I've been using the gaze constraint in order to do inverse kinematics for seeing objects with a camera. However, and I imagine I am not alone in this manner, the output of my camera is square. Because the constraint only allows for circular cones, it only includes about half the area that the camera sees.
I was wondering if it would be possible to introduce a gaze constraint that works with a general purpose cone? If solving such a general problem isn't practical, a gaze constraint that accepted elliptical cones would be a really useful alternative as a user can effectively implement a rectangular cone (using two elliptical cones, each with one arbitrarily large axis).
I added PolyhedronConstraint to Drake's inverse kinematics code. It can handle "target in the rectangle gaze cone". I also added an example to show how to use this constraint.
Related
I apologize for any formatting mistakes, first time here.
I'm currently working on program in Java as a personal project that simulates and allows for the design of a lens system with surfaces generally defined using the equations covered here (Wikipedia). In this case the "order" of the surface referring to the greatest axrx value. Although possible, I'm pretty sure the order rarely is above 12.
Single solution:
Multiple solutions:
The linked images show two possible cases for a complex aspherical lens defined using this particular equation:
Assuming a "ray" comes from somewhere below the frame upwards as seen in the examples, how would I calculate the first point of collision between that ray and the lens surface? Specifically in three dimensions, as the examples above are only two dimensions as limited by Desmos. Being a lens, the resulting surface in three dimensions is possesses rotational symmetry where the 2D examples have reflection symmetry.
Edit removes unneeded sentence.
I have successfully calculated Rotation, Translation with the intrinsic camera matrix of two cameras.
I also got rectified images from the left and right cameras. Now, I wonder how I calculate the 3D coordinate of a point, just one point in an image. Here, please see the green points. I have a look at the equation, but it requires baseline which I don't know how to calculate. Could you show me the process of calculating the 3d coordinate of the green point with the given information (R, T, and intrinsic matrix)?
FYI
1. I also have a Fundamental matrix and Essential matrix, just in case we need them.
2. Original image size is 960 x 720. Rectified ones are 925 x 669
3. The green point from the left image: (562, 185), from the right image: (542, 185)
The term "baseline" usually just means translation. Since you already have your rotation, translation and intrinsics matrices (let's not them R, T and K). you can triangulate and don't need either the Fundamental or Essential matrices (they could be used to extract R, T etc but you already have them). You don't really need your images to be rectified either, since it doesn't change the triangulation process that much. There are many ways to triangulate, each with their pros and cons, and many libraries that implement them. So, all I can do here is give you and overview of the problem and potential solutions, as well as pointers to resources that you can either use as their are or as a source of inspiration to write your own code.
Formalization and solution outlines. Let's formalize what we are after here. You have a 3d point X, with two observations x_1 and x_2 respectively in the left and right images. If you backproject them, you obtain two rays:
ray_1=K^{1}x_1
rat_2=R*K^{-1}x_2+T //I'm assuming that [R|T] is the pose of the second camera expressed in the referential of the first camera
Ideally, you'd want those two rays to meet at point X. Since in practice we always have some noise (discretization noise, rounding errors and so on) the two rays wont meet at X, so the best answer would be a point Q such that
Q=argmin_X {d(X,ray_1)^2+d(X,ray_2)^2}
where d(.) denotes the Euclidian distance between a line and a point. You can solve this problem as a regular least squares problem, or you can just take the geometric approach (called midpoint) of considering the line segment l that is perpendicular to both ray_1 and ray_2, and take its middle as your solution. Another quick and dirty way is to use the DLT. Basically, you re-write the constrains (i.e. X should be as close as possible to both rays) as a linear system AX=0 and solve it with SVD.
Usually, the geometric (midpoint) method is the less precise. The DLT based one, while not the most stable numerically, usually produces acceptable results.
Ressources that present in depth formalization
Hartley-Zisserman's book of course! Chapter 12. A simple DLT-based method, which is the one used in opencv (both in the calibration and sfm modules) is explained on page 312. It is very easy to implement, it shouldn't take more that 10 minutes in any language.
Szeliski'st book. It has an intersting discussion on triangulation in the chapter on SFM, but is not as straight-forward or in depth as Hartley-Zisserman's.
