Per Pixel collision when animate sprites - xna

This is what I have for detecting collision.
public static bool IntersectPixels(Rectangle rectangleA, Color[] dataA, Rectangle rectangleB, Color[] dataB)
{
int top = Math.Max(rectangleA.Top, rectangleB.Top);
int bottom = Math.Min(rectangleA.Bottom, rectangleB.Bottom);
int left = Math.Max(rectangleA.Left, rectangleB.Left);
int right = Math.Min(rectangleA.Right, rectangleB.Right);
for (int y = top; y < bottom; y++)
{
for (int x = left; x < right; x++)
{
Color colorA = dataA[(x - rectangleA.Left) + (y - rectangleA.Top) * rectangleA.Width];
Color colorB = dataB[(x - rectangleB.Left) + (y - rectangleB.Top) * rectangleB.Width];
if (colorA.A != 0 && colorB.A != 0)
{
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
}:
It work fine until I want to animate stuff. So I have a texture sprite that have about 12 frame. what I need to do is get the color data array of each frame. This is how I get the color data array:
Color[] playerColorArray = new Color[playerColorArray.X * playerColorArray.Y];
PlayerTexture.GetData(playerColorArray);
CData = playerColorArray;
Now my guess is that i have to update the textureData everytime the frame changes
Is there a way to get the the color data from each frame only?

You can get an array of the complete sprite sheet texture and only use the current frame.
Let's say you have a sprite sheet and stride is the offset of a pixel to the pixel below it. This can be the sprite sheet's width. Furthermore, you have the position x0, y0 of the first pixel of the current frame. Then you just have to modify the index calculation:
int posXInFrame = (x - rectangleA.Left);
int posYInFrame = (y - rectangleA.Top);
Color colorA = dataA[(posXInFrame + x0) + (posYInFrame + y0) * stride];
Probably, you have calculated x0 and y0 somewhere else and can pass those values to the function.

Related

Google Maps heat map color by average weight

The Google Maps iOS SDK's heat map (more specifically the Google-Maps-iOS-Utils framework) decides the color to render an area in essentially by calculating the density of the points in that area.
However, I would like to instead select the color based on the average weight or intensity of the points in that area.
From what I understand, this behavior is not built in (but who knows––the documentation sort of sucks). The file where the color-picking is decided is I think in /src/Heatmap/GMUHeatmapTileLayer.mThis is a relatively short file, but I am not very well versed in Objective-C, so I am having some difficulty figuring out what does what. I think -tileForX:y:zoom: in GMUHeatmapTileLayer.m is the important function, but I'm not sure and even if it is, I don't quite know how to modify it. Towards the end of this method, the data is 'convolved' first horizontally and then vertically. I think this is where the intensities are actually calculated. Unfortunately, I do not know exactly what it's doing, and I am afraid of changing things because I suck at obj-c. This is what the convolve parts of this method look like:
- (UIImage *)tileForX:(NSUInteger)x y:(NSUInteger)y zoom:(NSUInteger)zoom {
// ...
// Convolve data.
int lowerLimit = (int)data->_radius;
int upperLimit = paddedTileSize - (int)data->_radius - 1;
// Convolve horizontally first.
float *intermediate = calloc(paddedTileSize * paddedTileSize, sizeof(float));
for (int y = 0; y < paddedTileSize; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < paddedTileSize; x++) {
float value = intensity[y * paddedTileSize + x];
if (value != 0) {
// convolve to x +/- radius bounded by the limit we care about.
int start = MAX(lowerLimit, x - (int)data->_radius);
int end = MIN(upperLimit, x + (int)data->_radius);
for (int x2 = start; x2 <= end; x2++) {
float scaledKernel = value * [data->_kernel[x2 - x + data->_radius] floatValue];
// I THINK THIS IS WHERE I NEED TO MAKE THE CHANGE
intermediate[y * paddedTileSize + x2] += scaledKernel;
// ^
}
}
}
}
free(intensity);
// Convole vertically to get final intensity.
