In a game, an area is defined by triangles that never overlap, and characters are defined by circles.
How can I know whether the full character's collision circle is contained within these triangles?
Example image:
Here, the red parts are outside triangles, so the circle isn't contained within them. Is there an algorithm that can detect this?
I've only came up with "non-perfect" solutions, like sampling points at the border of the circle, then testing if each is inside a triangle.
So basically, the triangles form a domain with polygonal boundary and you want to check if a disk, defined by a center point and a radius is contained inside the domain. So if you start with the triangles, you have to find a way to extract the polygonal boundary of your domain and represent it as a 2D array (matrix) of shape n rows and two columns so that every row is the two coordinates of a vertex point of the polygonal boundary line and the points are ordered so that they are consecutive order along the boundary in a counterclockwise position, i.e. when you walk in a direction from point of index i to the next point i+1 the domain stays on your left. For example, here is the representation of a polygonal boundary of a domain like yours:
a = 4/math.sqrt(3)
Pgon = np.array([[0,0],
[a,0],
[2*a,-1],
[2*a+4,0],
[2*a+4,4],
[2*a,4],
[2*a,2],
[a,1],
[a,4],
[0,0]])
Observe that the first and the last points are the same.
In such a scenario, maybe you can try the following algorithm:
import numpy as np
import math
def angle_and_dist(p1, p2, o):
p12 = p2 - p1
op1 = p1 - o
op2 = p2 - o
norm_p12 = math.sqrt(p12[0]**2 + p12[1]**2)
norm_op1 = math.sqrt(op1[0]**2 + op1[1]**2)
norm_op2 = math.sqrt(op2[0]**2 + op2[1]**2)
p12_perp = np.array([ - p12[1], p12[0] ])
h = - op1.dot(p12_perp)
theta12 = op1.dot(op2) / (norm_op1*norm_op2)
theta12 = math.acos( theta12 )
if h < 0:
theta12 = - theta12
if op1.dot(p12) > 0:
return theta12, norm_op1
elif op2.dot(p12) < 0:
return theta12, norm_op2
else:
return theta12, h/norm_p12
def is_in_polygon(p, disk):
o, r = disk
n_p = len(p)-1
index_o = 0
h_min = 400
for i in range(n_p):
theta, h = angle_and_dist(p[i,:], p[i+1,:], o)
index_o = index_o + theta
if 0 <= h and h < h_min:
h_min = h
if theta <= math.pi/100:
return 'center of disc is not inside polygon'
elif theta > math.pi/100:
if h_min > r:
return 'disc is inside polygon'
else:
return 'center of disc is inside polygon but disc is not'
a = 4/math.sqrt(3)
Pgon = np.array([[0,0],
[a,0],
[2*a,-1],
[2*a+4,0],
[2*a+4,4],
[2*a,4],
[2*a,2],
[a,1],
[a,4],
[0,0]])
# A test example:
#disc = (np.array([3*a/4, 2]), a/4-0.001)
disc = (np.array([3*a/4, 2]), math.sqrt(3)*a/8 - 0.0001)
print(is_in_polygon(Pgon, disc))
Related
I have a set of vertices/vectors and I need to extrude them inside object boundaries to give that object a thickness
as an example:
I need to turn something like this:
to something like this:
how can I achieve this?
(I'm using C++, OpenGL & GLM)
-- Update --
thanks to #Futurologist answer, I was able to resolve the issue and hey, It works like a charm!
Sorry for the python, but it's faster and easier for me to write it like that, plus it maybe reveals some the geometric concepts in the background.
Is this what you are after?
'''
angle bisectors and offsetting a polygon
'''
def bisectors(P, thickness):
#P is n x 2 matrix, row P[j,:] is a vertex of a polygon in the plane,
#P is the ordered set of vertices of the polygon
n = P.shape[0];
B = np.zeros((n,2), dtype=float);
for j in range(n):
if j == 0:
v_in = P[0,:] - P[n-1,:];
v_out = P[1,:] - P[0,:];
elif j == n-1:
v_in = P[n-1,:] - P[n-2,:];
v_out = P[0,:] - P[n-1,:];
else:
v_in = P[j,:] - P[j-1,:];
v_out =P[j+1,:] - P[j,:];
v_in = v_in / math.sqrt(v_in.dot(v_in)); #normalize edge-vector
v_out = v_out / math.sqrt(v_out.dot(v_out)); #normalize edge-vector
# bisector of the complementary angle at the vertex j,
# pointing counter clockwise and displacing the vertex so that
# the resulting polygon is "thickness" units inwards in normal direction:
bisector = v_in + v_out;
bisector = bisector / abs(bisector.dot(v_in));
bisector = thickness * bisector
# 90 degree counter clockwise rotation of complementary bisector:
B[j,0] = - bisector[1];
B[j,1] = bisector[0];
return B
def offset_vertices(Polygon, thickness):
Polygon_off = Polygon + bisectors(Polygon, thickness)
return Polygon_off
P = np.array([[0,0],[2,0],[3,1],[1,3]])
P_off = offset_vertices(P, 0.1)
# Plotting
P = np.vstack((P, P[0,:] ))
P_off = np.vstack((P_off, P_off[0,:] ))
fig, axs = plt.subplots(1)
axs.plot(P[:,0], P[:,1], 'bo')
axs.plot(P_off[:,0], P_off[:,1], 'ro')
axs.plot(P[:,0], P[:,1])
axs.plot(P_off[:,0], P_off[:,1])
axs.set_aspect('equal')
plt.grid()
plt.show()
I'm trying to align multiple line objects along a human body circumference depending on the orientation of the triangles from the mesh. I would like to put the lines parallel to the mesh. I correctly assign the position for the lines along the circumference, but I also need to add the rotation of the lines such that to be parallel with the body.
