Related
I have four points in a 3D space, example:
(0,0,1)
(1,0,1)
(1,0,2)
(0,0,2)
Then I have a 2D position on that square plane:
x = 0.5
y = 0.5
I need to find out the 3D space point of that position in the plane. In this example it's easy: (0.5,0,1.5), because Y is zero. But imagine that Y was not zero (and not all the same), that the plane is leaning in some direction. How would I calculate the point in that case?
I imagine this should be a pretty easy thing to solve, but I can't figure it out. Please answer in programming terms and not in straight math terms, if possible.
Update with image: The gray plane (made out of two triangles) are the real one actually existing. I create a non-existing plane on top of this, the ABCD corners are exactly the same, however it doesn't slope. What I need to do is project a pixel (blue one in example) from the non-existing plane to the existing plane. It will be in the exact same location, except that it has gained a Y value from the sloping plane.
(couldn't actually make the image appear because i need 10 reputation to show it, wtf?)
What I've been able to work out so far on my own is which one of the two triangles to use in the gray plane and the normal of triangle. I basically just need to figure out how I can project the pixel.
Figured it out mostly thanks to http://gamedeveloperjourney.blogspot.com/2009/04/point-plane-collision-detection.html
Made me realize I had to verify the normal a bit closer, turns out my plane's grid was being rendered a little different than the actual coordinates for the verticles. No wonder this was so hard to get right! The pixel was projected correctly but rendered incorrectly.
I have a complicated problem and it involves an understanding of Maths I'm not confident with.
Some slight context may help. I'm building a 3D train simulator for children and it will run in the browser using WebGL. I'm trying to create a network of points to place the track assets (see image) and provide reference for the train to move along.
To help explain my problem I have created a visual representation as I am a designer who can script and not really a programmer or a mathematician:
Basically, I have 3 shapes (Figs. A, B & C) and although they have width, can be represented as a straight line for A and curves (B & C). Curves B & C are derived (bend modified) from A so are all the same length (l) which is 112. The curves (B & C) each have a radius (r) of 285.5 and the (a) angle they were bent at was 22.5°.
Each shape (A, B & C) has a registration point (start point) illustrated by the centre of the green boxes attached to each of them.
What I am trying to do is create a network of "track" starting at 0, 0 (using standard Cartesian coordinates).
My problem is where to place the next element after a curve. If it were straight track then there is no problem as I can use the length as a constant offset along the y axis but that would be boring so I need to add curves.
Fig. D. demonstrates an example of a possible track layout but please understand that I am not looking for a static answer (based on where everything is positioned in the image), I need a formula that can be applied no matter how I configure the track.
Using Fig. D. I tried to work out where to place the second curved element after the first one. I used the formula for plotting a point of the circumference of a circle given its centre coordinates and radius (Fig. E.).
I had point 1 as that was simply a case of setting the length (y position) of the straight line. I could easily work out the centre of the circle because that's just the offset y position, the offset of the radius (r) (x position) and the angle (a) which is always 22.5° (which, incidentally, was converted to Radians as per formula requirements).
After passing the values through the formula I didn't get the correct result because the formula assumed I was working anti-clockwise starting at 3 o'clock so I had to deduct 180 from (a) and convert that to Radians to get the expected result.
That did work and if I wanted to create a 180° track curve I could use the same centre point and simply deducted 22.5° from the angle each time. Great. But I want a more dynamic track layout like in Figs. D & E.
So, how would I go about working point 5 in Fig. E. because that represents the centre point for that curve segment? I simply have no idea.
Also, as a bonus question, is this the correct way to be doing this or am I over-complicating things?
This problem is the only issue stopping me from building my game and, as you can appreciate, it is a bit of a biggie so I thank anyone for their contribution in advance.
As you build up the track, the position of the next piece of track to be placed needs to be relative to location and direction of the current end of the track.
I would store an (x,y) position and an angle a to indicate the current point (with x,y starting at 0, and a starting at pi/2 radians, which corresponds to straight up in the "anticlockwise from 3-o'clock" system).
