I am working on some shaders, and I need to transform normals.
I read in few tutorials the way you transform normals is you multiply them with the transpose of the inverse of the modelview matrix. But I can't find explanation of why is that so, and what is the logic behind that?
It flows from the definition of a normal.
Suppose you have the normal, N, and a vector, V, a tangent vector at the same position on the object as the normal. Then by definition N·V = 0.
Tangent vectors run in the same direction as the surface of an object. So if your surface is planar then the tangent is the difference between two identifiable points on the object. So if V = Q - R where Q and R are points on the surface then if you transform the object by B:
V' = BQ - BR
= B(Q - R)
= BV
The same logic applies for non-planar surfaces by considering limits.
In this case suppose you intend to transform the model by the matrix B. So B will be applied to the geometry. Then to figure out what to do to the normals you need to solve for the matrix, A so that:
(AN)·(BV) = 0
Turning that into a row versus column thing to eliminate the explicit dot product:
[tranpose(AN)](BV) = 0
Pull the transpose outside, eliminate the brackets:
transpose(N)*transpose(A)*B*V = 0
So that's "the transpose of the normal" [product with] "the transpose of the known transformation matrix" [product with] "the transformation we're solving for" [product with] "the vector on the surface of the model" = 0
But we started by stating that transpose(N)*V = 0, since that's the same as saying that N·V = 0. So to satisfy our constraints we need the middle part of the expression — transpose(A)*B — to go away.
Hence we can conclude that:
transpose(A)*B = identity
=> transpose(A) = identity*inverse(B)
=> transpose(A) = inverse(B)
=> A = transpose(inverse(B))
My favorite proof is below where N is the normal and V is a tangent vector. Since they are perpendicular their dot product is zero. M is any 3x3 invertible transformation (M-1 * M = I). N' and V' are the vectors transformed by M.
To get some intuition, consider the shear transformation below.
Note that this does not apply to tangent vectors.
Take a look at this tutorial:
https://paroj.github.io/gltut/Illumination/Tut09%20Normal%20Transformation.html
You can imagine that when the surface of a sphere stretches (so the sphere is scaled along one axis or something similar) the normals of that surface will all 'bend' towards each other. It turns out you need to invert the scale applied to the normals to achieve this. This is the same as transforming with the Inverse Transpose Matrix. The link above shows how to derive the inverse transpose matrix from this.
Also note that when the scale is uniform, you can simply pass the original matrix as normal matrix. Imagine the same sphere being scaled uniformly along all axes, the surface will not stretch or bend, nor will the normals.
If the model matrix is made of translation, rotation and scale, you don't need to do inverse transpose to calculate normal matrix. Simply divide the normal by squared scale and multiply by model matrix and we are done. You can extend that to any matrix with perpendicular axes, just calculate squared scale for each axes of the matrix you are using instead.
I wrote the details in my blog: https://lxjk.github.io/2017/10/01/Stop-Using-Normal-Matrix.html
Don't understand why you just don't zero out the 4th element of the direction vector before multiplying with the model matrix. No inverse or transpose needed. Think of the direction vector as the difference between two points. Move the two points with the rest of the model - they are still in the same relative position to the model. Take the difference between the two points to get the new direction, and the 4th element, cancels out to zero. Lot cheaper.
I'm trying to find a match between a set of 2D boxes with coordinates (A) (from a template with known sizes and distances between boxes) to another set of 2D boxes with coordinates (B) (which may contain more boxes than A). They should match in terms of each box from A corresponds to a single Box in B. The boxes in A together form a "stamp" which is assymmetrical in atleast one dimension.
Illustration of problem
explanation: "Stanz" in the illustration is a box from set A.
One might even think of the Set A as only 2D points (the centerpoint of the box) to make it simpler.
The end result will be to know which A box corresponds to which B box.
I can only think of very specific ways of doing this, tailored to a specific layout of boxes, is there any known generic ways of dealing with this forms of matching/search problems and what are they called?
Edit: Possible solution
I have come up with one possible solution, looking for all the possible rotations at each possible B center position for a single box from set A. Here all of the points in A would be rotated and compared against the distance to B centers. Not sure if this is a good way.
Looking for the possible rotations at each B centerpoint- solution
In your example, the transformation between the template and its presence in B can be entirely defined (actually, over-defined) by two matching points.
