags.
Additional notes:
The solution is unique as in the region of interest there is only a single connected area which is free from any curve, but of course I can only compute a finite number of curves.
The curves are originally parametrized (and then affine transformations are applied), so I can add as many point as I want. I can compute distances, lengths and go along with them. Intersections are also feasible. Basically any geometric operation that can be built up from point coordinates is acceptable.
I have found that a similar problem is encountered when "cutting" gears eg. https://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=jas.2014.362.367, but still I do not see how to solve it in a decently efficient way.
If the curves are given in order, you can find the pairwise intersections between successive curves. Depending on their nature, an analytical or numerical solution will do.
Then a first approximation of the envelope is the polyline through these points.
Another approximation can be obtained by drawing the common tangent to successive curves, and by intersecting those tangents pairwise. The common tangent problem is more difficult, anyway.
If the equations of the curves are known in terms of a single parameter, you can find the envelope curve by solving a differential equation, obtained by eliminating the parameter between the implicit equation of the curve and this equation differentiated wrt the parameter. You can integrate this equation numerically.
When I have got such problems (maths are not enough or are terribly tricky) I decompose each curve into segments.
Then, I search segment-segment intersections. For example, a segment in curve Ci with all of segments in curve Cj. Even you can replace a segment with its bounding box and do box-box intersection for quick discard, focusing in those boxes that have intersection.
This gives a rough aproximation of curve-curve intersections.
Apart from intersections you can search for max/min coordinates, aproximated also with segments or boxes.
Once you get a decent aproximation, you can refine it by reducing the length/size of segments and boxes and repeating the intersection (or max/min) checks.
You can have an approximate solution using the grids. First, find a bounding box for the curves. And then griding inside the bounding box. and then search over the cells to find the specified area. And finally using the number of cells over the perimeter approximate the value of the perimeter (as the size of the cells is known).
I have a distribution of weighted 2D pose estimates (position + orientation) that are samples of an unknown PDF of a systems pose. All estimates and the underlying real position are constrained by a concave polygon.
The picture shows an exemplary distribution. The magenta colored circles are the estimates, the radius line indicates the estimated direction. The weights are indicated by the circles diameter. The red dot is the weighted mean, the yellow cirlce indicates the variance and the direction but is of no importance for the following problem:
From all estimates I want to derive the most likely position of the system.
Up to now I have evaluated the following approaches:
Using the estimate with the highest weight: Gives poor results since one estimate with a high weight outperforms several coinciding estimates with slightly lower weights.
Weighted Mean: Not applicable since the mean might lie outside the polygon as in the picture (red dot with yellow circle).
Weighted Median: Would work but does neglect potential clusters. E.g. in the image below two clusters are prominent of which one is more likely than the other.
Additionally I have looked into K-Means and K-Medoids. For K-Means I do not know the most efficient way to constrain the centers to the polygon. K-Medoids seems to work, but has poor performance (O(n^2)), which is important since I have a high number of estimates (contrary to explanatory picture)
What would be the ideal algorithm to solve this kind of problem ?
What complexity can be achieved ?
Are there readily available algorithms in c++ that solve this problem, or can be easily adapted to solve it?
k-means may also yield an estimate outside your polygons.
Such constraints are beyond the clustering use case. But nothing prevents you from devising a method to correct the estimates afterwards.
For non-convex data, DBSCAN may be worth a try. You could even incorporate line-of-sight into Generalized DBSCAN easily. But I'm not convinced that clustering will help for your overall objective.
I'm currently working on a program that takes a scale SVG file of a race track and uses the data to approximate the track as an array of points. Ideally, the absolute value of the slopes between any two consecutive points would be identical, as this would allow me to approximate the angle, arc length and radius to a known accuracy for use in calculating the maximum velocity around the curve.
The SVG uses a Bezier approximation with 2 control points. I have a function that takes a start point, 2 control points and an end point as well as the parametric variable t. I found the code for this here:
Drawing Bezier curves using De Casteljau Algorithm in C++ , OpenGL
The result I'd like is that straights would consist of very few line segments (slope changes very little), while sharp turns would consist of many line segments (slope changes sharply). This would keep a constant accuracy in the calculations.
Using a constant step for t doesn't provide a constant slope between two points, which is a huge issue for the calculations. Is there any way to find the correct t value knowing the desired slope of the resulting line segment?
After much searching and refining of terms, I've found a site that explains in depth the answer to my problem. Turns out that my problem is the same faced by rendering engines for drawing Bezier curves, and the Anti-Grain Rendering Engine has a wonderful tutorial on subdividing Bezier curves to approximate all kinds of twists and turns.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180307160123/http://antigrain.com/research/adaptive_bezier/index.html
I'm working on an application were I have a set of Contours(each one representing a Potential Line) and I wanna check "How straight" is that contour/shape.
The article I am using as a refrence uses the following technique:
It Matches a "segmented" line crossing the shape like so-
Then grading how "straight" is the line.
Heres an example of the Contours I am working on:
How would you go about implementing this technique?
Is there any other way of checking "How Straight" is a contour\shape?
Regards!