Then construct
fx = cos(a);
fy = sin(a);
lx = -sin(a);
ly = cos(a);
which correspond to the x and y components of 'forward' and 'left' vectors relative to the direction we are currently facing. If we wanted to move our position one unit forward, we would increment (x,y) by (fx, fy).
In your case, the rule for placing a straight section of track is then:
x=x+112*fx
y=y+112*fy
The rule for placing a curve is slightly more complex. For a curve turning right, we need to move forward 112*sin(22.5°), then side-step right 112*(1-cos(22.5°), then turn clockwise by 22.5°. In code,
x=x+285.206*sin(22.5*pi/180)*fx // Move forward
y=y+285.206*sin(22.5*pi/180)*fy
x=x+285.206*(1-cos(22.5*pi/180))*(-lx) // Side-step right
y=y+285.206*(1-cos(22.5*pi/180))*(-ly)
a=a-22.5*pi/180 // Turn to face new direction
Turning left is just like turning right, but with a negative angle.
To place the subsequent pieces, just run this procedure again, calculating fx,fy, lx and ly with the now-updated value of a, and then incrementing x and y depending on what type of track piece is next.
There is one other point that you might consider; in my experience, building tracks which form closed loops with these sort of pieces usually works if you stick to making 90° turns or rather symmetric layouts. However, it's quite easy to make tracks which don't quite join up, and it's not obvious to see how they should be modified to allow them to join. Something to bear in mind perhaps if your program allows children to design their own layouts.
Point 5 is equidistant from 3 as 2, but in the opposite direction.
Alright, so I'm working on a ray tracer using phong shading. So far, everything is good. I've cast rays that have hit the spheres in my scene, applied phong shading to them, and it looks normal.
Now, I'm calculating shadow rays, which is shooting a ray from the point of intersection from the primary ray to the light source, and seeing if it hits any objects on the way. If it does, then it's in a shadow.
However, when computing whether the shadow ray hits any spheres, there seems to be an error with my discriminant that is calculated, which is odd since it's been correct so far for primary rays.
Here's the setup:
// Origin of ray (x,y,z)
origin: -1.9865333, 1.0925934, -9.8653316
// Direction of ray (x,y,z), already normalized
ray: -0.99069530, -0.13507602, -0.016648887
// Center of sphere (x,y,z)
cCenter: 1.0, 1.0, -10.0
// Radius of the sphere (x,y,z)
cRadius: 1.0
, and here's the code for finding the discriminant:
// A = d DOT d
float a = dotProd(ray, ray);
// B = 2 * (o - c) DOT d
Point temp (2.0*(origin.getX() - cCenter.getX()), 2.0*(origin.getY() - cCenter.getY()), 2.0*(origin.getZ() - cCenter.getZ()));
float b = dotProd(temp, ray);
// C = (o - c) DOT (o - c) - r^2
temp.setAll(origin.getX() - cCenter.getX(), origin.getY() - cCenter.getY(), origin.getZ() - cCenter.getZ());
float c = dotProd(temp, temp);
c -= (cRadius * cRadius);
// Find the discriminant (B^2 - 4AC)
float discrim = (b*b) - 4*a*c;
Clearly, the ray is pointing away from the sphere, yet the discriminant here is positive (2.88) indicating that the ray is hitting the sphere. And this code works fine for primary rays as their discriminants must be correct, yet not for these secondary shadow rays.
Am I missing something here?
So short answer for my problem, in case someone finds this and has the same problem:
The discriminant tells you whether a hit exists for a line (and not for a ray, like I thought). If it's positive, then it has detected a hit somewhere on the line.
So, when calculating the t-value(s) for the ray, check to see if they're negative. If they are, then it's a hit BEHIND the point of origin of the ray (ie. the opposite direction of the ray), so discard it. Only keep the positive values, as they're hits in the direction of the ray.
Even shorter answer: discard negative t-values.
Credit goes to woodchips for making me realize this.
The issue is, the trick to finding the intersection of a line and a sphere requires the solution of a quadratic equation. Such an equation has one of three possibilities as a solution - there are 0, 1, or 2 real solutions to that equation. The sign of the discriminant tells us how many real solutions there are (as well as helping us to solve for those solutions.)