So here's a simple approach which is kind of performant. First, put all the points in B into a kD-tree. Now, pick a canonical "first" point in A, and hypothesize matching it to each of the points in B. To check whether it matches a particular point in B, pick a canonical "second" point in A and measure its distance to the "first" point. Then, use a standard kD proximity-bounding query to find all the points in B which are roughly that distance from your hypothesized matched "first" point in B. For each of those, determine the transformation between A and B, and for each of the other points in A, determine whether there's a point in A at roughly the right place (again, using the kD-tree), early-outing with the first unmatched point.
The worst-case performance there can get quite bad with pathological cases (O(n^3 log n), I think) but in general I would expect roughly O(n log n) for well-behaved data with a low threshold. Note that the thresholding is a bit rough-and-ready, and the results can depend on your choice of "first" and "second" points.
This is more of an idea than an answer, but it's too long for a comment. I asked some additional questions in a comment above, but the answers may not be particular relevant, so I'll go ahead and offer some thoughts in the meantime.
As you may know, point matching is its own problem domain, and if you search for 'point matching algorithm', you'll find various articles, papers, and other resources. It seems though that an ad hoc solution might be appropriate here (one that's simpler than more generic algorithms that are available).
I'll assume that the input point set can only be rotated, and not also flipped. If this idea were to work though, it should also work with flipping - you'd just have to run the algorithm separately for each flipped configuration.
In your example image, you've matched a point from set A with a point from set B so that they're coincident. Call this shared point the 'anchor' point. You'd need to do this for every combination of a point from set A and a point from set B until you found a match or exhausted the possibilities. The problem then is to determine if a match can be made given one of these matched point pairs.
It seems that for a given anchor point, a necessary but not sufficient condition for a match is that a point from set A and a point from set B can be found that are approximately the same distance from the anchor point. (What 'approximately' means would depend on the input, and would need to be tuned appropriately given that you're using integers.) This condition is met in your example image in that the center point of each point set is (approximately) the same distance from the anchor point. (Note that there could be multiple pairs of points that meet this condition, in which case you'd have to examine each such pair in turn.)
Once you have such a pair - the center points in your example - you can use some simple trigonometry and linear algebra to rotate set A so that the points in the pair coincide, after which the two point sets are locked together at two points and not just one. In your image that would involve rotating set A about 135 degrees clockwise. Then you check to see if every point in set B has a point in set A with which it's coincident, to within some threshold. If so, you have a match.
In your example, this fails of course, because the rotation is not actually a match. Eventually though, if there's a match, you'll find the anchor point pair for which the test succeeds.
I realize this would be easier to explain with some diagrams, but I'm afraid this written explanation will have to suffice for the moment. I'm not positive this would work - it's just an idea. And maybe a more generic algorithm would be preferable. But, if this did work, it might have the advantage of being fairly straightforward to implement.
[Edit: Perhaps I should add that this is similar to your solution, except for the additional step to allow for only testing a subset of the possible rotations.]
[Edit: I think a further refinement may be possible here. If, after choosing an anchor point, matching is possible via rotation, it should be the case that for every point p in B there's a point in A that's (approximately) the same distance from the anchor point as p is. Again, it's a necessary but not sufficient condition, but it allows you to quickly eliminate cases where a match isn't possible via rotation.]
Below follows a finished solution in python without kD-tree and without early outing candidates. A better way is to do the implementation yourself according to Sneftel but if you need anything quick and with a plot this might be useful.
Plot shows the different steps, starts off with just the template as a collection of connected lines. Then it is translated to a point in B where the distances between A and B points fits the best. Finally it is rotated.
In this example it was important to also match up which of the template positions was matched to which boundingbox position, so its an extra step in the end. There might be some deviations in the code compared to the outline above.