The body is a mesh formed by multiple triangles and every line is "linked" with a triangle.
All I have is:
3 points for the closest triangle from the mesh for every line
The normal of the triangle
The positions for the instantiated lines (2 points, start and end)
I need to calculate the angle for every X, Y, Z axes for the line such that the normal of the triangle is perpendicular with the line mesh. I don't know how to get the desired angle. I really appreciate if someone would like to help me.
input:
FVector TrianglePoints[3];
FVector Triangle_Normal; //Calculated as (B-A)^(C-A), where A,B,C are the points of the triangle
FVector linePosition; //I also have the start line and the endLine position if that helps
ouput:
//FRotator rotation(x,y,z), such that the triangle normal and the line object to be perpendicular.
An overview of the circumference line construction. Now the rotation is calculated using the Start position and End position for each line. When we cross some irregular parts of the mesh we want to rotate the lines correctly. Now the rotation is fixed, depending just on the line start and end position.
If I have understood correctly your goal, here is some related vector geometry:
A,B,C are the vertices of the triangle:
A = [xA, yA, zA],
B = [xB, yB, zB]
C = [xC, yC, zC]
K,L are the endpoints of the line-segment:
K = [xK, yK, zK]
L = [xL, yL, zL]
vectors are interpreted as row-vectors
by . I denote matrix multiplication
by x I denote cross product of 3D vectors
by t() I denote the transpose of a matrix
by | | I denote the norm (magnitude) of a vector
Goal: find the rotation matrix and rotation transformation of segment KL
around its midpoint, so that after rotation KL is parallel to the plane ABC
also, the rotation is the "minimal" angle rotation by witch we need to
rotate KL in order to make it parallel to ABC
AB = B - A
AC = C - A
KL = L - K
n = AB x AC
n = n / |n|
u = KL x n
u = u / |u|
v = n x u
cos = ( KL . t(v) ) / |KL|
sin = ( KL . t(n) ) / |KL|
U = [[ u[0], u[1], u[2] ],
[ v[0], v[1], v[2] ],
[ n[0], n[1], n[2] ],
R = [[1, 0, 0],
[0, cos, sin],
[0, -sin, cos]]
ROT = t(U).R.U
then, one can rotate the segment KL around its midpoint
M = (K + L)/2
Y = M + ROT (X - M)
Here is a python script version
A = np.array([0,0,0])
B = np.array([3,0,0])
C = np.array([2,3,0])
K = np.array([ -1,0,1])
L = np.array([ 2,2,2])
KL = L-K
U = np.empty((3,3), dtype=float)
U[2,:] = np.cross(B-A, C-A)
U[2,:] = U[2,:] / np.linalg.norm(U[2,:])
U[0,:] = np.cross(KL, U[2,:])
U[0,:] = U[0,:] / np.linalg.norm(U[0,:])
U[1,:] = np.cross(U[2,:], U[0,:])
norm_KL = np.linalg.norm(KL)
cos_ = KL.dot(U[1,:]) / norm_KL
sin_ = KL.dot(U[2,:]) / norm_KL
R = np.array([[1, 0, 0],
[0, cos_, sin_],
[0,-sin_, cos_]])
ROT = (U.T).dot(R.dot(U))
M = (K+L) / 2
K_rot = M + ROT.dot( K - M )
L_rot = M + ROT.dot( L - M )
print(L_rot)
print(K_rot)
print(L_rot-K_rot)
print((L_rot-K_rot).dot(U[2,:]))
A more inspired solution was to use a procedural mesh, generated at runtime, that have all the requirements that I need:
Continuously along multiple vertices
Easy to apply a UV map for texture tiling
Can be updated at runtime
Isn't hard to compute/work with it
I have two data files, each of them contain a big number of 3-dimensional points (file A stores approximately 50,000 points, file B stores approximately 500,000 points). My goal is to find for every point (a) in file A the point (b) in file B which has the smallest distance to (a). I store the points in two lists like this:
List A nodes:
(ID X Y Z)
[ ['478277', -107.0, 190.5674, 128.1634],
['478279', -107.0, 190.5674, 134.0172],
['478282', -107.0, 190.5674, 131.0903],
['478283', -107.0, 191.9798, 124.6807],
... ]
List B data:
(X Y Z Data)
[ [-28.102, 173.657, 229.744, 14.318],
[-28.265, 175.549, 227.824, 13.648],
[-27.695, 175.925, 227.133, 13.142],
...]