If a unique solution exists, then the line just kisses the surface of the sphere. This happens when the discriminant is exactly zero.
If two solutions exist, then the line passes through the sphere, hitting the surface in TWO distinct points.
If no real solution exists (the case where the discriminant is negative) then the line lies too far away from the sphere to touch it at all.
Having discovered if the line ever goes near the sphere or not, only then do we worry if the ray hits it. For this, we can look at how we define the ray. A ray is a half line, extending to infinity in only one direction. So we look to see where on the line the intersection points happen. Only if the intersection happens on the half of the line that we care about is there a RAY-sphere intersection.
The point is, computation of the discriminant (and simply testing its sign) tells you ONLY about what the line does, not about where an intersection occurs along that line.
Of course, a careful reading of the link you yourself provided would have told you all of this.
Pretty sure "o-c" should be "c-o"
You're shooting a ray off in the wrong direction and finding the intersection on the other side of the sphere.
I have an interesting problem here I've been trying to solve for the last little while:
I have 3 circles on a 2D xy plane, each with the same known radius. I know the coordinates of each of the three centers (they are arbitrary and can be anywhere).
What is the largest triangle that can be drawn such that each vertex of the triangle sits on a separate circle, what are the coordinates of those verticies?
I've been looking at this problem for hours and asked a bunch of people but so far only one person has been able to suggest a plausible solution (though I have no way of proving it).
The solution that we have come up with involves first creating a triangle about the three circle centers. Next we look at each circle individually and calculate the equation of a line that passes through the circle's center and is perpendicular to the opposite edge. We then calculate two intersection points of the circle. This is then done for the next two circles with a result of 6 points. We iterate over the 8 possible 3 point triangles that these 6 points create (the restriction is that each point of the big triangle must be on a separate circle) and find the maximum size.
The results look reasonable (at least when drawn out on paper) and it passes the special case of when the centers of the circles all fall on a straight line (gives a known largest triangle). Unfortunate i have no way of proving this is correct or not.
I'm wondering if anyone has encountered a problem similar to this and if so, how did you solve it?
Note: I understand that this is mostly a math question and not programming, however it is going to be implemented in code and it must be optimized to run very fast and efficient. In fact, I already have the above solution in code and tested to be working, if you would like to take a look, please let me know, i chose not to post it because its all in vector form and pretty much impossible to figure out exactly what is going on (because it's been condensed to be more efficient).
Lastly, yes this is for school work, though it is NOT a homework question/assignment/project. It's part of my graduate thesis (abet a very very small part, but still technically is part of it).
Thanks for your help.
Edit: Heres a new algorithm that i came up with a little while ago.
Starting at a circle's centre, draw a line to the other two centres. Calculate the line that bisects the angle created and calculate the intersections between the circle and the line that passes through the centre of your circle. You will get 2 results. Repeat this for the other two circles to get a total of 6 points. Iterate over these 6 points and get 8 possible solutions. Find the maximum of the 8 solutions.
This algorithm will deal with the collinear case if you draw your lines in one "direction" about the three points.
From the few random trials i have attempted using CAD software to figure out the geometries for me, this method seems to outperform all other methods previously stated However, it has already been proven to not be an optimal solution by one of Victor's counter examples.
I'll code this up tomorrow, for some reason I've lost remote access to my university computer and most things are on it.
I've taken the liberty of submitting a second answer, because my original answer referred to an online app that people could play with to get insight. The answer here is more a geometric argument.
The following diagram illuminates, I hope, what is going on. Much of this was inspired by #Federico Ramponi's observation that the largest triangle is characterized by the tangent at each vertex being parallel to the opposite side.
(source: brainjam.ca)
The picture was produced using a trial version of the excellent desktop program Geometry Expressions. The diagram shows the three circles centered at points A,E, and C. They have equal radii, but the picture doesn't really depend on the radii being equal, so the solution generalizes to circles of different radii. The lines MN, NO, and OM are tangent to the circles, and touch the circles at the points I,H, and G respectively. The latter points form the inner triangle IHG which is the triangle whose size we want to maximize.