float *finalIntensity = calloc(kGMUTileSize * kGMUTileSize, sizeof(float));
for (int x = lowerLimit; x <= upperLimit; x++) {
for (int y = 0; y < paddedTileSize; y++) {
float value = intermediate[y * paddedTileSize + x];
if (value != 0) {
int start = MAX(lowerLimit, y - (int)data->_radius);
int end = MIN(upperLimit, y + (int)data->_radius);
for (int y2 = start; y2 <= end; y2++) {
float scaledKernel = value * [data->_kernel[y2 - y + data->_radius] floatValue];
// I THINK THIS IS WHERE I NEED TO MAKE THE CHANGE
finalIntensity[(y2 - lowerLimit) * kGMUTileSize + x - lowerLimit] += scaledKernel;
// ^
}
}
}
}
free(intermediate);
// ...
}
This is the method where the intensities are calculated for each iteration, right? If so, how can I change this to achieve my desired effect (average, not summative colors, which I think are proportional to intensity).
So: How can I have averaged instead of summed intensities by modifying the framework?
I think you are on the right track. To calculate average you divide the point sum by the point count. Since you already have the sums calculated, I think an easy solution would be to also save the count for each point. If I understand it correctly, this it what you have to do.
When allocating memory for the sums also allocate memory for the counts
// At this place
float *intermediate = calloc(paddedTileSize * paddedTileSize, sizeof(float));
// Add this line, calloc will initialize them to zero
int *counts = calloc(paddedTileSize * paddedTileSize, sizeof(int));
Then increase the count in each loop.
// Below this line (first loop)
intermediate[y * paddedTileSize + x2] += scaledKernel;
// Add this
counts[y * paddedTileSize + x2]++;
// And below this line (second loop)
finalIntensity[(y2 - lowerLimit) * kGMUTileSize + x - lowerLimit] += scaledKernel;
// Add this
counts[(y2 - lowerLimit) * kGMUTileSize + x - lowerLimit]++;
After the two loops you should have two arrays, one with your sums finalIntensity and one with your counts counts. Now go through the values and calculate the averages.
for (int y = 0; y < paddedTileSize; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < paddedTileSize; x++) {
int n = y * paddedTileSize + x;
if (counts[n] != 0)
finalIntensity[n] = finalIntensity[n] / counts[n];
}
}
free(counts);
The finalIntensity should now contain your averages.
If you prefer, and the rest of the code makes it possible, you can skip the last loop and instead do the division when using the final intensity values. Just change any subsequent finalIntensity[n] to counts[n] == 0 ? finalIntensity[n] : finalIntensity[n] / counts[n].
I may have just solved the same issue for the java version.
My problem was having a custom gradient with 12 different values.
But my actual weighted data does not necessarily contain all intensity values from 1 to 12.
The problem is, the highest intensity value gets mapped to the highest color.
Also 10 datapoints with intensity 1 that are close by will get the same color as a single point with intensity 12.
So the function where the tile gets created is a good starting point:
Java:
public Tile getTile(int x, int y, int zoom) {
// ...
// Quantize points
int dim = TILE_DIM + mRadius * 2;
double[][] intensity = new double[dim][dim];
int[][] count = new int[dim][dim];
for (WeightedLatLng w : points) {
Point p = w.getPoint();
int bucketX = (int) ((p.x - minX) / bucketWidth);
int bucketY = (int) ((p.y - minY) / bucketWidth);
intensity[bucketX][bucketY] += w.getIntensity();
count[bucketX][bucketY]++;
}
// Quantize wraparound points (taking xOffset into account)
for (WeightedLatLng w : wrappedPoints) {
Point p = w.getPoint();
int bucketX = (int) ((p.x + xOffset - minX) / bucketWidth);
int bucketY = (int) ((p.y - minY) / bucketWidth);
intensity[bucketX][bucketY] += w.getIntensity();
count[bucketX][bucketY]++;
}
for(int bx = 0; bx < dim; bx++)
for (int by = 0; by < dim; by++)
if (count[bx][by] != 0)
intensity[bx][by] /= count[bx][by];
//...
I added a counter and count every addition to the intensities, after that I go through every intensity and calculate the average.
For C:
- (UIImage *)tileForX:(NSUInteger)x y:(NSUInteger)y zoom:(NSUInteger)zoom {
//...
