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.
Related
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.
The Wikipedia page for L-Systems describes many of them, including a couple rules that converge toward the Sierpinski triangle. That particular fractal also has a 3D version, which basically uses pyramids instead of triangles. Is there a way to reach this one with an L-system? That same wikipedia page mentions the existence of 3D L-systems, but doesn't explain how they work or give any example as to what their rules would look like.
So first, how do 3D L-systems differ from their 2D counterpart (if there are major differences), and second, can they be used to create this Sierpinski Pyramids?
I'm trying to create it in Processing, as I managed to draw the 2D version in this software using an L-system before. An example of making a 3D L-system work would be appreciated, but not necessary
A 2D L system in instructions for creating recursive 2D trees with branches that contain number of sub-branches, angle, and length. A 3D version expends the branches to have roll, pitch and yaw. Its easiest to create one with turtle graphics. (If you just use a orthographic projection, you can see the tree, which is of course flattened again to 2D, but looks more complex and less symmetrical than a 2D tree)
Otherwise the system is the same.
I don't know the instruction sequence specifically for creating a Seipinsky pyramid. Presumably you stat at the apex pointing down, then do a pitch of 45*,
and four Rolls with 4 As between them.
I'm maintaining software which uses PCL. I'm myself not much experienced in PCL, I've only tried some examples and tried to understand the official PCL-Ducumentation (which is unfortunately mainly sparse, doxygen-generated text). My impression is, only a PCL contributors have real change to use the library efficiently.
One feature I have to fix in the software is aligning two clouds. The clouds are two objects, which should be stacked together with a layer in-between (The actual task is to calculate the volume of the layer ).
I hope the picture explains the task well. The objects are scanned both from the sides to be stacked (one from above and the other from below). On both clouds the user selects manually two points. Then, as I hope there should be a mean in PCL to align two clouds providing the two clouds and the coordinates of the points. The alignment is required only in X-Y Plane.
Unfortunately I can't find out which function should I use for this, partly because the PCL documentation is IHMO really humble, partly because of lack of experience.
My desperate idea was to stack the clouds using P1 as the origin of both and then rotate the second cloud manually using the calculated angle between P11,P21 and P12,P22. This works, but since the task appears to me very common, I'd expect PCL to provide a dedicated function for that.
Could you point me to a proper API-function, code-snippet, example, similar project or a good book helping to understand PCL API and usage?
Many thanks!
I think this problem does not need PCL. It is simple enough to form the correct linear equation and solve it.
If you want to use PCL without worrying about the maths too much (though, if the above is a mystery to you, then studying some computational geometry would be very useful), here is my suggestion.
Most PCL operations work on 3D point clouds. I understand from your question that you only have 2D point clouds OR you don't care about the 3rd dimension. In this case if I were you I would represent the points as a 3D point cloud and set the z dimension to zero.
You will only need two point clouds with 3 points as that is how many points you are feeding to the transformation estimation algorithm. The first 2 points in the clouds will be the points chosen by the user. The third one will be any point that you have chosen that you know is the same in both clouds. You need this third one otherwise the transform is still ambiguous if it is a general transform that is being computed. You can calculate however such a point as you know 2 points already and you know that all the points are on a common plane (as you have projected them by losing the z values). Just don't choose it co-linear with the other two points. For example, halfway between the two points and 2cm in the perpendicular direction (ensuring to go in the correct direction).
Then you can use the estimateRigidTransformation functions to find the transform.
http://docs.pointclouds.org/1.7.0/classpcl_1_1registration_1_1_transformation_estimation_s_v_d.html
This function is also good for over-determined problems (it is the workhorse of the ICP algorithm in PCL) but as long as you have enough points to determine the transform it should work.
What are some path finding algorithms used in games of all types? (Of all types where characters move, anyway) Is Dijkstra's ever used? I'm not really looking to code anything; just doing some research, though if you paste pseudocode or something, that would be fine (I can understand Java and C++).
I know A* is like THE algorithm to use in 2D games. That's great and all, but what about 2D games that are not grid-based? Things like Age of Empires, or Link's Awakening. There aren't distinct square spaces to navigate to, so what do they do?
What do 3D games do? I've read this thingy http://www.ai-blog.net/archives/000152.html, which I hear is a great authority on the subject, but it doesn't really explain HOW, once the meshes are set, the path finding is done. IF A* is what they use, then how is something like that done in a 3D environment? And how exactly do the splines work for rounding corners?
Dijkstra's algorithm calculates the shortest path to all nodes in a graph that are reachable from the starting position. For your average modern game, that would be both unnecessary and incredibly expensive.
You make a distinction between 2D and 3D, but it's worth noting that for any graph-based algorithm, the number of dimensions of your search space doesn't make a difference. The web page you linked to discusses waypoint graphs and navigation meshes; both are graph-based and could in principle work in any number of dimensions. Although there are no "distinct square spaces to move to", there are discrete "slots" in the space that the AI can move to and which have been carefully layed out by the game designers.
Concluding, A* is actually THE algorithm to use in 3D games just as much as in 2D games. Let's see how A* works:
At the start, you know the coordinates of your current position and
your target position. You make an optimistic estimate of the
distance to your destination, for example the length of the straight
line between the start position and the target.
Consider the adjacent nodes in the graph. If one of them is your
target (or contains it, in case of a navigation mesh), you're done.
For each adjacent node (in the case of a navigation mesh, this could
be the geometric center of the polygon or some other kind of
midpoint), estimate the associated cost of traveling along there as the
sum of two measures: the length of the path you'd have traveled so
far, and another optimistic estimate of the distance that would still
have to be covered.
Sort your options from the previous step by their estimated cost
together with all options that you've considered before, and pick
the option with the lowest estimated cost. Repeat from step 2.
There are some details I haven't discussed here, but this should be enough to see how A* is basically independent of the number of dimensions of your space. You should also be able to see why this works for continous spaces.
There are some closely related algorithms that deal with certain problems in the standard A* search. For example recursive best-first search (RBFS) and simplified memory-bounded A* (SMA*) require less memory, while learning real-time A* (LRTA*) allows the agent to move before a full path has been computed. I don't know whether these algorithms are actually used in current games.
As for the rounding of corners, this can be done either with distance lines (where corners are replaced by circular arcs), or with any kind of spline function for full-path smoothing.
In addition, algorithms are possible that rely on a gradient over the search space (where each point in space is associated with a value), rather than a graph. These are probably not applied in most games because they take more time and memory, but might be interesting to know about anyway. Examples include various hill-climbing algorithms (which are real-time by default) and potential field methods.
Methods to procedurally obtain a graph from a continuous space exist as well, for example cell decomposition, Voronoi skeletonization and probabilistic roadmap skeletonization. The former would produce something compatible with a navigation mesh (though it might be hard to make it equally efficient as a hand-crafted navigation mesh) while the latter two produce results that will be more like waypoint graphs. All of these, as well as potential field methods and A* search, are relevant to robotics.
Sources:
Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edition
Introduction to The Design and Analysis of Algorithms, 2nd edition