Problem image
I am trying to align/register (>4) 2-D point cloud segments from several laser scanners with high accuracy, producing an perimeter contour of the scanned product. The segments between lasers may look like that above. The issue is that the calibration process may be both incorrect, and slightly not accurate enough thus I am where I am (and possibly containing individual elevation tilt errors so the segments are not shape-wise similar--close but not exact) and trying to make the best of the situation.
Visually, the segments have a slight bias in both directions as well as a rotational error compared to each other.
The difficulty is that the segments only partially overlap, contain a low but noticeable noise which maybe coherent, and the sampled point distribution is both low and uneven in the overlapping region, since the camera placement are apart (approximately 90 degrees).
My solution so far is to ignore the rotational bias, estimate the mean bias of selected corresponce points within point cloud segments in the overlapping region, and translate each segment by that estimate until I get to the opposite corner. It works somewhat OK, but it is a problem in the last set of sensors since all the errors appear to add up there. Additionally, it fails when there is little or no overlapping region.
I am not a specialist, so complicated solutions maybe useful for others. A relatively robust, iterative approach that can be simply coded is the best! I am thankfully grateful for any advice to solve this simple but quite challenging problem.
Related
I have lat/lng data of multirotor UAV flights. There are alot of datapoints (~13k per flight) and I wish to find line segments from the data. They give me flight speed and direction. I know that most of the flights are guided missons meaning a point is given to fly to. However the exact points are unknown to me.
Here is a graph of a single flight lat/lng shifted to near (0,0) so they are visible on the same time-series graph.
I attempted to generate similar data, but there are several constraints and it may take more time to solve than working on the segmenting.
The graphs start and end nearly always at the same point.
Horisontal lines mean the UAV is stationary. These segments are expected.
Beginning and and end are always stationary for takeoff and landing.
There is some level of noise in the lines for the gps accuracy tho seemingly not that much.
Alot of data points.
The number of segments is unknown.
The noise I could calculate given the segments and least squares method to the line. Currently I'm thinking of sampling the data (to decimate it a little) and constructing lines. Merging the lines with smaller angle than x (dependant on the noise) and finding the intersection points of the lines left.
Another thought is to try and look at this problem in the frequency domain. The corners should be quite high frequency. Maybe I could make a custom filter kernel that would enable me to use a window function and win in efficency.
EDIT: Rewrote the question for more clarity and less rambling.
So I am using Kinect with Unity.
With the Kinect, we detect a hand gesture and when it is active we draw a line on the screen that follows where ever the hand is going. Every update the location is stored as the newest (and last) point in a line. However the lines can often look very choppy.
Here is a general picture that shows what I want to achieve:
With the red being the original line, and the purple being the new smoothed line. If the user suddenly stops and turns direction, we think we want it to not exactly do that but instead have a rapid turn or a loop.
My current solution is using Cubic Bezier, and only using points that are X distance away from each other (with Y points being placed between the two points using Cubic Bezier). However there are two problems with this, amongst others:
1) It often doesn't preserve the curves to the distance outwards the user drew them, for example if the user suddenly stop a line and reverse the direction there is a pretty good chance the line won't extend to point where the user reversed the direction.
2) There is also a chance that the selected "good" point is actually a "bad" random jump point.
So I've thought about other solutions. One including limiting the max angle between points (with 0 degrees being a straight line). However if the point has an angle beyond the limit the math behind lowering the angle while still following the drawn line as best possible seems complicated. But maybe it's not. Either way I'm not sure what to do and looking for help.
Keep in mind this needs to be done in real time as the user is drawing the line.
You can try the Ramer-Douglas-Peucker algorithm to simplify your curve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramer%E2%80%93Douglas%E2%80%93Peucker_algorithm
It's a simple algorithm, and parameterization is reasonably intuitive. You may use it as a preprocessing step or maybe after one or more other algorithms. In any case it's a good algorithm to have in your toolbox.
Using angles to reject "jump" points may be tricky, as you've seen. One option is to compare the total length of N line segments to the straight-line distance between the extreme end points of that chain of N line segments. You can threshold the ratio of (totalLength/straightLineLength) to identify line segments to be rejected. This would be a quick calculation, and it's easy to understand.
If you want to take line segment lengths and segment-to-segment angles into consideration, you could treat the line segments as vectors and compute the cross product. If you imagine the two vectors as defining a parallelogram, and if knowing the area of the parallegram would be a method to accept/reject a point, then the cross product is another simple and quick calculation.
https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~daddel/linear_algebra_appl/Applications/Determinant/Determinant/node4.html
If you only have a few dozen points, you could randomly eliminate one point at a time, generate your spline fits, and then calculate the point-to-spline distances for all the original points. Given all those point-to-spline distances you can generate a metric (e.g. mean distance) that you'd like to minimize: the best fit would result from eliminating points (Pn, Pn+k, ...) resulting in a spline fit quality S. This technique wouldn't scale well with more points, but it might be worth a try if you break each chain of line segments into groups of maybe half a dozen segments each.