// Quantize points.
int paddedTileSize = kGMUTileSize + 2 * (int)data->_radius;
float *intensity = calloc(paddedTileSize * paddedTileSize, sizeof(float));
int *count = calloc(paddedTileSize * paddedTileSize, sizeof(int));
for (GMUWeightedLatLng *item in points) {
GQTPoint p = [item point];
int x = (int)((p.x - minX) / bucketWidth);
// Flip y axis as world space goes south to north, but tile content goes north to south.
int y = (int)((maxY - p.y) / bucketWidth);
// If the point is just on the edge of the query area, the bucketing could put it outside
// bounds.
if (x >= paddedTileSize) x = paddedTileSize - 1;
if (y >= paddedTileSize) y = paddedTileSize - 1;
intensity[y * paddedTileSize + x] += item.intensity;
count[y * paddedTileSize + x] ++;
}
for (GMUWeightedLatLng *item in wrappedPoints) {
GQTPoint p = [item point];
int x = (int)((p.x + wrappedPointsOffset - minX) / bucketWidth);
// Flip y axis as world space goes south to north, but tile content goes north to south.
int y = (int)((maxY - p.y) / bucketWidth);
// If the point is just on the edge of the query area, the bucketing could put it outside
// bounds.
if (x >= paddedTileSize) x = paddedTileSize - 1;
if (y >= paddedTileSize) y = paddedTileSize - 1;
// For wrapped points, additional shifting risks bucketing slipping just outside due to
// numerical instability.
if (x < 0) x = 0;
intensity[y * paddedTileSize + x] += item.intensity;
count[y * paddedTileSize + x] ++;
}
for(int i=0; i < paddedTileSize * paddedTileSize; i++)
if (count[i] != 0)
intensity[i] /= count[i];
Next is the convolving.
What I did there, is to make sure that the calculated value does not go over the maximum in my data.
Java:
// Convolve it ("smoothen" it out)
double[][] convolved = convolve(intensity, mKernel, mMaxAverage);
// the mMaxAverage gets set here:
public void setWeightedData(Collection<WeightedLatLng> data) {
// ...
// Add points to quad tree
for (WeightedLatLng l : mData) {
mTree.add(l);
mMaxAverage = Math.max(l.getIntensity(), mMaxAverage);
}
// ...
// And finally the convolve method:
static double[][] convolve(double[][] grid, double[] kernel, double max) {
// ...
intermediate[x2][y] += val * kernel[x2 - (x - radius)];
if (intermediate[x2][y] > max) intermediate[x2][y] = max;
// ...
outputGrid[x - radius][y2 - radius] += val * kernel[y2 - (y - radius)];
if (outputGrid[x - radius][y2 - radius] > max ) outputGrid[x - radius][y2 - radius] = max;
For C:
// To get the maximum average you could do that here:
- (void)setWeightedData:(NSArray<GMUWeightedLatLng *> *)weightedData {
_weightedData = [weightedData copy];
for (GMUWeightedLatLng *dataPoint in _weightedData)
_maxAverage = Math.max(dataPoint.intensity, _maxAverage)
// ...
// And then simply in the convolve section
intermediate[y * paddedTileSize + x2] += scaledKernel;
if (intermediate[y * paddedTileSize + x2] > _maxAverage)
intermediate[y * paddedTileSize + x2] = _maxAverage;
// ...
finalIntensity[(y2 - lowerLimit) * kGMUTileSize + x - lowerLimit] += scaledKernel;
if (finalIntensity[(y2 - lowerLimit) * kGMUTileSize + x - lowerLimit] > _maxAverage)
finalIntensity[(y2 - lowerLimit) * kGMUTileSize + x - lowerLimit] = _maxAverage;
And finally the coloring
Java:
// The maximum intensity is simply the size of my gradient colors array (or the starting points)
Bitmap bitmap = colorize(convolved, mColorMap, mGradient.mStartPoints.length);
For C:
// Generate coloring
// ...
float max = [data->_maxIntensities[zoom] floatValue];
max = _gradient.startPoints.count;
I did this in Java and it worked for me, not sure about the C-code though.
