I have a set of points to define a shape. These points are in order and essentially are my "selection".
I want to be able to contract this selection by an arbitrary amount to get a smaller version of my original shape.
In a basic example with a triangle, the points are simply moved along their normal which is defined by the points to the left and the right of the points in question.
Eventually all 3 points will meet and form one point but until that point they will make a smaller and smaller triangle.
For more complex shapes, when moving the individual points inward, they may pass through the outer edge of the shape resulting in weird artifacts. Obviously I'll need to cull these points and remove them from the array.
Any help in exactly how I can do that would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
This is just an idea but couldn't you find the center of mass of the object, create a vector from the center to each point, and move each point along this vector?
To find the center of mass would of course involve averaging each x and y coordinate. Getting a vector is as simple a subtracting the point in question with the center point. Normalizing and scaling are common vector operations that can be found with the Google.
EDIT
Another way to interpret what you're asking is you want to erode your collection of points. As in morphology erosion. This is typically applied to binary images but you can slightly modify the concept to work with a collection of points. Essentially, you need to write a function that, given a point, will return true (black) or false (white) depending on if that point is inside or outside the shape defined by your points. You'd have to look up how to do that for shapes that aren't always concave (it's harder but not impossible).
Now, obviously, every single one of your actual points will return false because they're all on the border (by definition). However, you now have a matrix of points around your point of interest that define where is "inside" and where is "outside". Average all of the "inside" points and move your actual point along the vector between itself and towards this average. You could play with different erosion kernels to see what works best.
You could even work with a kernel with floating point weights instead of either/or values which will affect your average calculation proportional to their weights. With this, you could approximate a circular kernel with a low number of points. Try the simpler method first.
Find the selection center (as suggested by colithium)
Map the selection points to the coordinate system with the selection center at (0,0). For example, if the selection center is at (150,150), and a given selection point is at (125,75), the mapped position of the point becomes (-25,-75).
Scale the mapped points (multiply X and Y by something in the range of 0.0..1.0)
Remap the points back to the original coordinate system
Only simple maths required, no need to muck about normalizing vectors.
Related
I am trying to find a reliable method to calculate the corner points of a container. From these corner point’s idea is to calculate the center point of the container for the localization of robot, it means that the calculated center point will be the destination of robot in order to pick the container. For this I am looking for any suggestions to calculate the corner points or may be if any possibility to calculate the center point directly. Up to this point PCL library C/C++ is used for the processing of the 3D data.
The image below is the screenshot of the container.
thanks in advance.
afterApplyingPassthrough
I did the following things:
I binarized the image (black pixels = 0, green pixels = 1),
inverted the image (black pixels = 1, green pixels = 0),
eroded the image with 3x3 kernel N-times and dilated it with same kernel M-times.
Left: N=2, M=1;Right: N=6, M=6
After that:
I computed contours of all non-zero areas and
removed the contour that surrounded entire image.
This are the contours that remained:
I do not know how "typical" input image looks like in your case. Since I only have access to one sample image, I would rather not speculate about "general solution" that will be suitable for you. But to solve this particular case, you could analyze every contour in the following way:
compute rotatated rectangle that fits best around your contour (you need something similar to minAreaRect from OpenCV)
compute areas of rectangle and contour interior
if the difference between contour area and the area of the rotated bounding rectangle is small, the contour has approximately rectangular shape
find the contour that is both rectangular and satisfies some other condition (for example: typical area of the container). Assume that this belongs to container and compute its center.
I am not claiming that this is a solution that will work well in real world scenarios. It is also not fast. You should view it as a "sketch" that shows how to extract some useful information.
I assume the wheels maintain the cart a known offset from the floor and you can identify the floor. Filter out all points which are too close to the floor (this will remove wheels and everything but cart which will help limit data and simplify later steps.
If you isolate the cart, you could apply a simple average point (centroid), alternately, if that is not precise, you could try finding the bounding box of the isolated cart (min max in primary directions) and then take the centroid of that bounding box (this should be more accurate, but will still need a slight vertical offset due to the top handles).
