I need two new points, which are on a new orthogonal line through point 1 and in distance of meters s and minus s for the other direction. The new orthogonal line is orthogonal to a line given by two points shown in "coords".
I have tried to reuse results from here and here, but both example are somehow different. These examples state that I should work with the vector from the line and that the orthognal of the vector m is given by -1/m or a new point by y = (-1/m)x + b
import math as m
coords=([5,5], [5,6])
print (coords)
x1,y1=coords[0]
x2,y2=coords[1]
s= 5
veclen= m.sqrt(m.pow(x2-x1,2)+m.pow(y2-y1,2))
u=(x2-x1)/veclen
v=(y2-y1)/veclen
print ("u,v:", u,v)
dir1 = (v, -u)
dir2 = (-v, u)
newpoint1=(x1+ s*dir1[0], y1+ s*dir1[1])
newpoint2=(x1+ s*dir2[0], y1+ s*dir2[1])
print (newpoint1, newpoint2)
xn,yn=newpoint1
dist = m.hypot(xn-x1, yn-y1)
print (dist)
This is maybe the right direction, but somehow I do not understand the derived vector 1 (v) and the orthogonal vector (v2) and how to add from point x1,y1 the distance s. Should the vector 1 not be (1,1), as in +1 in x-direction and +1 in y-direction? And likewise the orthogonal vector 2 (1, -1) as in +1 in x and -1 in y?
And is the calculation of both newpoints correct?
I will assume that this is the problem, in one sentence:
Code a routine that is given a tuple coords containing two 2-dimensional points and also given a positive number s, and the routine returns two other distinct points such that the line segment between each output point and coords[0] is orthogonal (perpendicular) to the line segment between coords[0] and coords[1] and the distance from each output point to coords[0] is s.
Now for your questions.
The 2-tuple v represents the vector of length one (the "unit vector") that is parallel to the vector from point coords[0] to point coords[1]. It is found by first subtracting the coordinates of the two points in coords, but that vecto will probably have the wrong length. So your code beforehand found the length of that vector in variable l (a terrible name for a variable) and divides the vector by l. Mathematics tells us that the resulting vector is parallel to the original vector and has length one.
Your code then tries to find a perpendicular unit vector. It fails in two ways. First, it does not use the unit vector; it uses the original vector instead. Second, the new vector is not necessarily perpendicular. Your code says a vector perpendicular to (u, v) is (-u, v), but actually the perpendicular vector is either (v, -u) or (-v, u)--note the swapped coordinates. This new vector is both perpendicular to the previous vector and has the same length.
Therefore the calculation of the two new points is not correct.
I have answered your given questions--let me know if you need code that actually does what you want. Note that you should improve your code by using longer, descriptive variable names and comments and by wrapping up the code into a function. The function should return the points, while the calling routine could print the results.
Here is my code that satisfies your problem. I reduced the amount of printing as checks--you can print more checks, if you like. I also combined some lines, since too many separate computation lines can worsen the accuracy of floating-point calculations. I never compute a unit vector--I go straight to a vector of the desired length.
import math
def orthogonal_points(coords, s):
"""Given a tuple coords containing two 2-dimensional points and also
given a positive number s, return two other distinct points such
that the line segment between each output point and coords[0] is
orthogonal (perpendicular) to the line segment between coords[0] and
coords[1] and the distance from each output point to coords[0] is s.
"""
(point1x, point1y), (point2x, point2y) = coords
points_vectorx, points_vectory = point2x - point1x, point2y - point1y
points_vector_length = math.hypot(points_vectorx, points_vectory)
normalized_x, normalized_y = (points_vectorx * s / points_vector_length,
points_vectory * s / points_vector_length)
newpoint1x, newpoint1y = point1x + normalized_y, point1y - normalized_x
newpoint2x, newpoint2y = point1x - normalized_y, point1y + normalized_x
return ([newpoint1x, newpoint1y], [newpoint2x, newpoint2y])
coords=([5,5], [5,6])
s= 5
print (coords, s)
print (orthogonal_points(coords, s))
The output from that is correct:
([5, 5], [5, 6]) 5
([10.0, 5.0], [0.0, 5.0])
Related
Ive got 2 points in 3d space (with the same y coordinate). Ill call them c and m. I want to find the corner points (marked in the pic as p1-p4) of a square with the width w. The important thing is, that the square is not parallel to the x-axis. If it were, (for p1 as an example) I could just do:
p1.x = m.x + w / 2
p1.y = m.y + w / 2
p1.z = m.z
How would I do the same with a angled square? These are all the given points:
m; c
and lenghts:
w; d
There's multiple ways to do it, but here's one way.
