I have a 3*3 rotation matrix R. Now, it is possible to solve this rotation matrix to get the euler angles of the rotation matrix. (https://truesculpt.googlecode.com/hg-history/38000e9dfece971460473d5788c235fbbe82f31b/Doc/rotation_matrix_to_euler.pdf)
Now, Suppose I have a situation where I use the rotation matrix for rotating a body about an axis. Now, For each infinitesimal rotation, I solve the rotation matrix for its euler angles sets. Since There multiple sets (2 in reality) of euler angles come up as solutions, how do I ensure (in code) that I pick the euler angle set such that the rotation of the body is continuous?
What i have read, euler angles are not well suited for interpolation.
Use Quarternions instead, at least for the interpolation (transition).
Related
I intuitively thought that if you linearly interpolated from two orthogonal vectors to another two orthogonal vectors that the resulting two vectors would also be orthogonal to each other. I assumed that if you have basis axes X, Y, Z, and these are unit vectors orthogonal to each other, that you can interpolate through a rotation and the result will still be three orthogonal vectors. Apparently that's not case (question I asked on Mathematics Stack Exchange.
So my plan to average tangents and normals to create a smooth-looking was not possible. However I just thought, when the vertex shader sends values to the fragment/pixel shader they are given 'linearly interpolated' values, right? Meaning if I have normal and tangent vectors which are orthogonal, when they get to the fragment/pixel shader they are no longer orthogonal to each other, right? Isn't this a problem?
normals and tangents might not be orthogonal after interpolation
that is because interpolation is interpolating position not angle. That means if you linearly interpolate position the angle usually changes non linearly. So in most cases your interpolated vectors does not correspond to each other anymore (except starting and ending value).
smooth TBN
that is possible but you need to ortogonalise the vectors again like:
t = cross(b,n)
b = cross(n,t)
t=normalize(t);
b=normalize(b);
n=normalize(n);
However in most cases the dis-orthogonality is not that bad and stuff works
also without this step.
I have a series of points in two 3D systems. With them, I use np.linalg.lstsq to calculate the affine transformation matrix (4x4) between both. However, due to my project, I have to "disable" the shear in the transform. Is there a way to decompose the matrix into the base transformations? I have found out how to do so for Translation and Scaling but I don't know how to separate Rotation and Shear.
If not, is there a way to calculate a transformation matrix from the points that doesn't include shear?
I can only use numpy or tensorflow to solve this problem btw.
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
Anyway If you have two sets of 3D points P and Q, you can use Kabsch algorithm to find out a rotation matrix R and a translation vector T such that the sum of square distances between (RP+T) and Q is minimized.
You can of course combine R and T into a 4x4 matrix (of rotation and translation only. without shear or scale).
I'm trying to code the Ritter's bounding sphere algorithm in arbitrary dimensions, and I'm stuck on the part of creating a sphere which would have 3 given points on it's edge, or in other words, a sphere which would be defined by 3 points in N-dimensional space.
That sphere's center would be the minimal-distance equidistant point from the (defining) 3 points.
I know how to solve it in 2-D (circumcenter of a triangle defined by 3 points), and I've seen some vector calculations for 3D, but I don't know what the best method would be for N-D, and if it's even possible.
(I'd also appreciate any other advice about the smallest bounding sphere calculations in ND, in case I'm going in the wrong direction.)
so if I get it right:
Wanted point p is intersection between 3 hyper-spheres of the same radius r where the centers of hyper-spheres are your points p0,p1,p2 and radius r is minimum of all possible solutions. In n-D is arbitrary point defined as (x1,x2,x3,...xn)
so solve following equations:
|p-p0|=r
|p-p1|=r
|p-p2|=r
where p,r are unknowns and p0,p1,p2 are knowns. This lead to 3*n equations and n+1 unknowns. So get all the nonzero r solutions and select the minimal. To compute correctly chose some non trivial equation (0=r) from each sphere to form system of n+1 =equations and n+1 unknowns and solve it.
[notes]
To ease up the processing you can have your equations in this form:
(p.xi-p0.xi)^2=r^2
and use sqrt(r^2) only after solution is found (ignoring negative radius).
there is also another simpler approach possible:
You can compute the plane in which the points p0,p1,p2 lies so just find u,v coordinates of these points inside this plane. Then solve your problem in 2D on (u,v) coordinates and after that convert found solution form (u,v) back to your n-D space.
n=(p1-p0)x(p2-p0); // x is cross product
u=(p1-p0); u/=|u|;
v=u x n; v/=|v|; // x is cross product
if memory of mine serves me well then conversion n-D -> u,v is done like this:
P0=(0,0);
P1=(|p1-p0|,0);
P2=(dot(p2-p0,u),dot(p2-p0,v));
where P0,P1,P2 are 2D points in (u,v) coordinate system of the plane corresponding to points p0,p1,p2 in n-D space.
conversion back is done like this:
p=(P.u*u)+(P.v*v);
My Bounding Sphere algorithm only calculates a near-optimal sphere, in 3 dimensions.
Fischer has an exact, minimal bounding hyper-sphere (N dimensions.) See his paper: http://people.inf.ethz.ch/gaertner/texts/own_work/seb.pdf.
His (C++/Java)code: https://github.com/hbf/miniball.
Jack Ritter
jack#houseofwords.com
Looking at Convert a quadratic bezier to a cubic?, I can finally understand why programming teachers always told me that math was so important. Sadly, I didn't listen.
Can anyone provide a more concrete - e.g., computer-language-y - formula for converting a quadratic curve to a cubic? Understanding that there's some rounding errors possible, which is fine.