You have to play around with the radius and you could even edit the kernel. Because I found that when I have a lot of homogeneous data (i.e. little variation in the intensities, or a lot of data in general) the heat map will degenerate to a one-colored overlay, because the gradient on the edges will get smaller and smaller.
But hope this helps anyway.
// Erik

Processing save() Function Saves Only Final Result

Here's my code...
void setup() {
size(500, 500);
surface.setResizable(true);
smooth();
dot = loadImage("1-DOT.png");
}
void draw() {
background(255);
grid(dot, 5, .2);
}
void grid(PImage img, int dim, float scale) {
int imgsize = floor(img.width * scale);
int canvassize;
for (int i = 1; i <= dim; i++) {
canvassize = dim * imgsize;
surface.setSize(canvassize, canvassize);
for (int x = 0; x < canvassize; x += imgsize) {
for (int y = 0; y < canvassize; y += imgsize) {
image(img, x, y, imgsize, imgsize);
}
}
save("grid_" + str(i) + ".png");
}
}
The grid function takes an image file, a dimension parameter, and a scale. It creates square grids of sizes 0 to dim from image.
It should save each iteration of this grid as a file. But it doesn't. What I am left with once I run the code is (in this case), 5 identical 5x5 grids. I should have a 1x1 grid, a 2x2 grid and so on. I have also attempted to use saveFrame(), but to no avail.
Thanks in advance!
Majlik is correct that you aren't calculating your canvassize correctly. If you want it to be different each iteration of the loop, then you need to use i instead of dim.
But on top of that, it seems like a really bad idea to change the size of your surface in the middle of a call to draw(). That throws an IndexOutOfBoundsException for me.
Instead, you'll probably have better luck if you create a PGraphics of whatever size you want and draw to that. Here's an example:
void setup() {
PImage dot = loadImage("dot.png");
grid(dot, 5, .2);
exit();
}
void grid(PImage img, int dim, float scale) {
int imgsize = floor(img.width * scale);
for (int i = 1; i <= dim; i++) {
int canvassize = i * imgsize;
PGraphics pg = createGraphics(canvassize, canvassize);
pg.beginDraw();
for (int x = 0; x < canvassize; x += imgsize) {
for (int y = 0; y < canvassize; y += imgsize) {
pg.image(img, x, y, imgsize, imgsize);
}
}
pg.endDraw();
pg.save("grid_" + str(i) + ".png");
}
}
That creates these images:
Also, notice that I'm not calling this from the draw() function: your program would continuously create images, which is not necessary. Just create them once and then exit.
I think you have mistake on calculating a canvassize. If I get your goal right you should use i instead of dim.
canvassize = i * imgsize; // Corrected
Also it is easier to use saveFrame instead of save
saveFrame("grid_###.png");
But I tested in only with Java Mode (without surface methods).

Un-Distort raw images received from the Leap motion cameras

I've been working with the leap for a long time now. 2.1.+ SDK version allows us to access the cameras and get raw images. I want to use those images with OpenCV for square/circle detection and stuff... the problem is i can't get those images undistorted. i read the docs, but don't quite get what they mean. here's one thing i need to understand properly before going forward
distortion_data_ = image.distortion();
for (int d = 0; d < image.distortionWidth() * image.distortionHeight(); d += 2)
{
float dX = distortion_data_[d];
float dY = distortion_data_[d + 1];
if(!((dX < 0) || (dX > 1)) && !((dY < 0) || (dY > 1)))
{
//what do i do now to undistort the image?
}
}
data = image.data();
mat.put(0, 0, data);
//Imgproc.Canny(mat, mat, 100, 200);
//mat = findSquare(mat);
ok.showImage(mat);
in the docs it says something like this "
The calibration map can be used to correct image distortion due to lens curvature and other imperfections. The map is a 64x64 grid of points. Each point consists of two 32-bit values....(the rest on the dev website)"
can someone explain this in detail please, OR OR, just post the java code to undistort the images give me an output MAT image so i may continue processing that (i'd still prefer a good explanation if possible)
Ok, I have no leap camera to test all this, but this is how I understand the documentation:
The calibration map does not hold offsets but full point positions. An entry says where the pixel has to be placed instead. Those values are mapped between 0 and 1, which means that you have to mutiply them by your real image width and height.