My first guess would be to use a coefficient of determination. That would be, fit a linear line to all your point assuming some reasonable origin where you won't receive rounding errors and calculate R^2.
A more advanced approach, if all contours are disconnected components, would be to calculate the structure model index (the link is for bone morphometry, but they explain the concept and cite the original paper.) This gives you a number that tells you how much your segment is "like a rod". This is just an idea, though. Anything that forms curves or has branches will be less and less like a rod.
I would say that it also depends on what you are using the metric for and if your contours are always generally carrying left to right.
An additional method would be to create the covariance matrix of your points, calculate the eigenvalues from that matrix, and take their ratio (where the ratio is greater than or equal to 1; otherwise, invert the ratio.) This is the basic principle behind a PCA besides the final ratio. If you have a rather linear data set (the data set varies in only one direction) then you will have a very large ratio. As the data set becomes less and less linear (or more uncorrelated) you would see the ratio approach one. A perfectly linear data set would be infinity and a perfect circle one (I believe, but I would appreciate if someone could verify this for me.) Also, working in two dimensions would mean the calculation would be computationally cheap and straight forward.
This would handle outliers very well and would be invariant to the rotation and shape of your contour. You also have a number which is always positive. The only issue would be preventing overflow when dividing the two eigenvalues. Then again you could always divide the smaller eigenvalue by the larger and your metric would be bound between zero and one, one being a circle and zero being a straight line.
Either way, you would need to test if this parameter is sensitive enough for your application.
One example for a simple algorithm is using the dot product between two segments to determine the angle between them. The formula for dot product is:
A * B = ||A|| ||B|| cos(theta)
Solving the equation for cos(theta) yields
cos(theta) = (A * B / (||A|| ||B||))
Since cos(0) = 1, cos(pi) = -1.0 and you're checking for the "straightness" of the lines, a line whose normalization of cos(theta) angles is closest to -1.0 is the straightest.
straightness = SUM(cos(theta))/(number of line segments)
where a straight line is close to -1.0, and a non-straight line approaches 1.0. Keep in mind this is a cursory evaluation of this algorithm and it obviously has edge cases and caveats that would need to be addressed in an implementation.
The trick is to use image moments. In short, you calculate the minimum inertia around an axis, the inertia around an axis perpendicular to this, and the ratio between them (which is always between 0 and 1; since inertia is non-negative)
For a straight line, the inertia along the line is zero, so the ratio is also zero. For a circle, the inertia is the same along all axis so the ratio is one. Your segmented line will be 0.01 or so as it's a fairly good match.
A simpler method is to compare the circumference of the the convex polygon containing the shape with the circumference of the shape itself. For a line, they're trivially equal, and for a not too crooked shape it's still comparable.
I can successfully threshold images and find edges in an image. What I am struggling with is trying to extract the angle of the black edges accurately.
I am currently taking the extreme points of the black edge and calculating the angle with the atan2 function, but because of aliasing, depending on the point you choose the angle can come out with some degree of variation. Is there a reliable programmable way of choosing the points to calculate the angle from?
Example image:
For example, the Gimp Measure tool angle at 3.12°,
If you're writing your own library, then creating a robust solution for this problem will allow you to develop several independent chunks of code that you can string together to solve other problems, too. I'll assume that you want to find the corners of the checkerboard under arbitrary rotation, under varying lighting conditions, in the presence of image noise, with a little nonlinear pincushion/barrel distortion, and so on.
Although there are simple kernel-based techniques to find whole pixels as edge pixels, when working with filled polygons you'll want to favor algorithms that can find edges with sub-pixel accuracy so that you can perform accurate line fits. Even though the gradient from dark square to white square crosses several pixels, the "true" edge will be found at some sub-pixel point, and very likely not the point you'd guess by manually clicking.
I tried to provide a simple summary of edge finding in this older SO post:
what is the relationship between image edges and gradient?
For problems like yours, a robust solution is to find edge points along the dark-to-light transitions with sub-pixel accuracy, then fit lines to the edge points, and use the line angles. If you are processing a true camera image, and if there is an uncorrected radial distortion in the image, then there are some potential problems with measurement accuracy, but we'll ignore those.
If you want to find an accurate fit for an edge, then it'd be great to scan for sub-pixel edges in a direction perpendicular to that edge. That presupposes that we have some reasonable estimate of the edge direction to begin with. We can first find a rough estimate of the edge orientation, then perform an accurate line fit.
The algorithm below may appear to have too many steps, but my purpose is point out how to provide a robust solution.
Perform a few iterations of erosion on black pixels to separate the black boxes from one another.
Run a connected components algorithm (blob-finding algorithm) to find the eroded black squares.
Identify the center (x,y) point of each eroded square as well as the (x,y) end points defining the major and minor axes.
Maintain the data for each square in a structure that has the total area in pixels, the center (x,y) point, the (x,y) points of the major and minor axes, etc.
As needed, eliminate all components (blobs) that are too small. For example, you would want to exclude all "salt and pepper" noise blobs. You might also temporarily ignore checkboard squares that are cut off by the image edges--we can return to those later.