There is also an exterior triangle MNO which is homethetic to the interior triangle, meaning that its sides are parallel to that of IHG.
#Federico observed that IHG has maximal area because moving any of its vertices along the corresponding circle will result an a triangle that has the same base but less height, therefore less area. To put it in slightly more technical terms, if the triangle is parameterized by angles t1,t2,t3 on the three circles (as pointed out by #Charles Stewart, and as used in my steepest descent canvas app), then the gradient of the area w.r.t to (t1,t2,t3) is (0,0,0), and the area is extremal (maximal in the diagram).
So how is this diagram computed? I'll admit in advance that I don't quite have the full story, but here's a start. Given the three circles, select a point M. Draw tangents to the circles centered at E and C, and designate the tangent points as G and I. Draw a tangent OHN to the circle centered at A that is parallel to GI. These are fairly straightforward operations both algebraically and geometrically.
But we aren't finished. So far we only have the condition that OHN is parallel to GI. We have no guarantee that MGO is parallel to IH or that MIN is parallel to GH. So we have to go back and refine M. In an interactive geometry program it's no big deal to set this up and then move M until the latter parallel conditions are met (by eyeballs, anyways). Geometry Expressions created the diagram, but I used a bit of a cheat to get it to do so, because its constraint solver was apparently not powerful enough to do the job. The algebraic expressions for G, I, and H are reasonably straightforward, so it should be possible to solve for M based on the fact that MIHG is a parallelogram, either explicitly or numerically.
I should point out that in general if you follow the construction starting from M, you have two choices of tangent for each circle, and therefore eight possible solutions. As in the other attempted answers to the question, unless you have a good heuristic to help you choose in advance which of the tangents to compute, you should probably compute all eight possible triangles and find the one with maximum area. The other seven will be extremal in the sense of being minimal area or saddle points.
That's it. This answer is not quite complete in that it leaves the final computation of M somewhat open ended. But it's reduced to either a 2D search space or the solution of an ornery but not humongous equation.
Finally, I have to disagree with #Federico's conclusion that this confirms that the solution proposed by the OP is optimal. It's true that if you draw perpendiculars from the circle centers to the opposite edge of the inner triangle, those perpendiculars intersect the circle to give you the triangle vertex. E.g. H lies on the line through A perpendicular to GI), but this is not the same as in the original proposed solution (which was to take the line through A and perpendicular to EC - in general EC is not parallel to GI).
I've created an HTML5 canvas app that may be useful for people to play with. It's pretty basic (and the code is not beautiful), but it lets you move three circles of equal radius, and then calculates a maximal triangle using gradient/steepest descent. You can also save bitmaps of the diagram. The diagram also shows the triangle whose vertices are the circle centers, and one of the altitudes. Edit1: the "altitude" is really just a line segment through one of the circle centers and perpendicular to the opposite edge of the triangle joining the centers. It's there because some of the suggested constructions use it. Edit2: the steepest descent method sometimes gets stuck in a local maximum. You can get out of that maximum by moving a circle until the black triangle flips and then bringing the circle back to its original position. Working on how to find the global maximum.
This won't work in IE because it doesn't support canvas, but most other "modern" browsers should work.
I did this partially because I found some of the arguments on this page questionable, and partially because I've never programmed a steepest descent and wanted to see how that worked. Anyways, I hope this helps, and I hope to weigh in with some more comments later.
Edit: I've looked at the geometry a little more and have written up my findings in a separate answer.
Let A, B, C be the vertexes of your triangle, and suppose they are placed as in your solution.
Notice that the key property of your construction is that each of the vertexes lies on a tangent to its circle which is parallel to the opposite side of the triangle. Obviously, the circle itself lies entirely on one side of the tangent, and in the optimal solution each tangent leaves its circle on the same side as the other vertexes.
