My inputs
I have a vector<Point2f> that contains the contours of a polygon. I also have a list of points that need to be intersected with this polygon.
The problem
I want to calculate how much of these points intersect with the polygon. I want to repeat this calculation on a number of polygons to see which one contains the highest number of points.
Does OpenCV implement such intersection functionality of its own or will I need to implement an intersection function myself? I'm worried that if I try to implement it myself, the result will be unnecessarily slow. If OpenCV can't do it, are there other free graphics libraries that can perform this task?
pointPolygonTest does exactly what you're looking for, and it's pretty well optimized. The parameter is a Mat which you can make with the constructor that takes your vector of points.
The function determines whether the point is inside a contour, outside, or lies on an edge (or coincides with a vertex). It returns positive (inside), negative (outside) or zero (on an edge) value, correspondingly. When measureDist=false , the return value is +1, -1 and 0, respectively. Otherwise, the return value it is a signed distance between the point and the nearest contour edge.
Your problem seems easily parallelizable, though, i.e. each batch of candidate polygons could run on a different thread, so I'd definitely look into that if you're concerned about performance.
Related
Given two 2D polygons, how do I calculate the shortest translation that brings the first inside the second?
Assume there is a solution (i.e. the first does in fact fit inside the second)
Prefer a simple algorithm over completeness of solution. For example if the algorithm is simplified by making assumptions about the shapes having a certain number of sides, being concave, etc. then make those assumptions.
I can imagine a brute force solution, where I first calculate which are the offending vertices that lie outside the initial polygon. I'd then iterate through these external vertices and find the closest edge to each. Then I'm stuck. Each distance from an external vertex to an edge creates a constraint (a "need to move"). I then need to solve this system of constraints to find the movement that fulfills them all without creating any new violations.
I'm not sure if this can be a general solution, but here is at least a point to start with:
We want to move the green polygon into the red polygon. We use several translations. Each translation is defined by a start point and an end point.
Step 1: Start point is the mid-point between the left-most vertex and the right-most vertex in green polygon. End point, same criterion with the red polygon:
Step 2: Start point is the mid-point between the top-most vertex and the low-most vertex. End point, same criterion with the red polygon:
Notice that setps 1 & 2 are kind of centering. This method with mid points is similar to use the bounding boxes. Other way would be using circumcircles, but they are hard to get.
Step 3: Find the vertex in red polygon closest to an edge in the green polygon. You will need to iterate over all of them. Find the line perpendicular to that edge:
Well, this is not perfect. Depending on the given polygons it's better to proceed the other way: closest vertex in green to edges in red. Choose the smallest distance.
Finally, move the green polygon along that line:
If this method doesn't work (I'm sure there are cases where it fails), then you can also move the inner polygon along a line (a red edge or a perpendicular) that solves the issue. And continue moving until no issues are found.
I'm using a polygonal chain to approximate a curve. I want to approximate the average of a function of curvature of all points that lie on the curve. One function of curvature that I need is, for example, the square of curvature.
I can get near that by choosing some points on the chain, calculating the curvature in those points, applying the function on it (for example squaring it), and then averaging the calculated values.
I need both accuracy and speed. I appreciate both — fast, but approximate; as well as accurate, but slow solutions. I'm working in Java, but the answer doesn't need to be written in Java — it doesn't even need to contain any code at all.
Polygonal chain with uniform segment length
If the polygonal chain's segments all have equal length, I can just calculate the curvature in the vertices and then average that. I see two ways to get the curvature in a vertex.
One way is to get the circle that goes through the selected vertex, the vertex before it, and the one after it. The curvature is then 1/radius of the circle.
The other way is to calculate the external angle (in radians) of the two segments connected at the selected vertex and then divide its absolute value by the length of a segment. In the following image, φ marks the external angle:
I am not sure if this method is correct, as I haven't mathematically derived it, but I've noticed through experimentation that it gives similar results to the above method.
Polygonal chain with non-uniform segment length
Unfortunately, though, there's no guarantee that the segments have uniform length.
If I try using the first of the above methods, vertices connected to longer segments give lower curvatures, even if they are visibly sharper. I tried substituting previous and next vertices with a point x units before the selected vertex and a point x units after it. I don't know what to set the x constant to, to get accurate results. All the values I've tried seemed to give inaccurate results.