Although it's overkill for this problem, I'll mention that Euler curves can be good fits to "natural" curves. What's nice about Euler curves is that you can generate an Euler curve fit by two points in space and the tangents at those two points in space. The code gets hairy, but Euler curves (a.k.a. aesthetic curves, if I remember correctly) can generate better and/or more useful fits to natural curves than Bezier nth degree splines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_spiral
Let me explain my problem:
I have a black vector shape (let's say it's a series of joined, straight lines for now, but it'd be nice if I could also support quadratic curves).
I also have a rectangle of a predefined width and height. I'm going to place it on top of the black shape, and then take the union of the two.
My first issue is that I don't know how to quickly extract vector unions, but I think there is a well-defined formula I can figure out for myself.
My second, and more tricky issue is how to efficiently detect the position the rectangle needs to be in (i.e., what translation and rotation are needed by the matrices), in order to maximize the black, remaining after the union (see figure, below).
The red outlined shape below is ~33% black; the green is something like 85%; and there are positions for this shape & rectangle wherein either could have 100% coverage.
Obviously, I can brute-force this by trying every translation and rotation value for every point where at least part of the rectangle is touching the black shape, then keep track of the one with the most black coverage. The problem is, I can only try a finite number of positions (and may therefore miss the maximum). Apart from that, it feels very inefficient!
Can you think of a more efficient way of tackling this problem?
Something from my Uni days tells me that a Fourier transform might improve the efficiency here, but I can't figure out how I'd do that with a vector shape!
Three ideas that have promise of being faster and/or more precise than brute force search:
Suppose you have a 3d physics engine. Define a "cone-shaped" surface where the apex is at say (0,0,-1), the black polygon boundary on the z=0 plane with its centroid at the origin, and the cone surface is formed by connecting the apex with semi-infinite rays through the polygon boundary. Think of a party hat turned upside down and crumpled to the shape of the black polygon. Now constrain the rectangle to be parallel to the z=0 plane and initially so high above the cone (large z value) that it's easy to find a place where it's definitely "inside". Then let the rectangle fall downward under gravity, twisting about z and translating in x-y only as it touches the cone, staying inside all the way down until it settles and can't move any farther. The collision detection and force resolution of the physics engine takes care of the complexities. When it settles, it will be in a position of maximal coverage of the black polygon in a local sense. (If it settles with z<0, then coverage is 100%.) For the convex case it's probably a global maximum. To probabilistically improve the result for non-convex cases (like your example), you'd randomize the starting position, dropping the polygon many times, taking the best result. Note you don't really need a full blown physics engine (though they certainly exist in open source). It's enough to use collision resolution to tell you how to rotate and translate the rectangle in a pseudo-physical way as it twists and slides uniformly down the z axis as far as possible.
Different physics model. Suppose the black area is an attractive field generator in 2d following the usual inverse square rule like gravity and magnetism. Now let the rectangle drift in a damping medium responding to this field. It ought to settle with a maximal area overlapping the black area. There are problems with "nulls" like at the center of a donut, but I don't think these can ever be stable equillibria. Can they? The simulation could be easily done by modeling both shapes as particle swarms. Or since the rectangle is a simple shape and you are a physicist, you could come up with a closed form for the integral of attractive force between a point and the rectangle. This way only the black shape needs representation as particles. Come to think of it, if you can come up with a closed form for torque and linear attraction due to two triangles, then you can decompose both shapes with a (e.g. Delaunay) triangulation and get a precise answer. Unfortunately this discussion implies it can't be done analytically. So particle clouds may be the final solution. The good news is that modern processors, particularly GPUs, do very large particle computations with amazing speed. Edit: I implemented this quick and dirty. It works great for convex shapes, but concavities create stable points that aren't what you want. Using the example:
This problem is related to robot path planning. Looking at this literature may turn up some ideas In RPP you have obstacles and a robot and want to find a path the robot can travel while avoiding and/or sliding along them. If the robot is asymmetric and can rotate, then 2d planning is done in a 3d (toroidal) configuration space (C-space) where one dimension is rotation (so closes on itself). The idea is to "grow" the obstacles in C-space while shrinking the robot to a point. Growing the obstacles is achieved by computing Minkowski Differences.) If you decompose all polygons to convex shapes, then there is a simple "edge merge" algorithm for computing the MD.) When the C-space representation is complete, any 1d path that does not pierce the "grown" obstacles corresponds to continuous translation/rotation of the robot in world space that avoids the original obstacles. For your problem the white area is the obstacle and the rectangle is the robot. You're looking for any open point at all. This would correspond to 100% coverage. For the less than 100% case, the C-space would have to be a function on 3d that reflects how "bad" the intersection of the robot is with the obstacle rather than just a binary value. You're looking for the least bad point. C-space representation is an open research topic. An octree might work here.