Consider AB as the "base" of the triangle, and let C float in its circle. If you move C to another position C' within the circle, you will obtain another triangle ABC' with the same base but a smaller height, hence also with a smaller area:
figure 1 http://control.ee.ethz.ch/~ramponif/stuff/circles1.png
For the same reason, you can easily see that any position of the vertexes that doesn't follow your construction cannot be optimal. Suppose, for instance, that each one of the vertexes A', B', C' does not lie on a tangent parallel to the side connecting the other two.
Then, constructing the tangent to the circle that contains (say) C', which is parallel to A'B' and leaves the circle on the same side as A'B', and moving C' to the point of tangency C, it is always possible to construct a triangle A'B'C which has the same base, but a greater height, hence also a greater area:
figure 2 http://control.ee.ethz.ch/~ramponif/stuff/circles2.png
Since any triangle that does not follow your construction cannot be optimal, I do believe that your construction is optimal. In the case when the centers of the circles are aligned I'm a bit confused, but I guess that it is possible to prove optimality along the same lines.
I believe this is a convex optimization problem (no it's not, see below), and hence can be solved efficiently using well known methods.
You essentially want to solve the problem:
maximize: area(v1,v2,v3) ~ |cross((v2-v1), (v3-v1))|
such that: v1 in C1, v2 in C2, v3 in C3 (i.e., v_i-c_i)^2 - r_i^2 <= 0)
Each of the constraints are convex, and the area function is convex as well. Now, I don't know if there is a more efficient formulation, but you can at least use an interior point method with derivatives since the derivative of the area with respect to each vertex position can be worked out analytically (I have it written down somewhere...).
Edit: grad(area(v1,v2,v3))(v_i) = rot90(vec(vj,vk)), where vec(a,b) is making a 2D vector starting at a and ending at b, and rot90 means a positive orientation rotation by 90 degrees, assuming (vi,vj,vk) was positively oriented.
Edit 2: The problem is not convex, as should be obvious considering the collinear case; two degenerate solutions is a sure sign of non-convexity. However, the configuration starting at the circle centers should be in the globally optimal local maximum.
Not optimal, works well when all three are not colinear:
I don't have a proof (and therefore don't know if it's guaranteed to be biggest). Maybe I'll work on one. But:
We have three circles with radius R with positions (from center) P0, P1, and P2. We wish to find the vertices of a triangle such that the area of the triangle is maximum, and the vertices lie on any point of the circles edges.
Find the center of all the circles and call that C. Then C = (P0 + P1 + P2) / 3. Then we find the point on each circle farthest from C.
Find vectors V0, V1, and V2, where Vi = Pi - C. Then find points Q0, Q1, and Q2, where Qi = norm(Vi) * R + Pi. Where norm indicates normalization of a vector, norm(V) = V / |V|.
Q0, Q1, and Q2 are the vertices of the triangle. I assume this is optimal because this is the farthest the vertices could be from each other. (I think.)
My first thought is that you should be able to find an analytic solution.
Then the equations of the circles are:
(x1-h1)^2 + (y1-k1)^2 = r^2
(x2-h2)^2 + (y2-k2)^2 = r^2
(x3-h3)^2 + (y3-k3)^2 = r^2
The vertices of your triangle are (x1, y1), (x2, y2), and (x3, y3). The side lengths of your triangle are
A = sqrt((x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2)
B = sqrt((x1-x3)^2 + (y1-y3)^2)
C = sqrt((x2-x3)^2 + (y2-y3)^2)
So the area of the triangle is (using Heron's formula)
S = (A+B+C)/2
area = sqrt(S(S-A)(S-B)(S-C))
So area is a function of 6 variables.
At this point I realize this is not a fruitful line of reasoning. This is more like something I'd drop into a simulated annealing system.
So my second thought is to choose the point on circle with centre A as follows: Construct line BC joining the centres of the other two circles, then construct the line AD that is perpendicular to BC and passes through A. One vertex of the triangle is the intersection of AD and circle with centre A. Likewise for the other vertices. I can't prove this but I think it gives different results than the simple "furthest from the centre of all the circles" method, and for some reason it feels better to me. I know, not very mathematical, but then I'm a programmer.