If I try using the second method, I don't know what length to divide the angle by. If I don't divide by anything at all, I actually get pretty good results for comparing two curves and determining which one is curvier, but I need to be able to determine the actual curvature in a point.
With both of these methods there's also the problem that parts with shorter segments (where points are denser) will affect the average more.
Another possible solution would be to ignore the vertices and instead use an array of points on the chain that are evenly spaced, treat them as a new polygonal chain (connect the points with straight lines), and then calculate curvatures on this new chain instead, using one of the methods I mentioned under the header titled "Polygonal chain with uniform segment length".
Finding such an array of points is not trivial, though, because I have to choose a segment length, and only after producing the points, I can see if the length of the resulting chain is divisible by the chosen segment length.
If you aren't short on space, the last solution you mentioned would be the best, because the "sphere" approximation, as you've perhaps realized, would give awful results in more extreme cases, especially if the curvature is large or changes sign quickly.
There are many ways to do interpolations, the simplest being quadratic and cubic splines. However if you have more pre-processing time, Lagrange polynomials produce very good results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_polynomial.
Side note on your angle division method, consider this diagram:
(From simple geometry the inside angle there is also theta)
For a << l. So the curvature:
So your approximation is in fact correct for small curvatures.
An alternative is to use a local parabola approximation to estimate the curvature. Basically, to estimate the curvature at point P(i), you take P(i-1), P(i) and P(i+1) and construct a parabola from these 3 points. Then, you compute the curvature at P(i) from the parabola. Remember to use chord-length (or centripetal) parametrization when constructing the parabola.
Let's assume I have a polygon and I have computed all of its self-intersections. How do I determine whether a specific edge is inside or outside according to the nonzero fill rule? By "outside edge" I mean an edge which lies between a filled region and a non-filled region.
Example:
On the left is an example polygon, filled according to the nonzero fill rule. On the right is the same polygon with its outside edges highlighted in red. I'm looking for an algorithm that, given the edges of the polygon and their intersections with each other, can mark each of the edges as either outside or inside.
Preferably, the solution should generalize to paths that are composed of e.g. Bezier curves.
[EDIT] two more examples to consider:
I've noticed that the "outside edge" that is enclosed within the shape must cross an even number of intersections before they get to the outside. The "non-outside edges" that are enclosed must cross an odd number of intersections.
You might try an algorithm like this
isOutside = true
edge = find first outside edge*
edge.IsOutside = isOutside
while (not got back to start) {
edge = next
if (gone over intersection)
isOutside = !isOutside
edge.IsOutside = isOutside
}
For example:
*I think that you can always find an outside edge by trying each line in turn: try extending it infinitely - if it does not cross another line then it should be on the outside. This seems intuitively true but I wonder if there are some pathological cases where you cannot find a start line using this rule. Using this method of finding the first line will not work with curves.
I think, you problem can be solved in two steps.
A triangulation of a source polygon with algorithm that supports self-intersecting polygons. Good start is Seidel algorithm. The section 5.2 of the linked PDF document describes self-intersecting polygons.
A merge triangles into the single polygon with algorithm that supports holes, i.e. Weiler-Atherton algorithm. This algorithm can be used for both the clipping and the merging, so you need it's "merging" case. Maybe you can simplify the algorithm, cause triangles form first step are not intersecting.
I realized this can be determined in a fairly simple way, using a slight modification of the standard routine that computes the winding number. It is conceptually similar to evaluating the winding both immediately to the left and immediately to the right of the target edge. Here is the algorithm for arbitrary curves, not just line segments:
Pick a point on the target segment. Ensure the Y derivative at that point is nonzero.
Subdivide the target segment at the Y roots of its derivative. In the next point, ignore the portion of the segment that contains the point you picked in step 1.
Determine the winding number at the point picked in 1. This can be done by casting a ray in the +X direction and seeing what intersects it, and in what direction. Intersections at points where Y component of derivative is positive are counted as +1. While doing this, ignore the Y-monotonic portion that contains the point you picked in step 1.
If the winding number is 0, we are done - this is definitely an outside edge. If it is nonzero and different than -1, 0 or 1, we are done - this is definitely an inside edge.