My first approach was to simply iterate through the first and second list with a nested loop and compute the distance between every points like this:
outfile = open(job[0] + '/' + output, 'wb');
dist_min = float(job[5]);
dist_max = float(job[6]);
dists = [];
for node in nodes:
shortest_distance = 1000.0;
shortest_data = 0.0;
for entry in data:
dist = math.sqrt((node[1] - entry[0])**2 + (node[2] - entry[1])**2 + (node[3] - entry[2])**2);
if (dist_min <= dist <= dist_max) and (dist < shortest_distance):
shortest_distance = dist;
shortest_data = entry[3];
outfile.write(node[0] + ', ' + str('%10.5f' % shortest_data + '\n'));
outfile.close();
I recognized that the amount of loops Python has to run is way too big (~25,000,000,000), so I had to fasten my code. I tried to first calculate all distances with list comprehensions but the code still is too slow:
p_x = [row[1] for row in nodes];
p_y = [row[2] for row in nodes];
p_z = [row[3] for row in nodes];
q_x = [row[0] for row in data];
q_y = [row[1] for row in data];
q_z = [row[2] for row in data];
dx = [[(px - qx) for px in p_x] for qx in q_x];
dy = [[(py - qy) for py in p_y] for qy in q_y];
dz = [[(pz - qz) for pz in p_z] for qz in q_z];
dx = [[dxxx * dxxx for dxxx in dxx] for dxx in dx];
dy = [[dyyy * dyyy for dyyy in dyy] for dyy in dy];
dz = [[dzzz * dzzz for dzzz in dzz] for dzz in dz];
D = [[(dx[i][j] + dy[i][j] + dz[i][j]) for j in range(len(dx[0]))] for i in range(len(dx))];
D = [[(DDD**(0.5)) for DDD in DD] for DD in D];
To be honest, at this point, I do not know which of the two approaches is better, anyway, none of the two possibilities seem feasible. I'm not even sure if it is possible to write a code which calculates all distances in an acceptable time. Is there even another way to solve my problem without calculating all distances?
Edit: I forgot to mention that I am running on Python 2.5.1 and am not allowed to install or add any new libraries...
Just in case someone is interrested in the solution:
I found a way to speed up the whole process by not calculating all distances:
I created a 3D-list, representing a grid in the given 3D space, divided in X, Y and Z in a given step size (e.g. (Max. - Min.) / 1,000). Then I iterated over every 3D point to put it into my grid. After that I iterated over the points of set A again, looking if there are points from B in the same cube, if not I would increase the search radius, so the process is looking in the adjacent 26 cubes for points. The radius is increasing until there is at least one point found. The resulting list is comparatively small and can be ordered in short time and the nearest point is found.
The processing time went down to a couple minutes and it is working fine.
p_x = [row[1] for row in nodes];
p_y = [row[2] for row in nodes];
p_z = [row[3] for row in nodes];
q_x = [row[0] for row in data];
q_y = [row[1] for row in data];
q_z = [row[2] for row in data];
min_x = min(p_x + q_x);
min_y = min(p_y + q_y);
min_z = min(p_z + q_z);
max_x = max(p_x + q_x);
max_y = max(p_y + q_y);
max_z = max(p_z + q_z);
max_n = max(max_x, max_y, max_z);
min_n = min(min_x, min_y, max_z);
gridcount = 1000;
step = (max_n - min_n) / gridcount;
ruler_x = [min_x + (i * step) for i in range(gridcount + 1)];
ruler_y = [min_y + (i * step) for i in range(gridcount + 1)];
ruler_z = [min_z + (i * step) for i in range(gridcount + 1)];
grid = [[[0 for i in range(gridcount)] for j in range(gridcount)] for k in range(gridcount)];
for node in nodes:
loc_x = self.abatemp_get_cell(node[1], ruler_x);
loc_y = self.abatemp_get_cell(node[2], ruler_y);
loc_z = self.abatemp_get_cell(node[3], ruler_z);
if grid[loc_x][loc_y][loc_z] is 0:
grid[loc_x][loc_y][loc_z] = [[node[1], node[2], node[3], node[0]]];
else:
grid[loc_x][loc_y][loc_z].append([node[1], node[2], node[3], node[0]]);
for entry in data:
loc_x = self.abatemp_get_cell(entry[0], ruler_x);
loc_y = self.abatemp_get_cell(entry[1], ruler_y);
loc_z = self.abatemp_get_cell(entry[2], ruler_z);
if grid[loc_x][loc_y][loc_z] is 0:
grid[loc_x][loc_y][loc_z] = [[entry[0], entry[1], entry[2], entry[3]]];
else:
grid[loc_x][loc_y][loc_z].append([entry[0], entry[1], entry[2], entry[3]]);
out = [];
outfile = open(job[0] + '/' + output, 'wb');
for node in nodes:
neighbours = [];
radius = -1;
loc_nx = self.abatemp_get_cell(node[1], ruler_x);
loc_ny = self.abatemp_get_cell(node[2], ruler_y);