Lots of details to think through in both cases, and they may not pan out at all, but at least these are frameworks to think more about the problem. The physics idea is a bit like using simulated spring systems to do graph layout, which has been very successful.
I don't believe it is possible to find the precise maximum for this problem, so you will need to make do with an approximation.
You could potentially render the vector image into a bitmap and use Haar features for this - they provide a very quick O(1) way of calculating the average colour of a rectangular region.
You'd still need to perform this multiple times for different rotations and positions, but it would bring it algorithmic complexity down from a naive O(n^5) to O(n^3) which may be acceptably fast. (with n here being the size of the different degrees of freedom you are scanning)
Have you thought to keep track of the remaining white space inside the blocks with something like if whitespace !== 0?
Currently I am interning at a software company and one of my tasks has been to implement the recognition of mouse gestures. One of the senior developers helped me get started and provided code/projects that uses the $1 Unistroke Recognizer http://depts.washington.edu/aimgroup/proj/dollar/. I get, in a broad way, what the $1 Unistroke Recognizer is doing and how it works but am a bit overwhelmed with trying to understand all of the internals/finer details of it.
My problem is that I am trying to recognize the gesture of moving the mouse downards, then upwards. The $1 Unistroke Recognizer determines that the gesture I created was a downwards gesture, which is infact what it ought to do. What I really would like it to do is say "I recognize a downards gesture AND THEN an upwards gesture."
I do not know if the lack of understanding of the $1 Unistroke Recognizer completely is causing me to scratch my head, but does anyone have any ideas as to how to recognize two different gestures from moving the mouse downwards then upwards?
Here is my idea that I thought might help me but would love for someone who is an expert or even knows just a bit more than me to let me know what you think. Any help or resources that you know of would be greatly appreciated.
How My Application Currently Works:
The way that my current application works is that I capture points from where the mouse cursor is while the user holds down the left mouse button. A list of points then gets feed to a the gesture recognizer and it then spits out what it thinks to be the best shape/gesture that cooresponds to the captured points.
My Idea:
What I wanted to do is before I feed the points to the gesture recognizer is to somehow go through all the points and break them down into separate lines or curves. This way I could feed each line/curve in one at a time and from the basic movements of down, up, left, right, diagonals, and curves I could determine the final shape/gesture.
One way I thought would be good in determining if there are separate lines in my list of points is sampling groups of points and looking at their slope. If the slope of a sampled group of points differed X% from some other group of sampled points then it would be safe to assume that there is indeed a separate line present.
What I Think Are Possible Problems In My Thinking:
Where do I determine the end of a line and the start of a separate line? If I was to use the idea of checking the slope of a group of points and then determined that there was a separate line present that doesn't mean I nessecarily found the slope of a separate line. For example if you were to draw a straight edged "L" with a right angle and sample the slope of the points around the corner of the "L" you would see that the slope would give resonable indication that there is a separate line present but those points don't correspond to the start of a separate line.
How to deal with the ever changing slope of a curved line? The gesture recognizer that I use handles curves already in the way I want it too. But I don't want my method that I use to determine separate lines keep on looking for these so called separate lines in a curve because its slope is changing all the time when I sample groups of points. Would I just stop sampling points once the slope changed more than X% so many times in a row?
I'm not using the correct "type" of math for determining separate lines. Math isn't my strongest subject but I did do some research. I tried to look into Dot Products and see if that would point me in some direction, but I don't know if it will. Has anyone used Dot Prodcuts for doing something like this or some other method?
Final Thoughts, Remarks, And Thanks:
Part of my problem I feel like is that I don't know how to compeletly ask my question. I wouldn't be surprised if this problem has already been asked (in one way or another) and a solution exist that can be Googled. But my search results on Google didn't provide any solutions as I just don't know exactly how to ask my question yet. If you feel like it is confusing please let me know where and why and I will help clarify it. In doing so maybe my searches on Google will become more precise and I will be able to find a solution.
I just want to say thanks again for reading my post. I know its long but didn't really know where else to ask it. Imma talk with some other people around the office but all of my best solutions I have used throughout school have come from the StackOverflow community so I owe much thanks to you.
Edits To This Post:
(7/6 4:00 PM) Another idea I thought about was comparing all the points before a Min/Max point. For example, if I moved the mouse downards then upwards, my starting point would be the current Max point while the point where I start moving the mouse back upwards would be my min point. I could then go ahead and look to see if there are any points after the min point and if so say that there could be a new potential line. I dunno how well this will work on other shapes like stars but thats another thing Im going to look into. Has anyone done something similar to this before?
