I've always wondered the easiest way to figure out whether or not a point lies within a triangle, or in this instance, a rectangle cut into half diagonally.
Let's say I have a rectangle that is 64x64 pixels. With this rectangle, I want to return a TRUE value if a passed point is within the upper-left corner of the rectangle, and FALSE if it isn't.
-----
| /|
| / |
|<__|
Horray for bad ASCII art.
Anyway, the hypothetical points for this triangle that would return TRUE would be (0,0) and (63,0) and (0, 63). If a point lands on a line (e.g., 50,0) it would return TRUE as well.
Assuming 0,0 is in the upper-left corner and increases downwards...
I've had a possible solution in my head, but it seems more complicated than it should be - taking the passed Y value, determining where it would be in the rectangle, and figuring out manually where the line would cut at that Y value. E.g, a passed Y value of 16 would be quarter height of the rectangle. And thus, depending on what side you were checking (left or right), the line would either be at 16px or 48px, depending on the direction of the line. In the example above, since we're testing the upper-left corner, at 16px height, the line would be at 48px width
There has to be a better way.
EDIT:
The rectangle could also look like this as well
-----
|\ |
| \ |
|__>|
But I'm figuring in most cases the current answers already provided should still hold up...
Top-left/bottom-right triangles: For all points in the top-left triangle, x+y<=64. Points in the bottom-right triangle have x+y>64.
(for a rectangle of size (w,h) use w*y+h*x-w*h<0)
Top-right/bottom-left triangles: For all points in the bottom-left triangle, x<=y. Points in the top-right triangle have x>y.
(for a rectangle of size (w,h) use h*x-w*y<0)
How did we get there?
For a rectangle of dimensions (w,h) and TL/BR triangles, the equation of the diagonal is (try it out! assign x=0 and check that you get y==h, and assign y=0 and check that x==w)
h*x + w*y - w*h = 0
Points on one side of that line will have
h*x + w*y - w*h > 0
While points on the other will have
h*x + w*y - w*h < 0
Inserting 64 for both w and h, we get:
64x + 64y - 64*64 < 0
Dividing by 64 gets us:
x+y < 64
For TR/BL triangles, the line equation and the resulting inequalities are:
h*x - w*y = 0
h*x - w*y < 0
h*x - w*y > 0
Inserting 64 for w and h, we get
64x-64y < 0
=> x<y
you can represent the triangle with three affine functions
take the unit triangle with corners at (0, 0), (1, 0) and (1, 1). the sides are represented by the three lines
y = 0
x = 1
y = x
So the interior and boundry of the triangle are given as the intersection of the sets
x >= 1
y >= 0
y <= x
so given a point, (x, y), you just need to verify that it satisfies those three inequalities.
You can of course generalize this to any triangle using the fact that any affine function (representing a line) can be written in the form y = mx + b.
The equation for the line looks like this :
y = mx + b
So, if you insert your x and y-Values into that equation, it will probably not hold anymore. Let's reformulate it:
mx + b - y = 0
Same thing, different look. Again, the result is probably not zero. But, the result will now tell you whether it's on the one side of the line or the other.
Now you just have to find out whether the point is inside your rectangle.
Lets assume your right angled triangle has one corner at 0,0 and the diagonal corner at a,b.
So y=mx+c c=0 as we start at the origin.
m=b/a
So y=bx/a
To know which half of the triangle your point (c,d) falls in
if (d<=(bc/a)) {//point is in bottom half}
if (d>(bc/a)) {//point is in top half}
I think...
A simple option is to use a ray casting algorithm. Whilst perhaps a little overkill for what you need, it does have the advantage that it will work with more complex triangles and polygons.
Loosely, the algorithm takes an imaginary point in a direction (infinitely off to the left, for example) and casts a ray to your test point; you then calculate whether each line of your triangle crosses that infinitely long line. If you get an odd number of crossings, your point is inside your triangle; even and you're out of your triangle
Related
Perhaps the question title needs some work.
For context this is for the purpose of a Koch Snowflake (using C-like math syntax in a formula node in LabVIEW), thus why the triangle must be the correct way. (As given 2 points an equilateral triangle may be in one of two directions.)