What isnt explained explicitly is, how you pixel positions are mapped to 64 x 64 positions of your calibration map. I assume that it's the same way: 640 pixels width are mapped to 64 pixels width and 240 pixels height are mapped to 64 pixels height.
So in general, to move from one of your 640 x 240 pixel positions (pX, pY) to the undistorted position you will:
compute corresponding pixel position in the calibration map: float cX = pX/640.0f * 64.0f; float cY = pY/240.0f * 64.0f;
(cX, cY) is now the locaion of that pixel in the calibration map. You will have to interpolate between two pixel locaions, but I will now only explain how to go on for a discrete location in the calibration map (cX', cY') = rounded locations of (cX, cY).
read the x and y values out of the calibration map: dX, dY as in the documentation. You have to compute the location in the array by: d = dY*calibrationMapWidth*2 + dX*2;
dX and dY are values between 0 and 1 (if not: dont undistort this point because there is no undistortion available. To find out the pixel location in your real image, multiply by the image size: uX = dX*640; uY = dY*240;
set your pixel to the undistorted value: undistortedImage(pX,pY) = distortedImage(uX,uY);
but you dont have discrete point positions in your calibration map, so you have to interpolate. I'll give you an example:
let be (cX,cY) = (13.7, 10.4)
so you read from your calibration map four values:
calibMap(13,10) = (dX1, dY1)
calibMap(14,10) = (dX2, dY2)
calibMap(13,11) = (dX3, dY3)
calibMap(14,11) = (dX4, dY4)
now your undistorted pixel position for (13.7, 10.4) is (multiply each with 640 or 240 to get uX1, uY1, uX2, etc):
// interpolate in x direction first:
float tmpUX1 = uX1*0.3 + uX2*0.7
float tmpUY1 = uY1*0.3 + uY2*0.7
float tmpUX2 = uX3*0.3 + uX4*0.7
float tmpUY2 = uY3*0.3 + uY4*0.7
// now interpolate in y direction
float combinedX = tmpUX1*0.6 + tmpUX2*0.4
float combinedY = tmpUY1*0.6 + tmpUY2*0.4
and your undistorted point is:
undistortedImage(pX,pY) = distortedImage(floor(combinedX+0.5),floor(combinedY+0.5)); or interpolate pixel values there too.
Hope this helps for a basic understanding. I'll try to add openCV remap code soon! The only point thats unclear for me is, whether the mapping between pX/Y and cX/Y is correct, cause thats not explicitly explained in the documentation.
Here is some code. You can skip the first part, where I am faking a distortion and creating the map, which is your initial state.
With openCV it is simple, just resize the calibration map to your image size and multiply all the values with your resolution. The nice thing is, that openCV performs the interpolation "automatically" while resizing.
int main()
{
cv::Mat input = cv::imread("../Data/Lenna.png");
cv::Mat distortedImage = input.clone();
// now i fake some distortion:
cv::Mat transformation = cv::Mat::eye(3,3,CV_64FC1);
transformation.at<double>(0,0) = 2.0;
cv::warpPerspective(input,distortedImage,transformation,input.size());
cv::imshow("distortedImage", distortedImage);
//cv::imwrite("../Data/LenaFakeDistorted.png", distortedImage);
// now fake a calibration map corresponding to my faked distortion:
const unsigned int cmWidth = 64;
const unsigned int cmHeight = 64;
// compute the calibration map by transforming image locations to values between 0 and 1 for legal positions.
float calibMap[cmWidth*cmHeight*2];
for(unsigned int y = 0; y < cmHeight; ++y)
for(unsigned int x = 0; x < cmWidth; ++x)
{
float xx = (float)x/(float)cmWidth;
xx = xx*2.0f; // this if from my fake distortion... this gives some values bigger than 1
float yy = (float)y/(float)cmHeight;
calibMap[y*cmWidth*2+ 2*x] = xx;
calibMap[y*cmWidth*2+ 2*x+1] = yy;
}
// NOW you have the initial situation of your scenario: calibration map and distorted image...