Inspect the derivative at the point picked in step 1. If intersection of the ray with that point would be counted as -1 and the winding number obtained in step 3 is +1, this is an outside edge; similarly for +1/-1 case. Otherwise this is an inside edge.
In essence, we are checking whether intersection of the ray with the target segment changes the winding number between zero and non-zero.
I'd suggest what I feel is a simpler implementation of your solution that has worked for me:
1. Pick ANY point on the target segment. (I arbitrarily pick the midpoint.)
2. Construct a ray from that point normal to the segment. (I use a left normal ray for a CW polygon and a right normal ray for a CCW polygon.)
3. Count the intersections of the ray with the polygon, ignoring the target segment itself. Here you can chose a NonZero winding rule [decrement for polygon segments crossing to the left (CCW) and increment for a crossing to the right (CW); where an inside edge yields a zero count] or an EvenOdd rule [count all crossings where an inside edge yields an odd count]. For line segments, crossing direction is determined with a simple left-or-right test for its start and end points. For arcs and curves it can be done with tangents at the intersection, an exercise for the reader.
My purpose for this analysis is to divide a self-intersecting polygon into an equivalent set of not self-intersecting polygons. To that end, it's useful to likewise analyze the ray in the opposite direction and sense if the original polygon would be filled there or not. This results in an inside/outside determination for BOTH sides of the segment, yielding four possible states. I suspect an OUTSIDE-OUTSIDE state might be valid only for a non-closed polygon, but for this analysis it might be desirable to temporarily close it. Segments with the same state can be collected into non-intersecting polygons by tracing their shared intersections. In some cases, such as with a pure fill, you might even decide to eliminate INSIDE-INSIDE polygons as redundant since they fill an already-filled space.
And thanks for your original solution!!
Problem specification:
I have a rectangular and uniformly spaced image of pixels with vertex coordinates (i,j), (i+1,j), (i, j+1), (i+1, j+1) [i=0,...,m-1; j=0,...,n-1] and a polygon P with vertex coordinates (x_1,y_1), ..., (x_n, y_n). Now I want to efficiently compute the percentage of every pixel overlapping with P. P can be non-convex, or even self-intersection.
Essentially, this is a "soft" generalization of the scan-line rasterization algorithms which check efficiently if the pixel centers lie inside / outside the polygon.
I can think of the following approaches:
(1) Upsample the image (e.g. by a factor 10*10), count how many subpixel centers lie inside the polygon, and divide by 100. Problems: time efficiency, memory efficiency, accuracy.
(2) Use the scan-line algorithm on a slightly bigger and by (0.5,0.5) translated grid to compute the pixels that lie fully inside / outside, create a list of "borderline" pixels, walk counter-clockwise along the edges and compute the intersection areas with all pixels along the way. Problems: requires subtle coding, easy to introduce bugs.
My question: Has anybody already encountered this problem, and do you know a third, superior approach? And if not, have you made better experiences with (1) or with (2)? I assume that this problem may arise in the context of antialiasing?
Doing the exact geometric analysis might not be too difficult.
Deal with those pixels that are partially covered by the polygon first: you can use a technique from ray-tracing to quickly find all pixels that intersect with the polygon edges. You can then use the Cohen-Sutherland algorithm to efficiently find the points of intersection between the edge and the pixel, and hence you can compute the area of coverage for that pixel.
Note that you can avoid one of the two clipping operations involved in Cohen-Sutherland as adjacent pixels will share a segment intersection point. For instance - if you have two adjacent pixels, A and B that intersect with a segment p->q at points a1, a2, b1 and b2, then a2 and b1 will be the same. Passing the segment a2->q into the routine when clipping against B should avoid repeating work.
You'll have to treat the pixels that contain the polygon vertices specially, but again it shouldn't be too tricky: Cohen-Sutherland will help here as well.
Self-intersecting polygons will also throw up some special cases to handle - pixels that intersect with two or more edges. I can easily imagine that handling these exactly in all cases might get tricky, so I'd be tempted to just do the upsampling approach here.