Given a quad curve represented by variables:
StartX, StartY
ControlX, ControlY
EndX, EndY
And desiring StartX, StartY and EndX, EndY to remain the same, but to now have Control1X, Control1Y and Control2X, Control2Y of a cubic curve.
Is it...
Control1X = StartX + (.66 * (ControlX - StartX))
Control2X = EndX + (.66 * (ControlX - EndX))
With the same essential functions used to calculate Control1Y and Control2Y?
Your code is right except that you should use 2.0/3.0 instead of 0.66.
You avoid most rounding errors by using
Control1 = (Start + 2 * Control) / 3
Control2 = (End + 2 * Control) / 3
Note that line segments are also convertible to cubic Bezier curves using:
Control1 = Start
Control2 = End
This can be handy when converting a complex path mixing various types of curves (linear, quadratic, cubic).
There's also a basic transform for converting elliptic arcs to cubic (with some minor unnoticeable errors): you just have to split at least the arc on elliptic quadrans (cutting the ellipse first on the two orthogonal axis of symetries, or on arbitrary orthogonal axis passing through the center if the ellipse is a circle, then representing each arc; when the ellipse is a circle, the two focal points are confused on the same point, the center of the circle, so you can use any direction for one of the orthogonal axis).
Many SVG renderers do that by adding an additional split on octants (so that you get also precise position not only for points where the two main axis are passing through, but also for two diagonal axis which are bissecting (when the ellipse is a circle) each quadrant (when the ellipse is not a circle, assimilate it as a circle flattened with a linear transform along the small axis only, you do the same computation), because octants are also quite precisely positioned:
cos(pi/4) = sin(pi/4) = sqrt(2)/2 ≈ 0.71, and because this additional splitting will allow precise rendering of tangents on points crossing the diagonals at 45 degrees of the circle.
A full ellipse is then converted to 8 cubic arcs (i.e. 8 points on ellipse and 16 control points): you'll almost not notice the difference between elliptical arcs and these generated cubic arcs
You can create an algorithm that uses the same "flattening error" computed when splitting a Bezier to a list of linear segments, which are then drawn using the classic fast Bresenham algo for line segments; a "flattenning" algorithm just has to measure the relative deviation of the sum of lengths of the two straight segments joining the two focal points of the ellipse to any point of the generated cubic arcs, as this sum is constant on any true ellipse: if you make this measurement on the generated control points for the cubic arcs, the difference should be below a given percentage of the expected sum, or within an absolute distance precision, and can be used to create better approximation of control points with a simple linear formula so that these added points will be on the real ellipse.
Such transform of arbitrary paths is useful when you want to derive other curves from the path, notably the curves of "buffers" at a given distance, notably when these paths must be converted to "strokes" with a defined "stroke width": you need to compute two "inner" and "outer" curves and then concentrate on how to converting the miters/buts/squares/rounded corners, and then to cut long miters at a convenient distance (matching the "miter limit" factor times the "stroke width").
More advanced renderers will also use miters represented by tangent circles when there's a corner between two arcs instead of two segments (this is useful for drawing cute geographic maps)...
Converting an arbitrary path mixing segments, elliptic and bezier arcs to only cubic arcs is a necessary step to compute precise images without excessive defects visible when zooming in. This is then necessary when your "stroke" buffers have to take some effects (such as computing dashes), and then enhancing the result with semi-transparent pixels or subpixels to smooth the rendered strokes (smoothing is easy to computez only when everything has been flattened to line segments, and alsos may be simpler to develop if it only has to manage paths containing only cubic beziers: it can easily be parallelized if needed and accelerated by hardware). Bezier arcs are always interesting because drawing them is fast and requires only basic arithmetics, and the time needed to draw them is proportional to the length of the curve with every point drawn with the same accuracy level.
In summary, all curves are representable by cubic Bezier arcs with a maximum measurable deviation allowed (you can set this maximum deviation to one half pixel, or one subpixel if you first scale up the measurement grid for half-toning or subpixel shading, and then represent accurately every curve with a reasonnaly fast rendering, and get accurate rendering at any zoom level with curves smoothed everywhere, including with half-toning or transparency levels when finally drawing the linear strokes with the classic Bresenham algorithm using fast integer-only arithmetics). These rendered curve will all have the correct tangeants everywhere, without any unexpected angles visible on approximation points, and the remaining control points in the approximation will make also a good smooth rendering of the curvature everywhere (i.e. radius of the tangeant circle), so you can use this approximation as well to derive other measurements such as acceleration, inertial forces, or magnetic effects of paths of charged particles).
If you ever need higher precision, use Bezier arcs with degree 4 (i.e. with 3 control points between points on curve) to get smoothed derivation at a supplementary degree (e.g. gradients of forces), or just split the cubic arcs with additional steps further, until the derivation is smooth enough (but using degree-4 Bezier arcs requires much less points curves and less control points for the same accuracy tolerances, than when using cubic Bezier only).
Suppose there's a set of 2D points to represent an initial simple polygon. Now I want to optimize the positions of each point according to some cost function. But this could make the polygon complex, i.e. the polygon intersects with itself. How can I avoid this? Thanks!
If the polygon could be presumed to be convex, then it is simple. Simply compute the angles between each side and the next side. Each angle must be between 0 and 180 degrees for a convex polygon. The sum of those angles is well known for a closed polygon with N sides. This will result in a simple constrained optimization. (Actually, you can write those constraints in a "simpler" form than computing the angles with a trigonometric function. Cross products will suffice.)
If the polygon need not be convex, then you need to worry about edges crossing, or other degeneracies.