import numpy as np
import random
import math
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def to_polar(pos_array):
x = pos_array[:, 0]
y = pos_array[:, 1]
length = np.sqrt(x ** 2 + y ** 2)
t = np.arctan2(y, x)
zip_list = list(zip(length, t))
array_polar = np.array(zip_list)
return array_polar
def to_cartesian(pos):
# first element radius
# second is angle(theta)
# Converting polar to cartesian coordinates
radius = pos[0]
theta = pos[1]
x = radius * math.cos(theta)
y = radius * math.sin(theta)
return x,y
def calculate_distance_points(p1,p2):
return np.sqrt((p1[0]-p2[0])**2+(p1[1]-p2[1])**2)
def find_closest_point_inx(point, neighbour_set):
shortest_dist = None
closest_index = -1
# Find the point in the secondary array that is the closest
for index,curr_neighbour in enumerate(neighbour_set):
distance = calculate_distance_points(point, curr_neighbour)
if shortest_dist is None or distance < shortest_dist:
shortest_dist = distance
closest_index = index
return closest_index
# Find the sum of distances between each point in primary to the closest one in secondary
def calculate_agg_distance_arrs(primary,secondary):
total_distance = 0
for point in primary:
closest_inx = find_closest_point_inx(point, secondary)
dist = calculate_distance_points(point, secondary[closest_inx])
total_distance += dist
return total_distance
# returns a set of <primary_index,neighbour_index>
def pair_neighbours_by_distance(primary_set, neighbour_set, distance_limit):
pairs = {}
for num, point in enumerate(primary_set):
closest_inx = find_closest_point_inx(point, neighbour_set)
if calculate_distance_points(neighbour_set[closest_inx], point) > distance_limit:
closest_inx = None
pairs[num]=closest_inx
return pairs
def rotate_array(array, angle,rot_origin=None):
if rot_origin is not None:
array = np.subtract(array,rot_origin)
# clockwise rotation
theta = np.radians(angle)
c, s = np.cos(theta), np.sin(theta)
R = np.array(((c, -s), (s, c)))
rotated = np.matmul(array, R)
if rot_origin is not None:
rotated = np.add(rotated,rot_origin)
return rotated
# Finds out a point in B_set and a rotation where the points in SetA have the best alignment towards SetB.
def find_stamp_rotation(A_set, B_set):
# Step 1
anchor_point_A = A_set[0]
# Step 2. Convert all points to polar coordinates with anchor as origin
A_anchor_origin = A_set - anchor_point_A
anchor_A_polar = to_polar(A_anchor_origin)
print(anchor_A_polar)
# Step 3 for each point in B
score_tuples = []
for num_anchor, B_anchor_point_try in enumerate(B_set):
# Step 3.1
B_origin_rel_point = B_set-B_anchor_point_try
B_polar_rp_origin = to_polar(B_origin_rel_point)
# Step 3.3 select arbitrary point q from Ap
point_Aq = anchor_A_polar[1]
# Step 3.4 test each rotation, where pointAq is rotated to each B-point (except the B anchor point)
for try_rot_point_B in [B_rot_point for num_rot, B_rot_point in enumerate(B_polar_rp_origin) if num_rot != num_anchor]:
# positive rotation is clockwise
# Step 4.1 Rotate Ap by the angle between q and n
angle_to_try = try_rot_point_B[1]-point_Aq[1]
rot_try_arr = np.copy(anchor_A_polar)
rot_try_arr[:,1]+=angle_to_try
cart_rot_try_arr = [to_cartesian(e) for e in rot_try_arr]
cart_B_rp_origin = [to_cartesian(e) for e in B_polar_rp_origin]
distance_score = calculate_agg_distance_arrs(cart_rot_try_arr, cart_B_rp_origin)
score_tuples.append((B_anchor_point_try,angle_to_try,distance_score))
# Step 4.3
lowest=None
for b_point,angle,distance in score_tuples:
print("point:{} angle(rad):{} distance(sum):{}".format(b_point,360*(angle/(2*math.pi)),distance))
if lowest is None or distance < lowest[2]:
lowest = b_point, 360*angle/(2*math.pi), distance
return lowest
def test_example():
ax = plt.subplot()
ax.grid(True)
plt.title('Fit Template to BBoxes by translation and rotation')
plt.xlim(-20, 20)
plt.ylim(-20, 20)
ax.set_xticks(range(-20,20), minor=True)
ax.set_yticks(range(-20,20), minor=True)
template = np.array([[-10,-10],[-10,10],[0,0],[10,-10],[10,10], [0,20]])
# Test Bboxes are Rotated 40 degree, translated 2,2
rotated = rotate_array(template,40)
rotated = np.subtract(rotated,[2,2])
# Adds some extra bounding boxes as noise
for i in range(8):
rotated = np.append(rotated,[[random.randrange(-20,20), random.randrange(-20,20)]],axis=0)
# Scramble entries in array and return the position change.
rnd_rotated = rotated.copy()
np.random.shuffle(rnd_rotated)
element_positions = []
# After shuffling, looks at which index the "A"-marks has ended up at. For later comparison to see that the algo found the correct answer.