loc_nz = self.abatemp_get_cell(node[3], ruler_z);
reloop = True;
while reloop:
if neighbours:
reloop = False;
radius += 1;
start_x = 0 if ((loc_nx - radius) < 0) else (loc_nx - radius);
start_y = 0 if ((loc_ny - radius) < 0) else (loc_ny - radius);
start_z = 0 if ((loc_nz - radius) < 0) else (loc_nz - radius);
end_x = (len(ruler_x) - 1) if ((loc_nx + radius + 1) > (len(ruler_x) - 1)) else (loc_nx + radius + 1);
end_y = (len(ruler_y) - 1) if ((loc_ny + radius + 1) > (len(ruler_y) - 1)) else (loc_ny + radius + 1);
end_z = (len(ruler_z) - 1) if ((loc_nz + radius + 1) > (len(ruler_z) - 1)) else (loc_nz + radius + 1);
for i in range(start_x, end_x):
for j in range(start_y, end_y):
for k in range(start_z, end_z):
if not grid[i][j][k] is 0:
for grid_entry in grid[i][j][k]:
if not isinstance(grid_entry[3], basestring):
neighbours.append(grid_entry);
dists = [];
for n in neighbours:
d = math.sqrt((node[1] - n[0])**2 + (node[2] - n[1])**2 + (node[3] - n[2])**2);
dists.append([d, n[3]]);
dists = sorted(dists);
outfile.write(node[0] + ', ' + str(dists[0][-1]) + '\n');
outfile.close();
Function to get the position of a point:
def abatemp_get_cell(self, n, ruler):
for i in range(len(ruler)):
if i >= len(ruler):
return False;
if ruler[i] <= n <= ruler[i + 1]:
return i;
The gridcount variable gives one the chance to fasten the process, with a small gridcount the process of sorting the points into the grid is very fast, but the lists of neighbours in the search loop gets bigger and more time is needed for this part of the process. With a big gridcount more time is needed at the beginning, however the loop runs faster.
The only issue I have now is the fact, that there are cases when the process found neighbours but there are other points, which are not yet found, but are closer to the point (see picture). So far I solved this issue by incrementing the search radius another time when there are already neigbours. And still then I have points which are closer but not in the neighbours list, although it's a very small amount (92 out of ~100,000). I could solve this problem by increment the radius two times after finding neighbours, but this solution seems not very smart. Maybe you guys have an idea...
This is the first working draft of the process, I think it will be possible to improve it even more, just to give you an idea of how it is working...
It took me a bit of thought but at the end I think I found a solution for you.
Your problem is not in the code you wrote but in the algorithm it implements.
There is an algorithm called Dijkstra's algorithm and here is the gist of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkstra%27s_algorithm .
Now what you need to do is to use this algorithm in a clever way:
create a node S (stand for source).
Now link edges from S to all the nodes in B group.
After you done that you should link edges from each point b in B to each point a in A.
You should set the cost of the links from the source to 0 and the other to the distance between 2 points (only in 3D).
Now if we will use Dijkstra's algorithm the output we will get would be the cost to travel from S to each point in the graph (we are only interested in the distance to points in group A).
So since the cost is 0 to each point b in B and S is only connected to points in B so the road to any point a in A must include a node in B (actually exactly one since the shortest distance between to points is a single line).
I am not sure if this will fasten your code but as far as I know, a way to solve this problem without calculating all distances does not exist and this algorithm is the best time complexity one could hope for.
take a look at this generic 3D data structure:
https://github.com/m4nh/skimap_ros
it has a very fast RadiusSearch feature just ready to be used. This solution (similar to Octree but faster) avoids to you to create the Regular Grid first (you don't have to fix MAX/MIN size along each axis) and you save a lot of memory
I'm using OpenCV to fit a line from a set of points using cvFitLine()
cvFitLine() returns a normalized vector that is co-linear to the line and a point on the line.
See details here
Using this information how can I get the equation of a line so that I can draw the line?
If cvFitLine() returns normalized vector (vx,vy) and point (x0,y0), then the equation of the line is
(x,y) = (x0,y0) + t*(vx,vy)
where t runs from −∞ to +∞.