If your problem can be narrowed down to breaking apart a general curve into straight or smoothly curved partial lines then you could try this.
Comparing the slope of the segments and identifying breaking points where it is greater then some threshold would work in a very simplified case. Imagine a perfectly formed L-shape where you have a right angle between two straight lines. Obviously the corner point would be the only one where the slope difference is above the threshold as long as the threshold is between 0 and 90 degrees, and thus a identifiable breaking point.
However, the vertical and horizontal lines may be slightly curved so the threshold would need to be large enough for these small differences in slope to be ignored as breaking points. You'd also have to decide how sharp a corner the algorithm should pick up as a break. is 90 deg or higher required, or is even 30 deg enough? This is an important question.
Finally, to make this robust I would not be satisfied comparing the slopes of two adjacent segments. Hands may shake, corners may be smoothed out and the ideal conditions to find straight lines and sharp corners will probably never occur. For each point investigated for a break I would take the average slope of the N previous segments and compare it to the average slope of the N following segments. This can be efficiently implemented using a running mean. By choosing a good sample number N (depending on the accuracy of the input, the total number of points, etc) the algorithm can avoid the noise and make better detections.
Basically the algorithm would be:
For each investigated point (beginning N points into the sequence and ending N points before the end.)
Compute average slope of the N previous segments.
Compute average slope of the N next segments.
If the difference of the averages is greater than the Threshold, mark current point as a breaking point.
This is quite off the top of my head. You'd have to try it in your application.
if you work with absolute angles, like upwards and downwards, you can simply take the absolute slope between two points (not necessarily adjacent) to determine if it's RIGHT, LEFT, UP, DOWN (if that is enough of a distinction)
the art is to find a distance between points so that the angle is not random (with 1px, the angle will be a multiple of 45°)
There is a firefox plugin for Navigation using mouse gestures that works very well. I think it's FireGestures, but I'm not sure. I guess you can get some inspiration from that one
Additional thought: If you draw a shape by connectiong successive points, then connecting back to the first point, the ratio between the area and the final line segment's length is also an indicator for the gesture's "edginess"
If you are just interested in up/down/left/right, a first approximation is to check 45 degree segments of a circle. This is easily done by checking the the horizontal difference between (successive) points against the vertical difference between points.
Say you have a greater positive horizontal difference than vertical difference, then that would be 'RIGHT'.
The only difficulty then comes for example, in distinguishing UP/DOWN from UP/RIGHT/DOWN. But this could be done by distances between points. If you determine that the mouse has moved RIGHT for less than 20 pixels say, then you can ignore that movement.
I have a 3D closed mesh car object having a surface made up
triangles. I want to calculate its volume, center of volume and inertia tensor.
Could you help me
Regards.
George
For volume...
For each triangular facet, lookup its corner points. Call 'em P,Q,R.
Compute this quantity (I call it "partial volume")
pv = PxQyRz + PyQzRx + PzQxRy - PxQzRy - PyQxRz - PzQyRx
Add these together for all facets and divide by 6.
Important! The P,Q,R for each facet must be arranged clockwise as seen from outside. (Or all counter-clockwise, as long as it's consistent for all facets.)
If the mesh has any quadrilaterals, just temporarily hallucinate a diagonal joining one pair of opposite corners. That makes it into two triangles.
Practical computationial improvement: Before doing math with P,Q and R, subtract the coordinates of some "center" point C. This can be the center of mass, a midpoint between the min/max x, y and z, or any convenient point inside or near the mesh. This helps minimize truncation errors for more accurate volumes.
From numerical point of view, what you are trying to achieve is quite simple and can be reduced to calculating few quadratures. Wikipedia will provide needed information about maths behind it.
If you are looking for out-of-the-box volume calculation, take a look at this entry.
As of inertia -- shape is not enough, as you also need distribution of mass.
Well, there isn't much information on the car being provided here - you should be able to break down the car into simpler shapes - the higher degree of approximation your require - the more simpler shapes you can break it into. (This could be difficult if the car is somehow dynamically generated and completely different every time ... but I don't see that situation making any sense).
This should help with finding the Inertial Tensor of various simpler shapes: http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=57001 , finding the volumes and the likes of things like spheres and cubes is pretty common knowledge so I won't bother linking that.
I think it was Archimedes who discovered that if you submerge the car in a volume of liquid, the displaced liquid will have the same volume as the car.
I'm not sure what this would help you in this case though. Having a liquid simulation running in the background and submerging the mesh into it sounds a bit over the top. Although, I think it does work, and therefore qualifies as a (bit useless nonetheless) answer. ;^)