If the two points are guaranteed to have the same y value, you should be able to do it as follows.
Take 'm - c' and call that u. Normalize u. Then take the cross product of u and the y axis to get v, a vector parallel to the xz plane that's perpendicular to u. (This can be optimized, but that's unlikely to be important.) Then take the cross product of u and v to get a third vector, w. Note that you can use 'm - c' or 'c - m', or use different orders for the cross-product arguments, and it'll still work, but the resulting vectors may point in different directions (but only opposite directions). You can also normalize at different points in the process and get the same results at the end.
Once you have m, v, and w, you can use some basic vector math to compute the corners.
[Edit: I see you have a variable named 'w', so I should clarify that the 'w' in my example is a different 'w' than yours. As for your 'w' and 'd', those would factor in in the vector math I mentioned at the end.]
I have a shape made out of several triangles which is positioned somewhere in world space with scale, rotate, translate. I also have a plane on which I would like to project (orthogonal) the shape.
I could multiply every vertex of every triangle in the shape with the objects transformation matrix to find out where it is located in world coordinates, and then project this point onto the plane.
But I don't need to draw the projection, and instead I would like to transform the plane with the inverse transformation matrix of the shape, and then project all the vertices onto the (inverse transformed) plane. Since it only requires me to transform the plane once and not every vertex.
My plane has a normal (xyz) and a distance (d). How do I multiply it with a 4x4 transformation matrix so that it turns out ok?
Can you create a vec4 as xyzd and multiply that? Or maybe create a vector xyz1 and then what to do with d?
You need to convert your plane to a different representation. One where N is the normal, and O is any point on the plane. The normal you already know, it's your (xyz). A point on the plane is also easy, it's your normal N times your distance d.
Transform O by the 4x4 matrix in the normal way, this becomes your new O. You will need a Vector4 to multiply with a 4x4 matrix, set the W component to 1 (x, y, z, 1).
Also transform N by the 4x4 matrix, but set the W component to 0 (x, y, z, 0). Setting the W component to 0 means that your normals won't get translated. If your matrix is composed of more that just translating and rotating, then this step isn't so simple. Instead of multiplying by your transformation matrix, you have to multiply by the transpose of the inverse of the matrix i.e. Matrix4.Transpose(Matrix4.Invert(Transform)), there's a good explanation on why here.
You now have a new normal vector N and a new position vector O. However I suppose you want it in xyzd form again? No problem. As before, xyz is your normal N all that's left is to calculate d. d is the distance of the plane from the origin, along the normal vector. Hence, it is simply the dot product of O and N.
There you have it! If you tell me what language you're doing this in, I'd happily type it up in code as well.
EDIT, In pseudocode:
The plane is vector3 xyz and number d, the matrix is a matrix4x4 M
vector4 O = (xyz * d, 1)
vector4 N = (xyz, 0)
O = M * O
N = transpose(invert(M)) * N
xyz = N.xyz
d = dot(O.xyz, N.xyz)
xyz and d represent the new plane
This question is a bit old but I would like to correct the accepted answer.
You do not need to convert your plane representation.
Any point lies on the plane if
It can be written as dot product :
You are looking for the plane transformed by your 4x4 matrix .
For the same reason, you must have
So and with some arrangements
TLDR : if p=(a,b,c,d), p' = transpose(inverse(M))*p
Notation:
n is a normal represented as a (1x3) row-vector
n' is the transformed normal of n according to transform matrix T
(n|d) is a plane represented as a (1x4) row-vector (with n the plane's normal and d the plane's distance to the origin)
(n'|d') is the transformed plane of (n|d) according to transform matrix T
T is a (4x4) (affine) column-major transformation matrix (i.e. transforming a column-vector t is defined as t' = T t).