Then you'll loop through your list of blobs and do the following for each blob:
Determine the direction roughly perpendicular to the edges of the checkerboard square. How you accomplish this depends in part on what data you calculate when you run your connected components algorithm. In a general-purpose image processing library, a standard connected components algorithm will determine dozens of properties and measurements for each individual blob: area, roundness, major axis direction, minor axis direction, end points of the major and minor axis, etc. For rectangular figures, it can be sufficient to calculate the topmost, leftmost, rightmost, and bottommost points, as these will define the four corners.
Generate edge scans in the direction roughly perpendicular to the edges. These must be performed on the original, unmodified image. This generally assumes you have bilinear interpolation implemented to find the grayscale values of sub-pixel (x,y) points such as (100.35, 25.72) since your scan lines won't fall exactly on whole pixels.
Use a sub-pixel edge point finding technique. In general, you'll perform a curve fit to the edge points in the direction of the scan, then find the real-valued (x,y) point at maximum gradient. That's the edge point.
Store all sub-pixel edge points in a list/array/collection.
Generate line fits for the edge points. These can use Hough, RANSAC, least squares, or other techniques.
From the line equations for each of your four line fits, calculate the line angle.
That algorithm finds the angles independently for each black checkerboard square. It may be overkill for this one application, but if you're developing a library maybe it'll give you some ideas about what sub-algorithms to implement and how to structure them. For example, the algorithm would rely on implementations of these techniques:
Image morphology (e.g. erode, dilate, close, open, ...)
Kernel operations to implement morphology
Thresholding to binarize an image -- the Otsu method is worth checking out
Connected components algorithm (a.k.a blob finding, or the OpenCV contours function)
Data structure for blob
Moment calculations for blob data
Bilinear interpolation to find sub-pixel (x,y) values
A linear ray-scanning technique to find (x,y) gray values along a specific direction (which will also rely on bilinear interpolation)
A curve fitting technique and means to determine steepest tangent to find edge points
Robust line fit technique: Hough, RANSAC, and/or least squares
Data structure for line equation, related functions
All that said, if you're willing to settle for a slight loss of accuracy, and if you know that the image does not suffer from radial distortion, etc., and if you just need to find the angle of the parallel lines defined by all checkboard edges, then you might try..
Simple kernel-based edge point finding technique (Laplacian on Gaussian-smoothed image)
Hough line fit to edge points
Choose the two line fits with the greatest number of votes, which should be one set of horizontal-ish lines and the other set of vertical-ish lines
There are also other techniques that are less accurate but easier to implement:
Use a kernel-based corner-finding operator
Find the angles between corner points.
And so on and so on. As you're developing your library and creating robust implementations of standalone functions that you can string together to create application-specific solutions, you're likely to find that robust solutions rely on more steps than you would have guessed, but it'll also be more clear what the failure mode will be at each incremental step, and how to address that failure mode.
Can I ask, what C++ library are you using to code this?
Jerry is right, if you actually apply a threshold to the image it would be in 2bit, black OR white. What you may have applied is a kind of limiter instead.
You can make a threshold function (if you're coding the image processing yourself) by applying the limiter you may have been using and then turning all non-white pixels black. If you have the right settings, the squares should be isolated and you will be able to calculate the angle.
Once this is done you can use a path finding algorithm to find some edge, any edge will do. If you find a more or less straight path, you can use the extreme points as you are doing now to determine the angle. Since the checker-board rotation is only relevant within 90 degrees, your angle should be modulo 90 degrees or pi over 2 radians.
I'm not sure it's (anywhere close to) the right answer, but my immediate reaction would be to threshold twice: once where anything but black is treated as white, and once where anything but white is treated as black.
Find the angle for each, then interpolate between the two angles.
Your problem have few solutions but all have one very important issue which you seem to neglect. Note: When you are trying to make geometrical calculation in the image, the points you use must be as far as possible one from the other. You are taking 2 points inside a single square. Those points are very close one to another, so a slight error in pixel location of of the points leads to a large error in the angle. Why do you use only a single square, when you have many squares in the image?
Here are few solutions:
Find the line angle of every square. You have at least 9 squares in the image, 4 lines in each square which give you total of 36 angles (18 will be roughly at 3[deg] and 18 will be ~93[deg]). Remove the 90[degrees] and you get 36 different measurements of the angle. Sort them and take the average of the middle 30 (disregarding the lower 3 and higher 3 measurements). This will give you an accurate result
Second solution, find the left extreme point of the leftmost square and the right extreme point of the rightmost square. Now calculate the angle between them. The result will be much more accurate because the points are far away.
A third algorithm which will give you accurate results because it doesn't involve finding any points and no need for thresholding. Just smooth the image, calculate gradients in X and Y directions (gx,gy), calculate the angle of the gradient in each pixel atan(gy,gx) and make histogram of the angles. You will have 2 significant peaks near the 3[deg] and 93[deg]. Just find the peaks by searching the maximum in the histogram. This will work even if you have a lot of noise in the image, even with antialising and jpg artifacts, and even if you have other drawings on the image. But remember, you must smooth the image a lot before calculating the derivatives.