// compute the image locations of calibration map values:
cv::Mat cMapMatX = cv::Mat(cmHeight, cmWidth, CV_32FC1);
cv::Mat cMapMatY = cv::Mat(cmHeight, cmWidth, CV_32FC1);
for(int j=0; j<cmHeight; ++j)
for(int i=0; i<cmWidth; ++i)
{
cMapMatX.at<float>(j,i) = calibMap[j*cmWidth*2 +2*i];
cMapMatY.at<float>(j,i) = calibMap[j*cmWidth*2 +2*i+1];
}
//cv::imshow("mapX",cMapMatX);
//cv::imshow("mapY",cMapMatY);
// interpolate those values for each of your original images pixel:
// here I use linear interpolation, you could use cubic or other interpolation too.
cv::resize(cMapMatX, cMapMatX, distortedImage.size(), 0,0, CV_INTER_LINEAR);
cv::resize(cMapMatY, cMapMatY, distortedImage.size(), 0,0, CV_INTER_LINEAR);
// now the calibration map has the size of your original image, but its values are still between 0 and 1 (for legal positions)
// so scale to image size:
cMapMatX = distortedImage.cols * cMapMatX;
cMapMatY = distortedImage.rows * cMapMatY;
// now create undistorted image:
cv::Mat undistortedImage = cv::Mat(distortedImage.rows, distortedImage.cols, CV_8UC3);
undistortedImage.setTo(cv::Vec3b(0,0,0)); // initialize black
//cv::imshow("undistorted", undistortedImage);
for(int j=0; j<undistortedImage.rows; ++j)
for(int i=0; i<undistortedImage.cols; ++i)
{
cv::Point undistPosition;
undistPosition.x =(cMapMatX.at<float>(j,i)); // this will round the position, maybe you want interpolation instead
undistPosition.y =(cMapMatY.at<float>(j,i));
if(undistPosition.x >= 0 && undistPosition.x < distortedImage.cols
&& undistPosition.y >= 0 && undistPosition.y < distortedImage.rows)
{
undistortedImage.at<cv::Vec3b>(j,i) = distortedImage.at<cv::Vec3b>(undistPosition);
}
}
cv::imshow("undistorted", undistortedImage);
cv::waitKey(0);
//cv::imwrite("../Data/LenaFakeUndistorted.png", undistortedImage);
}
cv::Mat SelfDescriptorDistances(cv::Mat descr)
{
cv::Mat selfDistances = cv::Mat::zeros(descr.rows,descr.rows, CV_64FC1);
for(int keyptNr = 0; keyptNr < descr.rows; ++keyptNr)
{
for(int keyptNr2 = 0; keyptNr2 < descr.rows; ++keyptNr2)
{
double euclideanDistance = 0;
for(int descrDim = 0; descrDim < descr.cols; ++descrDim)
{
double tmp = descr.at<float>(keyptNr,descrDim) - descr.at<float>(keyptNr2, descrDim);
euclideanDistance += tmp*tmp;
}
euclideanDistance = sqrt(euclideanDistance);
selfDistances.at<double>(keyptNr, keyptNr2) = euclideanDistance;
}
}
return selfDistances;
}
I use this as input and fake a remap/distortion from which I compute my calib mat:
input:
faked distortion:
used the map to undistort the image:
TODO: after those computatons use a opencv map with those values to perform faster remapping.
Here's an example on how to do it without using OpenCV. The following seems to be faster than using the Leap::Image::warp() method (probably due to the additional function call overhead when using warp()):
float destinationWidth = 320;
float destinationHeight = 120;
unsigned char destination[(int)destinationWidth][(int)destinationHeight];
//define needed variables outside the inner loop
float calX, calY, weightX, weightY, dX1, dX2, dX3, dX4, dY1, dY2, dY3, dY4, dX, dY;
int x1, x2, y1, y2, denormalizedX, denormalizedY;
int x, y;
const unsigned char* raw = image.data();
const float* distortion_buffer = image.distortion();
//Local variables for values needed in loop
const int distortionWidth = image.distortionWidth();
const int width = image.width();
const int height = image.height();
for (x = 0; x < destinationWidth; x++) {
for (y = 0; y < destinationHeight; y++) {
//Calculate the position in the calibration map (still with a fractional part)
calX = 63 * x/destinationWidth;
calY = 63 * y/destinationHeight;
//Save the fractional part to use as the weight for interpolation
weightX = calX - truncf(calX);
weightY = calY - truncf(calY);
//Get the x,y coordinates of the closest calibration map points to the target pixel
x1 = calX; //Note truncation to int
y1 = calY;
x2 = x1 + 1;
y2 = y1 + 1;
//Look up the x and y values for the 4 calibration map points around the target
// (x1, y1) .. .. .. (x2, y1)
// .. ..