To briefly go over the algorithm: I have an array of 4 predefined coordinates initially forming a triangle, the first "generation" of the fractal. To generate the next iteration, one must for each line (pair of coordinates) get the 1/3rd and 2/3rd midpoints to be the base of a new triangle on that face, and then calculate the position of the 3rd point of the new triangle (the subject of this question). Do this for all current sides, concatenating the resulting arrays into a new array that forms the next generation of the snowflake.
The array of coordinates is in a clockwise order, e.g. each vertex travelling clockwise around the shape corresponds to the next item in the array, something like this for the 2nd generation:
This means that when going to add a triangle to a face, e.g. between, in that image, the vertices labelled 0 and 1, you first get the midpoints which I'll call "c" and "d", you can just rotate "d" anti-clockwise around "c" by 60 degrees to find where the new triangle top point will be (labelled e).
I believe this should hold (e.g. 60 degrees anticlockwise rotating the later point around the earlier) for anywhere around the snowflake, however currently my maths only seems to work in the case where the initial triangle has a vertical side: [(0,0), (0,1)]. Else wise the triangle goes off in some other direction.
I believe I have correctly constructed my loops such that the triangle generating VI (virtual instrument, effectively a "function" in written languages) will work on each line segment sequentially, but my actual calculation isn't working and I am at a loss as to how to get it in the right direction. Below is my current maths for calculating the triangle points from a single line segment, where a and b are the original vertices of the segment, c and d form new triangle base that are in-line with the original line, and e is the part that sticks out. I don't want to call it "top" as for a triangle formed from a segment going from upper-right to lower-left, the "top" will stick down.
cx = ax + (bx - ax)/3;
dx = ax + 2*(bx - ax)/3;
cy = ay + (by - ay)/3;
dy = ay + 2*(by - ay)/3;
dX = dx - cx;
dY = dy - cy;
ex = (cos(1.0471975512) * dX + sin(1.0471975512) * dY) + cx;
ey = (sin(1.0471975512) * dX + cos(1.0471975512) * dY) + cy;
note 1.0471975512 is just 60 degrees in radians.
Currently for generation 2 it makes this: (note the seemingly separated triangle to the left is formed by the 2 triangles on the top and bottom having their e vertices meet in the middle and is not actually an independent triangle.)
I suspect the necessity for having slightly different equations depending on weather ax or bx is larger etc, perhaps something to do with how the periodicity of sin/cos may need to be accounted for (something about quadrants in spherical coordinates?), as it looks like the misplaced triangles are at 60 degrees, just that the angle is between the wrong lines. However this is a guess and I'm just not able to imagine how to do this programmatically let alone on paper.
Thankfully the maths formula node allows for if and else statements which would allow for this to be implemented if it's the case but as said I am not awfully familiar with adjusting for what I'll naively call the "quadrants thing", and am unsure how to know which quadrant one is in for each case.
This was a long and rambling question which inevitably tempts nonsense so if you've any clarifying questions please comment and I'll try to fix anything/everything.
Answering my own question thanks to #JohanC, Unsurprisingly this was a case of making many tiny adjustments and giving up just before getting it right.
The correct formula was this:
ex = (cos(1.0471975512) * dX + sin(1.0471975512) * dY) + cx;
ey = (-sin(1.0471975512) * dX + cos(1.0471975512) * dY) + cy;
just adding a minus to the second sine function. Note that if one were travelling anticlockwise then one would want to rotate points clockwise, so you instead have the 1st sine function negated and the second one positive.
I am trying to create a game using one-point perspective. Everything works fine for points within the view but goes wrong with the negative depth. I understand the perspective as shown on the following picture (source).
In general, I took a point at some distance from the left of the right vertical edge of the frame along the lower horizontal line (5 points in this case), join it with the O' point (line H'O') and where the line intersects the vertical line (at point H') is the depth line (of 5 in this case). This works well even for negative depth (as the line H'O' intersect the vertical line below the viewpoint). However, if the depth is more then is the distance of O' (that mean the point would be on the right from the O') the line flip and the H' end on top of the viewpoint (although it should end up below).
How should I correct it, so the point with negative depth is transformed correctly (mean from 3D space to 2D space)?
EDIT
This image is probably better.
My question is how to handle points with negative depth (should end up below the screen) higher then is a distance of transversal.