Transforming a normal n:
n' = n adj(T)
Transforming a plane (n|d):
(n'|d') = (n|d) adj(T)
Here, adj is the adjugate of a matrix which is defined as follows in terms of the inverse and determinant of a matrix:
T^-1 = adj(T)/det(T)
Note:
The adjugate is generally not equal to the inverse of a transformation matrix T. If T includes a reflection, det(T) = -1, reversing the winding order!
Re-normalizing n' is mathematically not required (but maybe numerically depending on the implementation) since scaling is taken care off by the determinant. Thanks to Adrian Leonhard.
You can directly transform the plane without first decomposing and recomposing a plane (normal and point).
Given two sets of line segments (xa1..N,ya1..N) and (xb1..N,yb1..N) that represent the upper and lower surfaces of a geology unit, and a known point (xc1,yc1) within the geology unit, how do I find the line of shortest distance between (xa,ya) and (xb,yb) that passes through (xc1,yc1).
If I understand well, you are looking for an intermediate polyline between two given polylines, through a given point.
If your two source polylines have the same point count, you can consider linear interpolation between corresponding segments, using a parameter t in range [0 1]. Every new vertex is given by
Xti = (1 - t) Xai + t Xbi
Yti = (1 - t) Yai + t Ybi
When t=0, this gives the upper surface, t=1 the lower surface and other t intermediate surfaces.
Now remains to find the t value that makes the line pass through (xc, yc). Every segment can be represented by its parametric equation, between point i and i+1 (let j), using some parameter p. This leads to the following equations:
Xc= (1 - p) Xti + p Xtj
Yc= (1 - p) Yti + p Ytj
Now, for every i-j segment, you have a system of two equations in two unknowns (t and p). You will keep the i-j solution such that p falls in range [0 1]
I need a function that returns points on a circle in three dimensions.
The circle should "cap" a line segment defined by points A and B and it's radius. each cap is perpendicular to the line segment. and centered at one of the endpoints.
Here is a shitty diagram
Let N be the unit vector in the direction from A to B, i.e., N = (B-A) / length(A-B). The first step is to find two more vectors X and Y such that {N, X, Y} form a basis. That means you want two more vectors so that all pairs of {N, X, Y} are perpendicular to each other and also so that they are all unit vectors. Another way to think about this is that you want to create a new coordinate system whose x-axis lines up with the line segment. You need to find vectors pointing in the direction of the y-axis and z-axis.
Note that there are infinitely many choices for X and Y. You just need to somehow find two that work.
One way to do this is to first find vectors {N, W, V} where N is from above and W and V are two of (1,0,0), (0,1,0), and (0,0,1). Pick the two vectors for W and V that correspond to the smallest coordinates of N. So if N = (.31, .95, 0) then you pick (1,0,0) and (0,0,1) for W and V. (Math geek note: This way of picking W and V ensures that {N,W,V} spans R^3). Then you apply the Gram-Schmidt process to {N, W, V} to get vectors {N, X, Y} as above. Note that you need the vector N to be the first vector so that it doesn't get changed by the process.
So now you have two vectors that are perpendicular to the line segment and perpendicular to each other. This means the points on the circle around A are X * cos t + Y * sin t + A where 0 <= t < 2 * pi. This is exactly like the usual description of a circle in two dimensions; it is just written in the new coordinate system described above.
As David Norman noted the crux is to find two orthogonal unit vectors X,Y that are orthogonal to N. However I think a simpler way to compute these is by finding the householder reflection Q that maps N to a multiple of (1,0,0) and then to take as X the image of (0,1,0) under Q and Y as the image of (0,0,1) under Q. While this might sound complicated it comes down to:
s = (N[0] > 0.0) ? 1.0 : -1.0
t = N[0] + s; f = -1.0/(s*t);
X[0] = f*N[1]*t; X[1] = 1 + f*N[1]*N[1]; X[2] = f*N[1]*N[2];
Y[0] = f*N[2]*t; Y[1] = f*N[1]*N[2]; Y[2] = 1 + f*N[2]*N[2];
Given two image buffers (assume it's an array of ints of size width * height, with each element a color value), how can I map an area defined by a quadrilateral from one image buffer into the other (always square) image buffer? I'm led to understand this is called "projective transformation".