This is what you asked for, but probably isn't immediately helpful in drawing the line. You would want to clip it either to the screen boundaries, or perhaps the bounding box of the the original set of points. To clip a line to a rectangle, just solve for values of t where the line crosses the boundary of the rectangle.
Just draw a big line instead of solving for the boundaries. eg:
cv.Line(img, (x0-m*vx[0], y0-m*vy[0]), (x0+m*vx[0], y0+m*vy[0]), (0,0,0))
will do it for example.. for m large enough :)
This just spells out #brainjam's answer in python for any passers by.
The formula for a line using a unit vector (vx, vy) and some point on the line (x0, y0) is:
(x, y) = (x0, y0) + t*(vx, vy)
The return from cv2.fitLine() is:
np.array([vx, vy, x0, y0])
In the example case, I have a line spanning the height of my image, so I want to find the t0 and t1 that intersect with y=0 and y=img.shape[0] (the top/bottom boundaries).
# get the fitLine for your set of points in the array, `line`
fit_line = cv2.fitLine(line, cv2.DIST_L2, 0, 0.01, 0.01)
# compute t0 for y=0 and t1 for y=img.shape[0]: (y-y0)/vy
t0 = (0-fit_line[3])/fit_line[1]
t1 = (img.shape[0]-fit_line[3])/fit_line[1]
# plug into the line formula to find the two endpoints, p0 and p1
# to plot, we need pixel locations so convert to int
p0 = (fit_line[2:4] + (t0 * fit_line[0:2])).astype(np.uint32)
p1 = (fit_line[2:4] + (t1 * fit_line[0:2])).astype(np.uint32)
# draw the line. For my version of opencv, it wants tuples so we
# flatten the arrays and convert
# args: cv2.line(image, p0, p1, color, thickness)
cv2.line(img, tuple(p0.ravel()), tuple(p1.ravel()), (0, 255, 0), 10)
I used a strategy similar to Karpathy up there but used an extra function. As you can see, I'm using cvClipLine to trim the line to the size of the image, which is unnecessary but does add a little niceness.
Also the multiplier here is defined as theMult = max(img->height,img->width) so we dont get numbers that might one day overflow or something.
void drawLine(IplImage * img, float line[4], int thickness,CvScalar color)
{
double theMult = max(img->height,img->width);
// calculate start point
CvPoint startPoint;
startPoint.x = line[2]- theMult*line[0];// x0
startPoint.y = line[3] - theMult*line[1];// y0
// calculate end point
CvPoint endPoint;
endPoint.x = line[2]+ theMult*line[0];//x[1]
endPoint.y = line[3] + theMult*line[1];//y[1]
// draw overlay of bottom lines on image
cvClipLine(cvGetSize(img), &startPoint, &endPoint);
cvLine(img, startPoint, endPoint, color, thickness, 8, 0);
}
Adding to #brainjam answer:
To clip to the bounding box of original set of points:
// std::vector<Point2i> points = ...
//lineParams: [vx,vy, x0,y0]: (normalized vector, point on our contour)
Vec4f lineParams; fitLine(points, lineParams, CV_DIST_L2, 0, 0.01, 0.01);
// derive the bounding xs of points
decltype(points)::iterator minXP, maxXP;
std::tie(minXP, maxXP) = std::minmax_element(points.begin(), points.end(), [](const Point2i& p1, const Point2i& p2){ return p1.x < p2.x; });
// derive y coords of fitted line
float m = lineParams[1] / lineParams[0];
int y1 = ((minXP->x - lineParams[2]) * m) + lineParams[3];
int y2 = ((maxXP->x - lineParams[2]) * m) + lineParams[3];
line(clearTarget, Point(minXP->x, y1), Point(maxXP->x, y2), Scalar(255, 255, 255), 2);
To clip to the entire image boundaries substitute minXP->x to 0 and maxXP->x to image.cols - 1, which was originally answered in https://stackoverflow.com/a/14192660/2380455
we use a " Vec4f fitedLine;" for fitted Line
in fitLine we have 4 parameters
if we consider Line relation az bellow:
Y - Y0 = M (X - X0)
we have
Y0 = FitedLine[3];
X0 = FitedLine[2];
m = FitedLine[1]/FitedLine[0];
so we have a Line equation we can find other points on it.
BOUNTY STATUS UPDATE:
I discovered how to map a linear lens, from destination coordinates to source coordinates.
How do you calculate the radial distance from the centre to go from fisheye to rectilinear?
1). I actually struggle to reverse it, and to map source coordinates to destination coordinates. What is the inverse, in code in the style of the converting functions I posted?
2). I also see that my undistortion is imperfect on some lenses - presumably those that are not strictly linear. What is the equivalent to-and-from source-and-destination coordinates for those lenses? Again, more code than just mathematical formulae please...
Question as originally stated:
I have some points that describe positions in a picture taken with a fisheye lens.
I want to convert these points to rectilinear coordinates. I want to undistort the image.