The points to the right of the point O', along the line determined by the lower edge of the frame, correspond to points that are behind the observer, so technically, the observer cannot see them. To see the points behind you, means that you have to turn around, so you need to change the position of the screen. Draw a copy of the black square frame to the right of the point O', so that the new square is the mirror symmetric image of the original frame square with respect to the line orthogonal to the horizon line and passing trough the point O'.
Edit: The points with negative depth to the right of point O' (i.e. a point behind the observer) is supposed to be mapped above the horizontal blue line. This is the right way to go.
I assume your coordinate system in three dimensions has its origin at the lower right corner of the square frame on your picture. The x axis (I think how you measure width) runs along the lower horizontl edge of the frame, while the y axis (what you call height) is along the right vertical edge of the frame. The depth axis is in three dimensions and it's perpendicular to the plane of the square frame (so it is parallel to the ground). It starts from the lower right corner of the frame square. Assume that the distance of point O' from the right vertical edge of the square is S and the coordinates of the point C are {C1, C2} (C1 is the distance of point C from the right vertical edge and C2 is the distance of C from the lower horizontal edge of the square).
Given the coordinates {w, h, d} (w - width, h - height, d - depth) of a point in three dimensions, its representation on the two dimesnional square screen is gievn by the formulas:
x = (S*w + C1*d)/(S+d)
y = (S*h + C2*d)/(S+d)
So the points you gave as an example in the comments are
P1 = {h = 5, w = 5, d = 5} and P2 = {h = 5, w = 5, d = -10}
Their representation on the screen is
P1_screen = {(S*5 + C1*5)/(S+5), (S*5 + C2*5)/(S+5)}
P2_screen = {(S*5 - C1*10)/(S-10), (S*5 - C2*10)/(S-10)}
whatever your parameters S, C1 and C2 are. The representation of the (infinte) line connecting points P1 and P2 is represented on the screen as the (infinite) line connecting the points P1_screen and P2_screen. However, if you want the 2D representation of the visible part of the segment that connects P1 and P2, then you have to draw the (infinite) line between P1_screen and P2_screen and exclude the following two segment: segment [P1_screen, P2_screen] and the segment from P2_screen along the line up towards the upper top edge. You have to draw on the screen only the segment from the infinite line connecting P1_screen and P2_screen which starts from P1_Screen and goes down towards the lower horizontal edge of the screen.
I have a vector represented by the slope m. Then there is rectangle (assume axis aligned), which is represented by top-left and bottom-right corner.
Of course, there may be many lines with slope m and intersecting the given rectangle. The problem is to find out the line whose length of line intercept inside the rectangle is maximum among all such lines. i.e., if the line intersects rectangle at P1 and P2, then the problem is to find the equation of line for which length of P1P2 is maximum.
I proceeded like this. Let the line is: y = m*x + c. Then find out the intersection with each side of rectangle and finding out the maxima for distance function between each pair of points. But it will only give me the length of line segment and there seem to be many corner cases to handle.
Could anyone please suggest a better way to do this.
Thanks in advance.
Think about it like you want to scale a triangle to fit inside the rectangle. Consider a triangle with base width 1.
we know that dy/dx = m, so the height of the triangle with the same slope is m.
Now take your rectangle and work out the maximum scale that fits the triangle inside the rectangle. For positive m:
min(rectWidth, rectHeight/m)
This is the scale we have to use to fit the triangle inside the rectangle. Now it's easy with pytagoras' theorem to get the length of the intersection
scale = min(rectWidth, abs(m/rectHeight)) // m could be negative so we take abs
length = sqrt(scale*scale + scale*m*scale*m)
Note that there are potentially many possible solutions for a line of this length, be we are certain that for positive m (triangle pointing up) it will fit in the bottom left of the rectangle, and for negative m (triangle pointing down) it will fit in the top right.
So lets say your rectangle is made up of 4 values minX, minY, maxX, maxY
if m is positive, the line intersects at minX minY, and exits the rectangle at
[minX + scale, minY + (m * scale)]
and if m is negative the line intersects at maxX maxY and exits the rectangle at
[maX - scale, maxY + (m * scale)] (noting that m is negative)
All you need to handle now is slope of 0, which is trivial.
I get a series of square binary images as in the picture below,
I want to find the red point, which is the point of intersection of four blocks (2 black and 2 white). For doing so, I use to get the sum of all pixel values along the diagonal directions of the square image, which is 45 deg and 135 deg respectively. The intersection of maximum pixel sum 45 deg line and minimum pixel sum 135 deg line is where my red point is.