Let's assume the center of the circles to be C0,C1 and C2; and the radius R.
Since the area of a triangle is .5*base*height, let's first find the maximum base that can be constructed with the circles.
Base = Max {(|C0-C1|+2R),(|C1-C2|+2R,(|C2-C0|+2R}
Once the base length is determined between 2 circles, then we can find the farthest perpendicular point from the base line to the third circle. (product of the their slopes is -1)
For special cases such as circles aligned in a single line, we need to perform additional checks at the time of determining the base line.
It appears that finding the largest Apollonius circle for the three circles and then inscribing an equilateral triangle in that circle would be a solution. Proof left as an exercise ;).
EDIT
This method has issues for collinear circles like other solutions here, too and doesn't work.
Some initial thoughts.
Definition Call the sought-after triangle, the maximal triangle. Note that this might not be unique: if the circles all have the same centre, then there are infinitely many maximal triangles obtained by rotation around the center, and if the centres are colinear, then there will be two maximal triangles, each a mirror image of the other.
Definition Call the triangle (possibly, degenerately, either a point or a line) whose vertices are the centres of the circles the interior triangle.
Observation The solution can be expressed as three angles, indicating where on the circumference of each circle the triangle is to be found.
Observation Given two exterior vertices, we can determine a third vertex that gives the maximal area: draw the altitude of the triangle between the two exterior vertices and the centre of the other circle. This line intersects the circumference in two places; the further away point is the maximising choice of third vertex. (Fixed incorrect algorithm, Federico's argument can be adapted to show correctness of this observation)
Consequence The problem is reduced to from a problem in three angles to one in two.
Conjecture Imagine the diagram is a pinboard, with three pins at the three centres of the circles. Imagine also a closed loop of string of length equal to the perimiter of the interior triangle, plus the radius of a circle, and we place this loop around the pins. Take an imaginary pen and imaginarily draw the looping figure where the loop is always tight. I conjecture that the points of the maximal triangle will all lie on this looping figure, and that in the case where the interior triangle is not degenerate, the vertices of the maximal triangle will be the three points where the looping figure intersects one of the circle circumferences. Many counterexamples
More to follow when I can spare time to think about it.
This is just a thought, no proof or math to go along with the construction just yet. It requires that the circle centers not be colinear if the radii are the same for each circle. This restriction can be relaxed if the radii are different.
Construction:
(1) Construct a triangle such that each side of the triangle is tangent to two circles, and therefore, each circle has a tangent point on two sides of the triangle.
(2) Draw the chord between these two tangent points on each circle
(3) Find the point on the boundary of the circle on the extended ray starting at the circle's center through the midpoint of the chord. There should be one such point on each of the three circles.
(4) Connect them three points of (3) to fom a triangle.
At that point I don't know if it's the largest such triangle, but if you're looking for something approximate, this might be it.
Later: You might be able to find an approximate answer for the degenerate case by perturbing the "middle" circle slightly in a direction perpendicular to the line connecting the three circles.
Hey math geeks, I've got a problem that's been stumping me for a while now. It's for a personal project.
I've got three dots: red, green, and blue. They're positioned on a cardboard slip such that the red dot is in the lower left (0,0), the blue dot is in the lower right (1,0), and the green dot is in the upper left. Imagine stepping back and taking a picture of the card from an angle. If you were to find the center of each dot in the picture (let's say the units are pixels), how would you find the normal vector of the card's face in the picture (relative to the camera)?
Now a few things I've picked up about this problem:
The dots (in "real life") are always at a right angle. In the picture, they're only at a right angle if the camera has been rotated around the red dot along an "axis" (axis being the line created by the red and blue or red and green dots).
There are dots on only one side of the card. Thus, you know you'll never be looking at the back of it.
The distance of the card to the camera is irrelevant. If I knew the depth of each point, this would be a whole lot easier (just a simple cross product, no?).
The rotation of the card is irrelevant to what I'm looking for. In the tinkering that I've been doing to try to figure this one out, the rotation can be found with the help of the normal vector in the end. Whether or not the rotation is a part of (or product of) finding the normal vector is unknown to me.