# This is to represent the actual case, where I will get a bunch of unordered bboxes.
rnd_map = {}
indexes_translation = [num2 for num,point in enumerate(rnd_rotated) for num2,point2 in enumerate(rotated) if point[0]==point2[0] and point[1]==point2[1]]
for num,inx in enumerate(indexes_translation):
rnd_map[num]=inx
# algo part 1/3
b_point,angle,_ = find_stamp_rotation(template,rnd_rotated)
# Plot for visualization
legend_list = np.empty((0,2))
leg_template = plt.plot(template[:,0],template[:,1],c='r')
legend_list = np.append(legend_list,[[leg_template[0],'1. template-pattern']],axis=0)
leg_bboxes = plt.scatter(rnd_rotated[:,0],rnd_rotated[:,1],c='b',label="scatter")
legend_list = np.append(legend_list,[[leg_bboxes,'2. bounding boxes']],axis=0)
leg_anchor = plt.scatter(b_point[0],b_point[1],c='y')
legend_list = np.append(legend_list,[[leg_anchor,'3. Discovered bbox anchor point']],axis=0)
# algo part 2/3
# Superimpose A onto B by A[0] to b_point
offset = b_point - template[0]
super_imposed_A = template + offset
# Plot superimposed, but not yet rotated
leg_s_imposed = plt.plot(super_imposed_A[:,0],super_imposed_A[:,1],c='k')
#plt.legend(rubberduckz, "superimposed template on anchor")
legend_list = np.append(legend_list,[[leg_s_imposed[0],'4. Templ superimposed on Bbox']],axis=0)
print("Superimposed A on B by A[0] to {}".format(b_point))
print(super_imposed_A)
# Rotate, now the template should match pattern of bboxes
# algo part 3/4
super_imposed_rotated_A = rotate_array(super_imposed_A,-angle,rot_origin=super_imposed_A[0])
# Show the beautiful match in a last plot
leg_s_imp_rot = plt.plot(super_imposed_rotated_A[:,0],super_imposed_rotated_A[:,1],c='g')
legend_list = np.append(legend_list,[[leg_s_imp_rot[0],'5. final fit']],axis=0)
plt.legend(legend_list[:,0], legend_list[:,1],loc="upper left")
plt.show()
# algo part 4/4
pairs = pair_neighbours_by_distance(super_imposed_rotated_A, rnd_rotated, 10)
print(pairs)
for inx in range(len(pairs)):
bbox_num = pairs[inx]
print("template id:{}".format(inx))
print("bbox#id:{}".format(bbox_num))
#print("original_bbox:{}".format(rnd_map[bbox_num]))
if __name__ == "__main__":
test_example()
Result on actual image with bounding boxes. Here it can be seen that the scaling is incorrect which makes the template a bit off but it will still be able to pair up and thats the desired end-result in my case.
I want to select 5 Points in each polygon based on random sampling method. And required 5 points co-ordinates(Lat,Long) in each polygon for identify which crop is grawn.
Any ideas for do this using geopandas?
Many thanks.
My suggestion involves sampling random x and y coordinates within the shape's bounding box and then checking whether the sampled point is actually within the shape. If the sampled point is within the shape then return it, otherwise repeat until a point within the shape is found. For sampling, we can use the uniform distribution, such that all points in the shape have the same probability of being sampled. Here is the function:
from shapely.geometry import Point
def random_point_in_shp(shp):
within = False
while not within:
x = np.random.uniform(shp.bounds[0], shp.bounds[2])
y = np.random.uniform(shp.bounds[1], shp.bounds[3])
within = shp.contains(Point(x, y))
return Point(x,y)
and here's an example how to apply this function to an example GeoDataFrame called geo_df to get 5 random points for each entry:
for num in range(5):
geo_df['Point{}'.format(num)] = geo_df['geometry'].apply(random_point_in_shp)
There might be more efficient ways to do this, but depending on your application the algorithm could be sufficiently fast. With my test file, which contains ~2300 entries, generating five random points for each entry took around 15 seconds on my machine.
I am trying to generate a certain amount of random uniform points inside a rectangle (I know the pair of coordinates for each corner).
Let our rectangle be
ABCD
My idea is:
Divide the rectangle into two triangles by the AC diagonal. Find the slope and the intercept of the diagonal.
Then, generate two random numbers from [0,1] interval, let them be a,b.