// .. (x, y) ..
// .. ..
// (x1, y2) .. .. .. (x2, y2)
dX1 = distortion_buffer[x1 * 2 + y1 * distortionWidth];
dX2 = distortion_buffer[x2 * 2 + y1 * distortionWidth];
dX3 = distortion_buffer[x1 * 2 + y2 * distortionWidth];
dX4 = distortion_buffer[x2 * 2 + y2 * distortionWidth];
dY1 = distortion_buffer[x1 * 2 + y1 * distortionWidth + 1];
dY2 = distortion_buffer[x2 * 2 + y1 * distortionWidth + 1];
dY3 = distortion_buffer[x1 * 2 + y2 * distortionWidth + 1];
dY4 = distortion_buffer[x2 * 2 + y2 * distortionWidth + 1];
//Bilinear interpolation of the looked-up values:
// X value
dX = dX1 * (1 - weightX) * (1- weightY) + dX2 * weightX * (1 - weightY) + dX3 * (1 - weightX) * weightY + dX4 * weightX * weightY;
// Y value
dY = dY1 * (1 - weightX) * (1- weightY) + dY2 * weightX * (1 - weightY) + dY3 * (1 - weightX) * weightY + dY4 * weightX * weightY;
// Reject points outside the range [0..1]
if((dX >= 0) && (dX <= 1) && (dY >= 0) && (dY <= 1)) {
//Denormalize from [0..1] to [0..width] or [0..height]
denormalizedX = dX * width;
denormalizedY = dY * height;
//look up the brightness value for the target pixel
destination[x][y] = raw[denormalizedX + denormalizedY * width];
} else {
destination[x][y] = -1;
}
}
}

Working out heightmap normals in DirectX using triangle strips

I'm trying to load in heightmap data but I'm struggling to figure out how to work out the normals. Have looked online but can't seem to find anything useful.
I store the vertices using
m_HeightMapVtxCount = (m_HeightMapLength - 1) * m_HeightMapWidth * 2;
m_pVertices = new XMFLOAT3[m_HeightMapVtxCount];
Then the vertices are loaded in using
for (int l = 0; l < m_HeightMapLength - 1; ++l)
{
if(l % 2 == 0) //for every second row - start at the bottom left corner, continue to the right, one row up and continue to the left
{
for(int w = 0; w < m_HeightMapWidth; ++w)
{
m_pVertices[i++] = XMFLOAT3(m_pHeightMap[w + l * m_HeightMapWidth]); //bottom vertex
m_pVertices[i++] = XMFLOAT3(m_pHeightMap[w + (l + 1) * m_HeightMapWidth]); //top vertex
}
}
else //for the row above, add the vertices from right to left
{
for(int w = m_HeightMapWidth - 1; w >= 0; --w)
{
m_pVertices[i++] = XMFLOAT3(m_pHeightMap[w + l * m_HeightMapWidth]); //bottom vertex
m_pVertices[i++] = XMFLOAT3(m_pHeightMap[w + (l + 1) * m_HeightMapWidth]); //top vertex
}
}
}
I was able to calculate the normals using triangle lists, that was quite simple, but unsure of how to do it using strips

How to efficiently merge two overlapping contours into one big contour?

I have a huge image ( about 63000 x 63000 pixels = 3969 Megapixels )
what i have done so far is i decided to make "tiles" of (1024 x 1024) and do my calculations based on these tiles, resulting in an 62 x 62 image tile grid!