If you can not isolate the cart or the other methods are not working well, you could try using PCL sample consensus specifically SACMODEL_LINE. This will be an involved strategy, but will give very solid results, basically run through and find each line and subtract its members from the cloud so as to find the next best line. After you have your 4 primary cart lines, use their parameters to find your centroid. *this would also be robust against random items being in or on the cart as well as carts of various sizes (assuming they always had linear perpendicular walls)
I want to find all pixels in an image (in Cartesian coordinates) which lie within certain polar range, r_min r_max theta_min and theta_max. So in other words I have some annular section defined with the parameters mentioned above and I want to find integer x,y coordinates of the pixels which lie within it. The brute force solution comes to mid offcourse (going through all the pixels of the image and checking if it is within it) but I am wondering if there is some more efficient solution to it.
Thanks
In the brute force solution, you can first determine the tight bounding box of the area, by computing the four vertexes and including the four cardinal extreme points as needed. Then for every pixel, you will have to evaluate two circles (quadratic expressions) and two straight lines (linear expressions). By doing the computation incrementally (X => X+1) the number of operations drops to about nothing.
Inside a circle
f(X,Y) = X²+Y²-2XXc-2YYc+Xc²+Yc²-R² <= 0
Incrementally,
f(X+1,Y) = f(X,Y)+2X+1-2Xc <= 0
If you really want to avoid that overhead, you will resort to scanline conversion techniques. First think of filling a slanted rectangle. Drawing two horizontal lines by the intermediate vertices, you decompose the rectangle in two triangles and a parallelogram. Then for any scanline that crosses one of these shapes, you know beforehand what pair of sides you will intersect. From there, you know what portion of the scanline you need to fill.
You can generalize to any shape, in particular your circle segment. Be prepared to a relatively subtle case analysis, but finding the intersections themselves isn't so hard. It may help to split the domain with a vertical through the center so that any horizontal always meets the outline twice, never four times.
We'll assume the center of the section is at 0,0 for simplicity. If not, it's easy to change by offsetting all the coordinates.
For each possible y coordinate from r_max to -r_max, find the x coordinates of the circle of both radii: -sqrt(r*r-y*y) and sqrt(r*r-y*y). For every point that is inside the r_max circle and outside the r_min circle, it might be part of the section and will need further testing.
Now do the same x coordinate calculations, but this time with the line segments described by the angles. You'll need some conditional logic to determine which side of the line is inside and which is outside, and whether it affects the upper or lower part of the section.
What is Distance Transform?What is the theory behind it?if I have 2 similar images but in different positions, how does distance transform help in overlapping them?The results that distance transform function produce are like divided in the middle-is it to find the center of one image so that the other is overlapped just half way?I have looked into the documentation of opencv but it's still not clear.
Look at the picture below (you may want to increase you monitor brightness to see it better). The pictures shows the distance from the red contour depicted with pixel intensities, so in the middle of the image where the distance is maximum the intensities are highest. This is a manifestation of the distance transform. Here is an immediate application - a green shape is a so-called active contour or snake that moves according to the gradient of distances from the contour (and also follows some other constraints) curls around the red outline. Thus one application of distance transform is shape processing.
Another application is text recognition - one of the powerful cues for text is a stable width of a stroke. The distance transform run on segmented text can confirm this. A corresponding method is called stroke width transform (SWT)
As for aligning two rotated shapes, I am not sure how you can use DT. You can find a center of a shape to rotate the shape but you can also rotate it about any point as well. The difference will be just in translation which is irrelevant if you run matchTemplate to match them in correct orientation.
Perhaps if you upload your images it will be more clear what to do. In general you can match them as a whole or by features (which is more robust to various deformations or perspective distortions) or even using outlines/silhouettes if they there are only a few features. Finally you can figure out the orientation of your object (if it has a dominant orientation) by running PCA or fitting an ellipse (as rotated rectangle).
cv::RotatedRect rect = cv::fitEllipse(points2D);
float angle_to_rotate = rect.angle;
The distance transform is an operation that works on a single binary image that fundamentally seeks to measure a value from every empty point (zero pixel) to the nearest boundary point (non-zero pixel).
An example is provided here and here.