Once these edge pixels have been identified, you can do the standard scan-line thing to fill in the polygon's interior pixels.
edit: Actually, now that I think more about it, you can totally skip the Cohen-Sutherland step. The algorithm in the linked paper can be easily extended to return the intersection points between the segment and the pixel grid. The segment will leave a given pixel at min( tMaxX, tMaxY ). Keep track of the last exit point to re-use as the entry point for the next pixel.
I would do
1a) Upsample when the pixel is partly overlapping:
but not the whole image, only the current pixel to be checked, or all pixels in the current scan line if that helps.
Than there is no memory argument.
speed? up to 16x16 i dont think that speed is an issue.
I'm using Unity, but the solution should be generic.
I will get user input from mouse clicks, which define the vertex list of a closed irregular polygon.
That vertices will define the outer edges of a flat 3D mesh.
To procedurally generate a mesh in Unity, I have to specify all the vertices and how they are connected to form triangles.
So, for convex polygons it's trivial, I'd just make triangles with vertices 1,2,3 then 1,3,4 etc. forming something like a Peacock tail.
But for concave polygons it's not so simple.
Is there an efficient algorithm to find the internal triangles?
You could make use of a constrained Delaunay triangulation (which is not trivial to implement!). Good library implementations are available within Triangle and CGAL, providing efficient O(n*log(n)) implementations.
If the vertex set is small, the ear-clipping algorithm is also a possibility, although it wont necessarily give you a Delaunay triangulation (it will typically produce sub-optimal triangles) and runs in O(n^2). It is pretty easy to implement yourself though.
Since the input vertices exist on a flat plane in 3d space, you could obtain a 2d problem by projecting onto the plane, computing the triangulation in 2d and then applying the same mesh topology to your 3d vertex set.
I've implemented the ear clipping algorithm as follows:
Iterate over the vertices until a convex vertex, v is found
Check whether any point on the polygon lies within the triangle (v-1,v,v+1). If there are, then you need to partition the polygon along the vertices v, and the point which is farthest away from the line (v-1, v+1). Recursively evaluate both partitions.
If the triangle around vertex v contains no other vertices, add the triangle to your output list and remove vertex v, repeat until done.
Notes:
This is inherently a 2D operation even when working on 3D faces. To consider the problem in 2D, simply ignore the vector coordinate of the face's normal which has the largest absolute value. (This is how you "project" the 3D face into 2D coordinates). For example, if the face had normal (0,1,0), you would ignore the y coordinate and work in the x,z plane.
To determine which vertices are convex, you first need to know the polygon's winding. You can determine this by finding the leftmost (smallest x coordinate) vertex in the polygon (break ties by finding the smallest y). Such a vertex is always convex, so the winding of this vertex gives you the winding of the polygon.
You determine winding and/or convexity with the signed triangle area equation. See: http://softsurfer.com/Archive/algorithm_0101/algorithm_0101.htm. Depending on your polygon's winding, all convex triangles with either have positive area (counterclockwise winding), or negative area (clockwise winding).
The point-in-triangle formula is constructed from the signed-triangle-area formula. See: How to determine if a point is in a 2D triangle?.
In step 2 where you need to determine which vertex (v) is farthest away from the line, you can do so by forming the triangles (L0, v, L1), and checking which one has the largest area (absolute value, unless you're assuming a specific winding direction)
This algorithm is not well defined for self-intersecting polygons, and due to the nature of floating point precision, you will likely encounter such a case. Some safeguards can be implemented for stability: - A point should not be considered to be inside your triangle unless it is a concave point. (Such a case indicates self-intersection and you should not partition your set along this vertex). You may encounter a situation where a partition is entirely concave (i.e. it's wound differently to the original polygon's winding). This partition should be discarded.
Because the algorithm is cyclic and involves partitioning the sets, it is highly efficient to use a bidirectional link list structure with an array for storage. You can then partition the sets in 0(1), however the algorithm still has an average O(n^2) runtime. The best case running time is actually a set where you need to partition many times, as this rapidly reduces the number of comparisons.
There is a community script for triangulating concave polygons but I've not personally used it. The author claims it works on 3D points as well as 2D.
One hack I've used in the past if I want to constrain the problem to 2D is to use principal component analysis to find the 2 axes of greatest change in my 3D data and making these my "X" and "Y".