Hope there's someone out there that's either done this or is a math genius. I've got two of my friends here helping me on it and we've--so far--been unsuccessful.
i worked it out in my old version of MathCAD:
Edit: Wording wrong in screenshot of MathCAD: "Known: g and b are perpendicular to each other"
In MathCAD i forgot the final step of doing the cross-product, which i'll copy-paste here from my earlier answer:
Now we've solved for the X-Y-Z of the
translated g and b points, your
original question wanted the normal of
the plane.
If cross g x b, we'll get the
vector normal to both:
| u1 u2 u3 |
g x b = | g1 g2 g3 |
| b1 b2 b3 |
= (g2b3 - b2g3)u1 + (b1g3 - b3g1)u2 + (g1b2 - b1g2)u3
All the values are known, plug them in
(i won't write out the version with g3
and b3 substituted in, since it's just
too long and ugly to be helpful.
But in practical terms, i think you'll have to solve it numerically, adjusting gz and bz so as to best fit the conditions:
g · b = 0
and
|g| = |b|
Since the pixels are not algebraically perfect.
Example
Using a picture of the Apollo 13 astronauts rigging one of the command module's square Lithium Hydroxide cannister to work in the LEM, i located the corners:
Using them as my basis for an X-Y plane:
i recorded the pixel locations using Photoshop, with positive X to the right, and positive Y down (to keep the right-hand rule of Z going "into" the picture):
g = (79.5, -48.5, gz)
b = (-110.8, -62.8, bz)
Punching the two starting formulas into Excel, and using the analysis toolpack to "minimize" the error by adjusting gz and bz, it came up with two Z values:
g = (79.5, -48.5, 102.5)
b = (-110.8, -62.8, 56.2)
Which then lets me calcuate other interesting values.
The length of g and b in pixels:
|g| = 138.5
|b| = 139.2
The normal vector:
g x b = (3710, -15827, -10366)
The unit normal (length 1):
uN = (0.1925, -0.8209, -0.5377)
Scaling normal to same length (in pixels) as g and b (138.9):
Normal = (26.7, -114.0, -74.7)
Now that i have the normal that is the same length as g and b, i plotted them on the same picture:
i think you're going to have a new problem: distortion introduced by the camera lens. The three dots are not perfectly projected onto the 2-dimensional photographic plane. There's a spherical distortion that makes straight lines no longer straight, makes equal lengths no longer equal, and makes the normals slightly off of normal.
Microsoft research has an algorithm to figure out how to correct for the camera's distortion:
A Flexible New Technique for Camera Calibration
But it's beyond me:
We propose a flexible new technique to
easily calibrate a camera. It is well
suited for use without specialized
knowledge of 3D geometry or computer
vision. The technique only requires
the camera to observe a planar pattern
shown at a few (at least two)
different orientations. Either the
camera or the planar pattern can be
freely moved. The motion need not be
known. Radial lens distortion is
modeled. The proposed procedure
consists of a closed-form solution,
followed by a nonlinear refinement
based on the maximum likelihood
criterion. Both computer simulation
and real data have been used to test
the proposed technique, and very good
results have been obtained. Compared
with classical techniques which use
expensive equipments such as two or
three orthogonal planes, the proposed
technique is easy to use and flexible.
It advances 3D computer vision one
step from laboratory environments to
real world use.
They have a sample image, where you can see the distortion:
(source: microsoft.com)
Note
you don't know if you're seeing the "top" of the cardboard, or the "bottom", so the normal could be mirrored vertically (i.e. z = -z)
Update
Guy found an error in the derived algebraic formulas. Fixing it leads to formulas that i, don't think, have a simple closed form. This isn't too bad, since it can't be solved exactly anyway; but numerically.
Here's a screenshot from Excel where i start with the two knowns rules:
g · b = 0
and
|g| = |b|
Writing the 2nd one as a difference (an "error" amount), you can then add both up and use that value as a number to have excel's solver minimize:
This means you'll have to write your own numeric iterative solver. i'm staring over at my Numerical Methods for Engineers textbook from university; i know it contains algorithms to solve recursive equations with no simple closed form.