I'm also looking for a general (not language- or library-specific) way of doing this, such that it could be reasonably applied in any language without relying on "magic function X that does all the work for me".
An example: I've written a short program in Java using the Processing library (processing.org) that captures video from a camera. During an initial "calibrating" step, the captured video is output directly into a window. The user then clicks on four points to define an area of the video that will be transformed, then mapped into the square window during subsequent operation of the program. If the user were to click on the four points defining the corners of a door visible at an angle in the camera's output, then this transformation would cause the subsequent video to map the transformed image of the door to the entire area of the window, albeit somewhat distorted.
Using linear algebra is much easier than all that geometry! Plus you won't need to use sine, cosine, etc, so you can store each number as a rational fraction and get the exact numerical result if you need it.
What you want is a mapping from your old (x,y) co-ordinates to your new (x',y') co-ordinates. You can do it with matrices. You need to find the 2-by-4 projection matrix P such that P times the old coordinates equals the new co-ordinates. We'll assume that you're mapping lines to lines (not, for instance, straight lines to parabolas). Because you have a projection (parallel lines don't stay parallel) and translation (sliding), you need a factor of (xy) and (1), too. Drawn as matrices:
[x ]
[a b c d]*[y ] = [x']
[e f g h] [x*y] [y']
[1 ]
You need to know a through h so solve these equations:
a*x_0 + b*y_0 + c*x_0*y_0 + d = i_0
a*x_1 + b*y_1 + c*x_1*y_1 + d = i_1
a*x_2 + b*y_2 + c*x_2*y_2 + d = i_2
a*x_3 + b*y_3 + c*x_3*y_3 + d = i_3
e*x_0 + f*y_0 + g*x_0*y_0 + h = j_0
e*x_1 + f*y_1 + g*x_1*y_1 + h = j_1
e*x_2 + f*y_2 + g*x_2*y_2 + h = j_2
e*x_3 + f*y_3 + g*x_3*y_3 + h = j_3
Again, you can use linear algebra:
[x_0 y_0 x_0*y_0 1] [a e] [i_0 j_0]
[x_1 y_1 x_1*y_1 1] * [b f] = [i_1 j_1]
[x_2 y_2 x_2*y_2 1] [c g] [i_2 j_2]
[x_3 y_3 x_3*y_3 1] [d h] [i_3 j_3]
Plug in your corners for x_n,y_n,i_n,j_n. (Corners work best because they are far apart to decrease the error if you're picking the points from, say, user-clicks.) Take the inverse of the 4x4 matrix and multiply it by the right side of the equation. The transpose of that matrix is P. You should be able to find functions to compute a matrix inverse and multiply online.
Where you'll probably have bugs:
When computing, remember to check for division by zero. That's a sign that your matrix is not invertible. That might happen if you try to map one (x,y) co-ordinate to two different points.
If you write your own matrix math, remember that matrices are usually specified row,column (vertical,horizontal) and screen graphics are x,y (horizontal,vertical). You're bound to get something wrong the first time.
EDIT
The assumption below of the invariance of angle ratios is incorrect. Projective transformations instead preserve cross-ratios and incidence. A solution then is:
Find the point C' at the intersection of the lines defined by the segments AD and CP.
Find the point B' at the intersection of the lines defined by the segments AD and BP.
Determine the cross-ratio of B'DAC', i.e. r = (BA' * DC') / (DA * B'C').
Construct the projected line F'HEG'. The cross-ratio of these points is equal to r, i.e. r = (F'E * HG') / (HE * F'G').
F'F and G'G will intersect at the projected point Q so equating the cross-ratios and knowing the length of the side of the square you can determine the position of Q with some arithmetic gymnastics.