Code. You can use the triangulation methods from opencv, either from the calib3d module, or from the contribs/sfm module. Both use the DLT, but the code from the SFM module is more easily understandable (the calib3d code has a lot of old-school C code which is not very pleasant to read). There is also another lib, called openGV, which has a few interesting methods for triangulation.
cv::triangulatePoints
cv::sfm::triangulatePoints
OpenGV
The openGV git repo doesn't seem very active, and I'm not a big fan of the design of the library, but if I remember correctly (feel free to tell me otherwise) it offers methods other that the DLT for triangulations.
Naturally, those are all written in C++, but if you use other languages, finding wrappers or similar libraries wont be difficult (with python you still have opencv wrappers, and MATLAB has a bundle module, etc.).
I draw a vectorial geometry with some calibration points around it.
I print this geometry and then I physically scan the printed calibration points (I can't scan the geometry, I can only scan the calibration points).
When I acquire these points, these aren't in their position anymore because of some print error or bad print calibration.
The question is:
Is there any algorithm that helps me to adapt the original geometry in base of the new points scanned?
In practice I need to warp the geometry in order to obtain the real geometry printed on the paper with the same print error that I have on the calibration points.
The distortion is given by the physical distortion of the material (not paper but cloth) during the print process. I can't know how much the material will distort during the print.
Yes, there are algorithms to help you with that. In general you need to learn/find the transformation between the two images that you have.
Typical geometrical transformations are affine transformations (shift, scale, rotation, shear, reflections) which need at least three control points or piecewise local linear/ local weighted mean which need at least 4-6 control points. The more control points you have, the better in general.
Given a set of control points in one image and the corresponding set of control points in the other image there are algorithms for finding the optimal transformation between if you specify a class (affine or piecewise local linear). See for example fitgeotrans in Matlab. I don't know how exactly it solves the problem by I guess by some kind of optimization. It should be easy to find available implementations for other programming languages (Python, C, Java).
What remains is finding the correspondence between the control points in the two images. For a few images you may be able to do that by hand, but in the general case you might want to automatize this as well. General image registration algorithms like imregister should do well for your images. They give you a good initial estimate for the transformation (may already be sufficient) so that then identification of the corresponding point pairs is trivial (always take the nearest) and allow refining.
So I advice you to first just try to register the images (gray scale data) with an identity transformation as starting value. Then identify corresponding point pairs and refine the transformation either using an affine or a piecewiece/local transformation. Then apply the transformation on the geometry to get the printed geometry. Depending on your choice of programming languages you will find many implementations that do the job.
Am following this tutorial for my 2d game collision handling , this tutorial explains about the collision used in one of my favorite game "N". How they used separate axis theorem more efficiently for collision between AABB vs AABB and AABB vs Circle. http://www.metanetsoftware.com/technique/tutorialA.html. I understand the implementation of AABB vs AABB collision handling but I couldn't understand AABB vs Circle collision detection especially voronoi regions.Totally confused how/where to start.
AABB vs AABB collision detection
Find the axis along all the edge by finding the normal of each edge.
Projection all the vertices to the
resultant Axis , final result should
be a scalar value.
The resultant scalar value in turn
is used to find whether collision is
present or not.
Can someone please explain how to handle collision AABB vc Circle - vise versa?
Since collisions with a circle always come down to a comparison against the radius (in your case, via projection), having the closest line segment (edge of the polygon) and the normal vector are the only building blocks you need. The normal vector is easily computed from the points of the line segment (something like unit(y2-y1, x1-x2) ... the negative reciprocal of the slope). Figuring out which edge is closest is the building block that remains. Voronoi regions give us the last building block.
You understand collisions between axis-aligned bounding boxes. I assume you also understand collisions between two circles. I'm assuming you don't understand voronoi regions. So, where to start? Voronoi diagrams. I highly suggest that you find a diagrammed explanation. This link is quite good. However, depending on how lost you are, perhaps a little additional background (seriously, though, no explanation can beat the visual):
A voronoi diagram is one of the ubiquitous data structures of computational geometry. Any computational geometry book will discuss the Voronoi diagram. It answers a simple question: where is the closest post office? Given a set of points in a plane (post offices), a voronoi diagram separates the plane into different regions, each containing one of the points. If you are in a particular region, you know which point (post office) is closest to you. If you were a circle, this would be nice for collision detection for a simple reason: the closest point is the most important one to test for collisions.