I've found this description of how to generate a fisheye effect, but not how to reverse it.
There's also a blog post that describes how to use tools to do it; these pictures are from that:
(1) : SOURCE Original photo link
Input : Original image with fish-eye distortion to fix.
(2) : DESTINATION Original photo link
Output : Corrected image (technically also with perspective correction, but that's a separate step).
How do you calculate the radial distance from the centre to go from fisheye to rectilinear?
My function stub looks like this:
Point correct_fisheye(const Point& p,const Size& img) {
// to polar
const Point centre = {img.width/2,img.height/2};
const Point rel = {p.x-centre.x,p.y-centre.y};
const double theta = atan2(rel.y,rel.x);
double R = sqrt((rel.x*rel.x)+(rel.y*rel.y));
// fisheye undistortion in here please
//... change R ...
// back to rectangular
const Point ret = Point(centre.x+R*cos(theta),centre.y+R*sin(theta));
fprintf(stderr,"(%d,%d) in (%d,%d) = %f,%f = (%d,%d)\n",p.x,p.y,img.width,img.height,theta,R,ret.x,ret.y);
return ret;
}
Alternatively, I could somehow convert the image from fisheye to rectilinear before finding the points, but I'm completely befuddled by the OpenCV documentation. Is there a straightforward way to do it in OpenCV, and does it perform well enough to do it to a live video feed?
The description you mention states that the projection by a pin-hole camera (one that does not introduce lens distortion) is modeled by
R_u = f*tan(theta)
and the projection by common fisheye lens cameras (that is, distorted) is modeled by
R_d = 2*f*sin(theta/2)
You already know R_d and theta and if you knew the camera's focal length (represented by f) then correcting the image would amount to computing R_u in terms of R_d and theta. In other words,
R_u = f*tan(2*asin(R_d/(2*f)))
is the formula you're looking for. Estimating the focal length f can be solved by calibrating the camera or other means such as letting the user provide feedback on how well the image is corrected or using knowledge from the original scene.
In order to solve the same problem using OpenCV, you would have to obtain the camera's intrinsic parameters and lens distortion coefficients. See, for example, Chapter 11 of Learning OpenCV (don't forget to check the correction). Then you can use a program such as this one (written with the Python bindings for OpenCV) in order to reverse lens distortion:
#!/usr/bin/python
# ./undistort 0_0000.jpg 1367.451167 1367.451167 0 0 -0.246065 0.193617 -0.002004 -0.002056
import sys
import cv
def main(argv):
if len(argv) < 10:
print 'Usage: %s input-file fx fy cx cy k1 k2 p1 p2 output-file' % argv[0]
sys.exit(-1)
src = argv[1]
fx, fy, cx, cy, k1, k2, p1, p2, output = argv[2:]
intrinsics = cv.CreateMat(3, 3, cv.CV_64FC1)
cv.Zero(intrinsics)
intrinsics[0, 0] = float(fx)
intrinsics[1, 1] = float(fy)
intrinsics[2, 2] = 1.0
intrinsics[0, 2] = float(cx)
intrinsics[1, 2] = float(cy)
dist_coeffs = cv.CreateMat(1, 4, cv.CV_64FC1)
cv.Zero(dist_coeffs)
dist_coeffs[0, 0] = float(k1)
dist_coeffs[0, 1] = float(k2)
dist_coeffs[0, 2] = float(p1)
dist_coeffs[0, 3] = float(p2)
src = cv.LoadImage(src)
dst = cv.CreateImage(cv.GetSize(src), src.depth, src.nChannels)
mapx = cv.CreateImage(cv.GetSize(src), cv.IPL_DEPTH_32F, 1)
mapy = cv.CreateImage(cv.GetSize(src), cv.IPL_DEPTH_32F, 1)
cv.InitUndistortMap(intrinsics, dist_coeffs, mapx, mapy)
cv.Remap(src, dst, mapx, mapy, cv.CV_INTER_LINEAR + cv.CV_WARP_FILL_OUTLIERS, cv.ScalarAll(0))
# cv.Undistort2(src, dst, intrinsics, dist_coeffs)
cv.SaveImage(output, dst)
if __name__ == '__main__':
main(sys.argv)
Also note that OpenCV uses a very different lens distortion model to the one in the web page you linked to.