Hmmmm....I'll take a stab at this one. This solution relies on the assumption that ratios of angles are preserved in the transformation. See the image for guidance (sorry for the poor image quality...it's REALLY late). The algorithm only provides the mapping of a point in the quadrilateral to a point in the square. You would still need to implement dealing with multiple quad points being mapped to the same square point.
Let ABCD be a quadrilateral where A is the top-left vertex, B is the top-right vertex, C is the bottom-right vertex and D is the bottom-left vertex. The pair (xA, yA) represent the x and y coordinates of the vertex A. We are mapping points in this quadrilateral to the square EFGH whose side has length equal to m.
Compute the lengths AD, CD, AC, BD and BC:
AD = sqrt((xA-xD)^2 + (yA-yD)^2)
CD = sqrt((xC-xD)^2 + (yC-yD)^2)
AC = sqrt((xA-xC)^2 + (yA-yC)^2)
BD = sqrt((xB-xD)^2 + (yB-yD)^2)
BC = sqrt((xB-xC)^2 + (yB-yC)^2)
Let thetaD be the angle at the vertex D and thetaC be the angle at the vertex C. Compute these angles using the cosine law:
thetaD = arccos((AD^2 + CD^2 - AC^2) / (2*AD*CD))
thetaC = arccos((BC^2 + CD^2 - BD^2) / (2*BC*CD))
We map each point P in the quadrilateral to a point Q in the square. For each point P in the quadrilateral, do the following:
Find the distance DP:
DP = sqrt((xP-xD)^2 + (yP-yD)^2)
Find the distance CP:
CP = sqrt((xP-xC)^2 + (yP-yC)^2)
Find the angle thetaP1 between CD and DP:
thetaP1 = arccos((DP^2 + CD^2 - CP^2) / (2*DP*CD))
Find the angle thetaP2 between CD and CP:
thetaP2 = arccos((CP^2 + CD^2 - DP^2) / (2*CP*CD))
The ratio of thetaP1 to thetaD should be the ratio of thetaQ1 to 90. Therefore, calculate thetaQ1:
thetaQ1 = thetaP1 * 90 / thetaD
Similarly, calculate thetaQ2:
thetaQ2 = thetaP2 * 90 / thetaC
Find the distance HQ:
HQ = m * sin(thetaQ2) / sin(180-thetaQ1-thetaQ2)
Finally, the x and y position of Q relative to the bottom-left corner of EFGH is:
x = HQ * cos(thetaQ1)
y = HQ * sin(thetaQ1)
You would have to keep track of how many colour values get mapped to each point in the square so that you can calculate an average colour for each of those points.
I think what you're after is a planar homography, have a look at these lecture notes:
http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~strider/vis-notes/tutHomography04.pdf
If you scroll down to the end you'll see an example of just what you're describing. I expect there's a function in the Intel OpenCV library which will do just this.
There is a C++ project on CodeProject that includes source for projective transformations of bitmaps. The maths are on Wikipedia here. Note that so far as i know, a projective transformation will not map any arbitrary quadrilateral onto another, but will do so for triangles, you may also want to look up skewing transforms.
If this transformation has to look good (as opposed to the way a bitmap looks if you resize it in Paint), you can't just create a formula that maps destination pixels to source pixels. Values in the destination buffer have to be based on a complex averaging of nearby source pixels or else the results will be highly pixelated.
So unless you want to get into some complex coding, use someone else's magic function, as smacl and Ian have suggested.
Here's how would do it in principle:
map the origin of A to the origin of B via a traslation vector t.
take unit vectors of A (1,0) and (0,1) and calculate how they would be mapped onto the unit vectors of B.
this gives you a transformation matrix M so that every vector a in A maps to M a + t
invert the matrix and negate the traslation vector so for every vector b in B you have the inverse mapping b -> M-1 (b - t)
once you have this transformation, for each point in the target area in B, find the corresponding in A and copy.
The advantage of this mapping is that you only calculate the points you need, i.e. you loop on the target points, not the source points. It was a widely used technique in the "demo coding" scene a few years back.