Evaluate x = aAB and y = bAD (AB, AD, distances). If A is not (0,0), then we can add to x and y A's coordinates.
Now we have a point (x,y). If it is not in the lower triangle (ABC), skip to the next step.
Else, add the point to our plot and also add the symmetric of (x,y) vs. the AC diagonal so that we can fill the upper triangle (ADC) too.
I have implemented this, but I highly doubt that the points are uniformly generated (judging from the plot). How should I modify my algorithm? I guess that the issue is related to how I pick the triangle and the symmetric thing.
Why not just generate x=random([A.x, B.x]) and y=random([B.y, C.y]) and put them together as (x,y)? A n-dimensional uniform distribution is simply the product of the n uniform distributions of the components.
This is referred to as point picking and other similar terms. You seem to be on the right track in that the points should come from the uniform distribution. Your plot looks reasonably random to me.
What are you doing with upper and lower triangles? They seem unnecessary and would certainly make things less random. Is this some form variance reduction along the lines of antithetic variates? If #Paddy3118 is right an you really just need random-ish points to fill the space, then you should look into low-discrepancy sequences. The Halton sequence generalizes the van der Corput sequence to multiple dimensions. If you have Matlab's Statistics Toolbox check out the sobolset and haltonset functions or qrandstream and qrand.
This approach (from #Xipan Xiao & #bonanova.) should be reproducible in many languages. MATLAB code below.
a = 0; b = 1;
n = 2000;
X = a + (b-a)*rand(n,1);
Y = a + (b-a)*rand(n,1);
Newer versions of MATLAB can make use of the makedist and random commands.
pdX = makedist('Uniform',a,b);
pdY = makedist('Uniform',a,b);
X = random(pdX,n,1);
Y = random(pdY,n,1);
The points (X,Y) will be uniformly in the rectangle with corner points (a,a), (a,b), (b,a), (b,b).
For verification, we can observe the marginal distributions for X and Y and see that those are uniform as well.
scatterhist(X,Y,'Marker','.','Direction','out')
Update: Using haltonset (suggested by #horchler)
p = haltonset(2);
XY = net(p,2000);
scatterhist(XY(:,1),XY(:,2),'Marker','.','Direction','out')
If you are after a more uniform density then you might consider a Van der Corput sequence. The sequence finds use in Monte-Carlo simulations and Wolfram Mathworld calls them a quasi-random sequence.
Generate two random numbers in the interval [0,1] translate and scale them to your rectangle as x and y.
There is just my thought, i haven't test with code yet.
1.Divide the rectangle to grid with N x M cells, depends on variable density.
2.loop through the cell and pick a random point in the cell until it reached your target point quantity.
Given a "shape" drawn by the user, I would like to "normalize" it so they all have similar size and orientation. What we have is a set of points. I can approximate the size using bounding box or circle, but the orientation is a bit more tricky.
The right way to do it, I think, is to calculate the majoraxis of its bounding ellipse. To do that you need to calculate the eigenvector of the covariance matrix. Doing so likely will be way too complicated for my need, since I am looking for some good-enough estimate. Picking min, max, and 20 random points could be some starter. Is there an easy way to approximate this?
Edit:
I found Power method to iteratively approximate eigenvector. Wikipedia article.
So far I am liking David's answer.
You'd be calculating the eigenvectors of a 2x2 matrix, which can be done with a few simple formulas, so it's not that complicated. In pseudocode:
// sums are over all points
b = -(sum(x * x) - sum(y * y)) / (2 * sum(x * y))
evec1_x = b + sqrt(b ** 2 + 1)
evec1_y = 1
evec2_x = b - sqrt(b ** 2 + 1)
evec2_y = 1
You could even do this by summing over only some of the points to get an estimate, if you expect that your chosen subset of points would be representative of the full set.
Edit: I think x and y must be translated to zero-mean, i.e. subtract mean from all x, y first (eed3si9n).
Here's a thought... What if you performed a linear regression on the points and used the slope of the resulting line? If not all of the points, at least a sample of them.
The r^2 value would also give you information about the general shape. The closer to 0, the more circular/uniform the shape is (circle/square). The closer to 1, the more stretched out the shape is (oval/rectangle).
The ultimate solution to this problem is running PCA
I wish I could find a nice little implementation for you to refer to...
Here you go! (assuming x is a nx2 vector)
def majAxis(x):
e,v = np.linalg.eig(np.cov(x.T)); return v[:,np.argmax(e)]