(Original poster, providing an alternative)
The following function maps destination (rectilinear) coordinates to source (fisheye-distorted) coordinates. (I'd appreciate help in reversing it)
I got to this point through trial-and-error: I don't fundamentally grasp why this code is working, explanations and improved accuracy appreciated!
def dist(x,y):
return sqrt(x*x+y*y)
def correct_fisheye(src_size,dest_size,dx,dy,factor):
""" returns a tuple of source coordinates (sx,sy)
(note: values can be out of range)"""
# convert dx,dy to relative coordinates
rx, ry = dx-(dest_size[0]/2), dy-(dest_size[1]/2)
# calc theta
r = dist(rx,ry)/(dist(src_size[0],src_size[1])/factor)
if 0==r:
theta = 1.0
else:
theta = atan(r)/r
# back to absolute coordinates
sx, sy = (src_size[0]/2)+theta*rx, (src_size[1]/2)+theta*ry
# done
return (int(round(sx)),int(round(sy)))
When used with a factor of 3.0, it successfully undistorts the images used as examples (I made no attempt at quality interpolation):
Dead link
(And this is from the blog post, for comparison:)
If you think your formulas are exact, you can comput an exact formula with trig, like so:
Rin = 2 f sin(w/2) -> sin(w/2)= Rin/2f
Rout= f tan(w) -> tan(w)= Rout/f
(Rin/2f)^2 = [sin(w/2)]^2 = (1 - cos(w))/2 -> cos(w) = 1 - 2(Rin/2f)^2
(Rout/f)^2 = [tan(w)]^2 = 1/[cos(w)]^2 - 1
-> (Rout/f)^2 = 1/(1-2[Rin/2f]^2)^2 - 1
However, as #jmbr says, the actual camera distortion will depend on the lens and the zoom. Rather than rely on a fixed formula, you might want to try a polynomial expansion:
Rout = Rin*(1 + A*Rin^2 + B*Rin^4 + ...)
By tweaking first A, then higher-order coefficients, you can compute any reasonable local function (the form of the expansion takes advantage of the symmetry of the problem). In particular, it should be possible to compute initial coefficients to approximate the theoretical function above.
Also, for good results, you will need to use an interpolation filter to generate your corrected image. As long as the distortion is not too great, you can use the kind of filter you would use to rescale the image linearly without much problem.
Edit: as per your request, the equivalent scaling factor for the above formula:
(Rout/f)^2 = 1/(1-2[Rin/2f]^2)^2 - 1
-> Rout/f = [Rin/f] * sqrt(1-[Rin/f]^2/4)/(1-[Rin/f]^2/2)
If you plot the above formula alongside tan(Rin/f), you can see that they are very similar in shape. Basically, distortion from the tangent becomes severe before sin(w) becomes much different from w.
The inverse formula should be something like:
Rin/f = [Rout/f] / sqrt( sqrt(([Rout/f]^2+1) * (sqrt([Rout/f]^2+1) + 1) / 2 )
I blindly implemented the formulas from here, so I cannot guarantee it would do what you need.
Use auto_zoom to get the value for the zoom parameter.
def dist(x,y):
return sqrt(x*x+y*y)
def fisheye_to_rectilinear(src_size,dest_size,sx,sy,crop_factor,zoom):
""" returns a tuple of dest coordinates (dx,dy)
(note: values can be out of range)
crop_factor is ratio of sphere diameter to diagonal of the source image"""
# convert sx,sy to relative coordinates
rx, ry = sx-(src_size[0]/2), sy-(src_size[1]/2)
r = dist(rx,ry)
# focal distance = radius of the sphere
pi = 3.1415926535
f = dist(src_size[0],src_size[1])*factor/pi
# calc theta 1) linear mapping (older Nikon)
theta = r / f
# calc theta 2) nonlinear mapping
# theta = asin ( r / ( 2 * f ) ) * 2
# calc new radius
nr = tan(theta) * zoom
# back to absolute coordinates
dx, dy = (dest_size[0]/2)+rx/r*nr, (dest_size[1]/2)+ry/r*nr
# done
return (int(round(dx)),int(round(dy)))
def fisheye_auto_zoom(src_size,dest_size,crop_factor):
""" calculate zoom such that left edge of source image matches left edge of dest image """
# Try to see what happens with zoom=1
dx, dy = fisheye_to_rectilinear(src_size, dest_size, 0, src_size[1]/2, crop_factor, 1)
# Calculate zoom so the result is what we wanted
obtained_r = dest_size[0]/2 - dx
required_r = dest_size[0]/2
zoom = required_r / obtained_r
return zoom
I took what JMBR did and basically reversed it. He took the radius of the distorted image (Rd, that is, the distance in pixels from the center of the image) and found a formula for Ru, the radius of the undistorted image.
You want to go the other way. For each pixel in the undistorted (processed image), you want to know what the corresponding pixel is in the distorted image.
In other words, given (xu, yu) --> (xd, yd). You then replace each pixel in the undistorted image with its corresponding pixel from the distorted image.
Starting where JMBR did, I do the reverse, finding Rd as a function of Ru. I get:
Rd = f * sqrt(2) * sqrt( 1 - 1/sqrt(r^2 +1))
where f is the focal length in pixels (I'll explain later), and r = Ru/f.
The focal length for my camera was 2.5 mm. The size of each pixel on my CCD was 6 um square. f was therefore 2500/6 = 417 pixels. This can be found by trial and error.