Note that if you want to mathematically derive a voronoi diagram, you simply consider all point pairs and calculate all bisecting lines. Then you intersect all of the bisecting lines and throw away the segments that are unimportant because some other point is closer to the point of interest (which happens at every intersection). This leads to a terribly inefficient algorithm, though. The efficient implementation involves another ubiquitous thing in computational geometry: the line-sweep algorithm. Its details can be found elsewhere; the important bit is that it provides a method of considering only the important points at any stage of the algorithm.
The voronoi regions in your tutorial are a little more complex. Instead of just points, we have line segments. Fortunately, the line-sweep algorithm handles this nicely. You mostly have to worry about the start or end of the line segments. Conceptually, not much changes once you have the basic algorithm down. Again, this is exceptionally helpful for collision detection with a circle: given the voronoi region, you know which line segment to test collisions against.
Does that even help? Feedback appreciated. I'll be happy to clarify anything. Explaining voronoi diagrams without visuals is probably a bad idea.
For use in a rigid body simulation, I want to compute the mass and inertia tensor (moment of inertia), given a triangle mesh representing the boundary of the (not necessarily convex) object, and assuming constant density in the interior.
Assuming your trimesh is closed (whether convex or not) there is a way!
As dmckee points out, the general approach is building tetrahedrons from each surface triangle, then applying the obvious math to total up the mass and moment contributions from each tet. The trick comes in when the surface of the body has concavities that make internal pockets when viewed from whatever your reference point is.
So, to get started, pick some reference point (the origin in model coordinates will work fine), it doesn't even need to be inside of the body. For every triangle, connect the three points of that triangle to the reference point to form a tetrahedron. Here's the trick: use the triangle's surface normal to figure out if the triangle is facing towards or away from the reference point (which you can find by looking at the sign of the dot product of the normal and a vector pointing at the centroid of the triangle). If the triangle is facing away from the reference point, treat its mass and moment normally, but if it is facing towards the reference point (suggesting that there is open space between the reference point and the solid body), negate your results for that tet.
Effectively what this does is over-count chunks of volume and then correct once those areas are shown to be not part of the solid body. If a body has lots of blubbery flanges and grotesque folds (got that image?), a particular piece of volume may be over-counted by a hefty factor, but it will be subtracted off just enough times to cancel it out if your mesh is closed. Working this way you can even handle internal bubbles of space in your objects (assuming the normals are set correctly). On top of that, each triangle can be handled independently so you can parallelize at will. Enjoy!
Afterthought: You might wonder what happens when that dot product gives you a value at or near zero. This only happens when the triangle face is parallel (its normal is perpendicular) do the direction to the reference point -- which only happens for degenerate tets with small or zero area anyway. That is to say, the decision to add or subtract a tet's contribution is only questionable when the tet wasn't going to contribute anything anyway.
Decompose your object into a set of tetrahedrons around the selected interior point. (That is solids using each triangular face element and the chosen center.)
You should be able to look up the volume of each element. The moment of inertia should also be available.
It gets to be rather more trouble if the surface is non-convex.
I seem to have miss-remembered by nomenclature and skew is not the adjective I wanted. I mean non-regular.
This is covered in the book "Game Physics, Second Edition" by D. Eberly. The chapter 2.5.5 and sample code is available online. (Just found it, haven't tried it out yet.)
Also note that the polyhedron doesn't have to be convex for the formulas to work, it just has to be simple.
I'd take a look at vtkMassProperties. This is a fairly robust algorithm for computing this, given a surface enclosing a volume.
If your polydedron is complicated, consider using Monte Carlo integration, which is often used for multidimensional integrals. You will need an enclosing hypercube, and you will need to be able to test whether a given point is inside or outside the polyhedron. And you will need to be patient, as Monte Carlo integration is slow.
Start as usual at Wikipedia, and then follow the external links pages for further reading.
(For those unfamiliar with Monte Carlo integration, here's how to compute a mass. Pick a point in the containing hypercube. Add to the point_total counter. Is it in the polyhedron? If yes, add to the point_internal counter. Do this lots (see the convergence and error bound estimates.) Then
mass_polyhedron/mass_hypercube \approx points_internal/points_total.
For a moment of inertia, you weight each count by the square of the distance of the point to the reference axis.
The tricky part is testing whether a point is inside or outside your polyhedron. I'm sure that there are computational geometry algorithms for that.