The measurement can be based on various definitions, calculated discretely or precisely: e.g. Euclidean, Manhattan, or Chessboard. Indeed, the parameters in the OpenCV implementation allow some of these, and control their accuracy via the mask size.
The function can return the output measurement image (floating point) - as well as a labelled connected components image (a Voronoi diagram). There is an example of it in operation here.
I see from another question you have asked recently you are looking to register two images together. I don't think the distance transform is really what you are looking for here. If you are looking to align a set of points I would instead suggest you look at techniques like Procrustes, Iterative Closest Point, or Ransac.
Given a point on a plane A, I want to be able to map to its corresponding point on plane B. I have a set of N corresponding pairs of reference points between the two planes, however, the overall mapping is not a simple affine transform (no homographies for me).
Things I have tried:
For a given point, find the three closest reference points in plane A, compute barrycentric coordinates of that triangle, and then apply that transform to the corresponding reference points in plane B. How it failed: sometimes the three closest points were nearly collinear, so errors were huge. Also, there was no consistency in the mapping when crossing borders. It was very "jittery."
Compute all possible triangles given the N reference points (N^3). Order them by size. For the given point, find the smallest triangle that it's in. This fixes the linearly of the
points problem, but was still extremely jittery and slow.
Start with a triangulated plane A. Iterate through the reference points, adding each one to the reference plane. Every time you add a point it exists in at least one triangle. Break that triangle into three triangles using the new reference point as a vertex. You end up with plane A triangulated so you can map from plane A to plane B with ease. Issues: You can prove that every triangle will have a point that is on the edge of the planes. This results in huge errors if your reference points are far from the edge of the planes.
I feel like this should be a fairly standard problem. Are there standard algorithms/libraries for this?
There you go my friend.. I have used it myslef and can only recommend you give it a try.
Kahn Academy - Matrix transformations
Understanding how we can map one set of vectors to another set. Matrices used to define linear transformations
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/linear-algebra/matrix_transformations
I have an image with free-form curved lines (actually lists of small line-segments) overlayed onto it, and I want to generate some kind of image-warp that will deform the image in such a way that these curves are deformed into horizontal straight lines.
I already have the coordinates of all the line-segment points stored separately so they don't have to be extracted from the image. What I'm looking for is an appropriate method of warping the image such that these lines are warped into straight ones.
thanks
You can use methods similar to those developed here:
http://www-ui.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~takeo/research/rigid/
What you do, is you define an MxN grid of control points which covers your source image.
You then need to determine how to modify each of your control points so that the final image will minimize some energy function (minimum curvature or something of this sort).
The final image is a linear warp determined by your control points (think of it as a 2D mesh whose texture is your source image and whose vertices' positions you're about to modify).
As long as your energy function can be expressed using linear equations, you can globally solve your problem (figuring out where to send each control point) using linear equations solver.
You express each of your source points (those which lie on your curved lines) using bi-linear interpolation weights of their surrounding grid points, then you express your restriction on the target by writing equations for these points.
After solving these linear equations you end up with destination grid points, then you just render your 2D mesh with the new vertices' positions.
You need to start out with a mapping formula that given an output coordinate will provide the corresponding coordinate from the input image. Depending on the distortion you're trying to correct for, this can get exceedingly complex; your question doesn't specify the problem in enough detail. For example, are the curves at the top of the image the same as the curves on the bottom and the same as those in the middle? Do horizontal distances compress based on the angle of the line? Let's assume the simplest case where the horizontal coordinate doesn't need any correction at all, and the vertical simply needs a constant correction based on the horizontal. Here x,y are the coordinates on the input image, x',y' are the coordinates on the output image, and f() is the difference between the drawn line segment and your ideal straight line.
x = x'
y = y' + f(x')
Now you simply go through all the pixels of your output image, calculate the corresponding point in the input image, and copy the pixel. The wrinkle here is that your formula is likely to give you points that lie between input pixels, such as y=4.37. In that case you'll need to interpolate to get an intermediate value from the input; there are many interpolation methods for images and I won't try to get into that here. The simplest would be "nearest neighbor", where you simply round the coordinate to the nearest integer.