From the sounds of it, you have three points p1, p2, and p3 defining a plane, and you want to find the normal vector to the plane.
Representing the points as vectors from the origin, an equation for a normal vector would be
n = (p2 - p1)x(p3 - p1)
(where x is the cross-product of the two vectors)
If you want the vector to point outwards from the front of the card, then ala the right-hand rule, set
p1 = red (lower-left) dot
p2 = blue (lower-right) dot
p3 = green (upper-left) dot
# Ian Boyd...I liked your explanation, only I got stuck on step 2, when you said to solve for bz. You still had bz in your answer, and I don't think you should have bz in your answer...
bz should be +/- square root of gx2 + gy2 + gz2 - bx2 - by2
After I did this myself, I found it very difficult to substitute bz into the first equation when you solved for gz, because when substituting bz, you would now get:
gz = -(gxbx + gyby) / sqrt( gx2 + gy2 + gz2 - bx2 - by2 )
The part that makes this difficult is that there is gz in the square root, so you have to separate it and combine the gz together, and solve for gz Which I did, only I don't think the way I solved it was correct, because when I wrote my program to calculate gz for me, I used your gx, and gy values to see if my answer matched up with yours, and it did not.
So I was wondering if you could help me out, because I really need to get this to work for one of my projects. Thanks!
Just thinking on my feet here.
Your effective inputs are the apparent ratio RB/RG [+], the apparent angle BRG, and the angle that (say) RB makes with your screen coordinate y-axis (did I miss anything). You need out the components of the normalized normal (heh!) vector, which I believe is only two independent values (though you are left with a front-back ambiguity if the card is see through).[++]
So I'm guessing that this is possible...
From here on I work on the assumption that the apparent angle of RB is always 0, and we can rotate the final solution around the z-axis later.
Start with the card positioned parallel to the viewing plane and oriented in the "natural" way (i.e. you upper vs. lower and left vs. right assignments are respected). We can reach all the interesting positions of the card by rotating by \theta around the initial x-axis (for -\pi/2 < \theta < \pi/2), then rotating by \phi around initial y-axis (for -\pi/2 < \phi < \pi/2). Note that we have preserved the apparent direction of the RB vector.
Next step compute the apparent ratio and apparent angle after in terms of \theta and \phi and invert the result.[+++]
The normal will be R_y(\phi)R_x(\theta)(0, 0, 1) for R_i the primitive rotation matrix around axis i.
[+] The absolute lengths don't count, because that just tells you the distance to card.
[++] One more assumption: that the distance from the card to view plane is much large than the size of the card.
[+++] Here the projection you use from three-d space to the viewing plane matters. This is the hard part, but not something we can do for you unless you say what projection you are using. If you are using a real camera, then this is a perspective projection and is covered in essentially any book on 3D graphics.
right, the normal vector does not change by distance, but the projection of the cardboard on a picture does change by distance (Simple: If you have a small cardboard, nothing changes.
If you have a cardboard 1 mile wide and 1 mile high and you rotate it so that one side is nearer and the other side more far away, the near side is magnified and the far side shortened on the picture. You can see that immediately that an rectangle does not remain a rectangle, but a trapeze)
The mostly accurate way for small angles and the camera centered on the middle is to measure the ratio of the width/height between "normal" image and angle image on the middle lines (because they are not warped).
We define x as left to right, y as down to up, z as from far to near.
Then
x = arcsin(measuredWidth/normWidth) red-blue
y = arcsin(measuredHeight/normHeight) red-green
z = sqrt(1.0-x^2-y^2)
I will calculate tomorrow a more exact solution, but I'm too tired now...
You could use u,v,n co-oridnates. Set your viewpoint to the position of the "eye" or "camera", then translate your x,y,z co-ordinates to u,v,n. From there you can determine the normals, as well as perspective and visible surfaces if you want (u',v',n'). Also, bear in mind that 2D = 3D with z=0. Finally, make sure you use homogenious co-ordinates.