Finding Rd allows you to find the corresponding pixel in the distorted image using polar coordinates.
The angle of each pixel from the center point is the same:
theta = arctan( (yu-yc)/(xu-xc) ) where xc, yc are the center points.
Then,
xd = Rd * cos(theta) + xc
yd = Rd * sin(theta) + yc
Make sure you know which quadrant you are in.
Here is the C# code I used
public class Analyzer
{
private ArrayList mFisheyeCorrect;
private int mFELimit = 1500;
private double mScaleFESize = 0.9;
public Analyzer()
{
//A lookup table so we don't have to calculate Rdistorted over and over
//The values will be multiplied by focal length in pixels to
//get the Rdistorted
mFisheyeCorrect = new ArrayList(mFELimit);
//i corresponds to Rundist/focalLengthInPixels * 1000 (to get integers)
for (int i = 0; i < mFELimit; i++)
{
double result = Math.Sqrt(1 - 1 / Math.Sqrt(1.0 + (double)i * i / 1000000.0)) * 1.4142136;
mFisheyeCorrect.Add(result);
}
}
public Bitmap RemoveFisheye(ref Bitmap aImage, double aFocalLinPixels)
{
Bitmap correctedImage = new Bitmap(aImage.Width, aImage.Height);
//The center points of the image
double xc = aImage.Width / 2.0;
double yc = aImage.Height / 2.0;
Boolean xpos, ypos;
//Move through the pixels in the corrected image;
//set to corresponding pixels in distorted image
for (int i = 0; i < correctedImage.Width; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < correctedImage.Height; j++)
{
//which quadrant are we in?
xpos = i > xc;
ypos = j > yc;
//Find the distance from the center
double xdif = i-xc;
double ydif = j-yc;
//The distance squared
double Rusquare = xdif * xdif + ydif * ydif;
//the angle from the center
double theta = Math.Atan2(ydif, xdif);
//find index for lookup table
int index = (int)(Math.Sqrt(Rusquare) / aFocalLinPixels * 1000);
if (index >= mFELimit) index = mFELimit - 1;
//calculated Rdistorted
double Rd = aFocalLinPixels * (double)mFisheyeCorrect[index]
/mScaleFESize;
//calculate x and y distances
double xdelta = Math.Abs(Rd*Math.Cos(theta));
double ydelta = Math.Abs(Rd * Math.Sin(theta));
//convert to pixel coordinates
int xd = (int)(xc + (xpos ? xdelta : -xdelta));
int yd = (int)(yc + (ypos ? ydelta : -ydelta));
xd = Math.Max(0, Math.Min(xd, aImage.Width-1));
yd = Math.Max(0, Math.Min(yd, aImage.Height-1));
//set the corrected pixel value from the distorted image
correctedImage.SetPixel(i, j, aImage.GetPixel(xd, yd));
}
}
return correctedImage;
}
}
I found this pdf file and I have proved that the maths are correct (except for the line vd = *xd**fv+v0 which should say vd = **yd**+fv+v0).
http://perception.inrialpes.fr/CAVA_Dataset/Site/files/Calibration_OpenCV.pdf
It does not use all of the latest co-efficients that OpenCV has available but I am sure that it could be adapted fairly easily.
double k1 = cameraIntrinsic.distortion[0];
double k2 = cameraIntrinsic.distortion[1];
double p1 = cameraIntrinsic.distortion[2];
double p2 = cameraIntrinsic.distortion[3];
double k3 = cameraIntrinsic.distortion[4];
double fu = cameraIntrinsic.focalLength[0];
double fv = cameraIntrinsic.focalLength[1];
double u0 = cameraIntrinsic.principalPoint[0];
double v0 = cameraIntrinsic.principalPoint[1];
double u, v;
u = thisPoint->x; // the undistorted point
v = thisPoint->y;
double x = ( u - u0 )/fu;
double y = ( v - v0 )/fv;
double r2 = (x*x) + (y*y);
double r4 = r2*r2;
double cDist = 1 + (k1*r2) + (k2*r4);
double xr = x*cDist;
double yr = y*cDist;
double a1 = 2*x*y;
double a2 = r2 + (2*(x*x));
double a3 = r2 + (2*(y*y));
double dx = (a1*p1) + (a2*p2);
double dy = (a3*p1) + (a1*p2);
double xd = xr + dx;
double yd = yr + dy;
double ud = (xd*fu) + u0;
double vd = (yd*fv) + v0;
thisPoint->x = ud; // the distorted point
thisPoint->y = vd;
This can be solved as an optimization problem. Simply draw on curves in images that are supposed to be straight lines. Store the contour points for each of those curves. Now we can solve the fish eye matrix as a minimization problem. Minimize the curve in points and that will give us a fisheye matrix. It works.
It can be done manually by adjusting the fish eye matrix using trackbars! Here is a fish eye GUI code using OpenCV for manual calibration.