(this works out very well and has the advantage of making the image viewable with zoom-in and zoom out, only viewn tiles are downsized for example)
But what i need now are the contours from the huge image!
i use the OpenCV function "findContours" to detect contours on each
one of the tiles.
i have added some overlap in the tiles so i get
overlapping contours ( 1 pixel overlap )
i used the offset parameter
of "findContours" to shift the contours to the right position
into the "virtual total image"
Here are some screenshot's i made from a demo application
What I want is this:
Now my questions:
is it possible to stitch the contours, my worst case is a contour which covers the total image... is there some library that can do this?
is there a library which works on a compressed version of the total image ( like rle for example )
is there a way to make opencv findcontours work on 1 bit binary images ?
Here's the code used by findcontours:
// Surf2DTiledData ...a gobject based class used for 2d tile management and viewing..
Surf2DTiledData* td = (Surf2DTiledData*)in_td;
int nr_hor_tiles = surf2_d_tiled_data_get_nr_hor_tiles(td);
int nr_ver_tiles = surf2_d_tiled_data_get_nr_ver_tiles(td);
int tile_size_x = surf2_d_tiled_data_get_tile_width(td);
int tile_size_y = surf2_d_tiled_data_get_tile_height(td);
contouring_data_obj = surf2_d_tiled_data_get_ContouringData(td);
p_contours = contouring_data_obj->p_contours;
p_border_contours = contouring_data_obj->p_border_contours;
g_return_if_fail(p_border_contours != NULL);
g_return_if_fail(p_contours != NULL);
for (y = 0; y < nr_ver_tiles; y++){
int x;
for (x = 0; x < nr_hor_tiles; x++){
int idx = x + y*nr_hor_tiles;
CvMemStorage *mem = contouring_data_obj->contour_storage[idx];
CvMat _src;
CvSeq *contours = NULL;
uchar* dataBuffer = (uchar*)p_data[x][y];
// the idea is to have some extra space available for the overlap
// detection of contours!
// the extra space is needed for the algorithm to check for
// overlaps of contours later on!
#define VIRT_BORDER_EXTEND 2
int virtual_x = x * tile_size_x - VIRT_BORDER_EXTEND;
int virtual_y = y * tile_size_y - VIRT_BORDER_EXTEND;
int virtual_width = tile_size_x + VIRT_BORDER_EXTEND * 2;
int virtual_height = tile_size_y + VIRT_BORDER_EXTEND * 2;
int x_off = -VIRT_BORDER_EXTEND;
int y_off = -VIRT_BORDER_EXTEND;
if (virtual_x < 0) {
virtual_width += virtual_x;
virtual_x = 0;
x_off = 0;
}
if (virtual_y < 0) {
virtual_height += virtual_y;
virtual_y = 0;
y_off = 0;
}
if ((virtual_x + virtual_width) > (nr_hor_tiles*tile_size_x)) {
virtual_width = nr_hor_tiles*tile_size_x - virtual_x;
}
if ((virtual_y + virtual_height) > (nr_ver_tiles*tile_size_y)) {
virtual_height = nr_ver_tiles*tile_size_y - virtual_y;
}
CvMat* _roi_mat = get_roi_mat(td,
virtual_x, virtual_y,
virtual_width, virtual_height);
// Use either this:
//mem = cvCreateMemStorage(0);
if (_roi_mat){
// CV_LINK_RUNS => different algorithm!!!!
int tile_off_x = tile_size_x * x;
int tile_off_y = tile_size_y * y;
CvPoint contour_shift = cvPoint(x_off + tile_off_x, y_off + tile_off_y);
int n = cvFindContours(_roi_mat, mem, &contours, sizeof(CvContour), CV_RETR_LIST, CV_CHAIN_APPROX_SIMPLE, contour_shift);
cvReleaseMat(&_roi_mat);
p_contours[x][y] = contours;
}
//cvReleaseMemStorage(&mem);
}
}
later i used opengl to make textures out of the tiles and for every tile there is a quad !
the opencv contours are not drawn as this could be too slow for now, but i draw their bounding boxes... which are drawn in opengl too..

Resources