Now that I get the co-ordinate of the red point in 45 deg-135 deg co-ordinate system, how to I transform them to earth co-ordinates?
In other words, say I have a point in 45deg-135deg co-ordinate system; How do I find the corresponding co-ordinate values in x-y co-ordinate system? What is the transformation matrix?
some more information that might help:
1) if the image is a 60x60 image, I get 120 values in 45deg-135deg system, since i scan each row followed by column to add the pixels.
I don't know much about matlab, but in general all you need to do is rotate your grid by 45 degrees.
Here's a helpful link; shows you the rotation matrix you need
wikipedia rotation matrix article
The new coordinates for a point after 2D rotation look like this:
x' = x \cos \theta - y \sin \theta.
y' = x \sin \theta + y \cos \theta.
replace theta with 45 (or maybe -45) and you should be all set.
If your red dot starts out at (x,y), then after the -45 degree rotation it will have the new coordinates (x',y'), which are defined as follows:
x' = x cos(-45) - y sin (-45)
y' = x sin (-45) + y cos (-45)
Sorry when I misunderstood your question but why do you rotate the image? The x-value of your red point is just the point where the derivative in x-direction has the maximum absolute value. And for the y-direction it is the same with the derivative in y-direction.
Assume you have the following image
If you take the first row of the image it has at the beginning all 1 and the for most of the width zeroes. The plot of the first column looks like this.
Now you convolve this line with the kernel {-1,1} which is only one nested loop over your line and you get
Going now through this result and extracting the position of the point with the highest value gets you 72. Therefore the x-position of the red point is 73 (since the kernel of the convolution finds the derivative one point too soon).
Therefore, if data is the image matrix of the above binary image then extracting your red point position is near to one line in Mathematica
Last[Transpose[Position[ListConvolve[{-1, 1}, #] & /#
{data[[1]],Transpose[data][[1]]}, 1 | -1]]] + 1
Here you get {73, 86} which is the correct position if y=0 is the top row. This method should be implemented in a few minutes in any language.
Remarks:
The approximated derivative which is the result of the convolution can either be negative or positive. This depends whether it is a change from 0 to 1 or vice versa. If you want to search for the highest value, you have to take the absolute value of the convolution result.
Remember that the first row in the image matrix is not always in top position of the displayed image. This depends on the software you are using. If you get wrong y values be aware of that.
I'm writing a script where icons rotate around a given pivot (or origin). I've been able to make this work for rotating the icons around an ellipse but I also want to have them move around the perimeter of a rectangle of a certain width, height and origin.
I'm doing it this way because my current code stores all the coords in an array with each angle integer as the key, and reusing this code would be much easier to work with.
If someone could give me an example of a 100x150 rectangle, that would be great.
EDIT: to clarify, by rotating around I mean moving around the perimeter (or orbiting) of a shape.
You know the size of the rectangle and you need to split up the whole angle interval into four different, so you know if a ray from the center of the rectangle intersects right, top, left or bottom of the rectangle.
If the angle is: -atan(d/w) < alfa < atan(d/w) the ray intersects the right side of the rectangle. Then since you know that the x-displacement from the center of the rectangle to the right side is d/2, the displacement dy divided by d/2 is tan(alfa), so
dy = d/2 * tan(alfa)
You would handle this similarily with the other three angle intervals.
Ok, here goes. You have a rect with width w and depth d. In the middle you have the center point, cp. I assume you want to calculate P, for different values of the angle alfa.
I divided the rectangle in four different areas, or angle intervals (1 to 4). The interval I mentioned above is the first one to the right. I hope this makes sense to you.
First you need to calculate the angle intervals, these are determined completely by w and d. Depending on what value alfa has, calculate P accordingly, i.e. if the "ray" from CP to P intersects the upper, lower, right or left sides of the rectangle.
Cheers
This was made for and verified to work on the Pebble smartwatch, but modified to be pseudocode:
struct GPoint {
int x;
int y;
}
// Return point on rectangle edge. Rectangle is centered on (0,0) and has a width of w and height of h
GPoint getPointOnRect(int angle, int w, int h) {
var sine = sin(angle), cosine = cos(angle); // Calculate once and store, to make quicker and cleaner
var dy = sin>0 ? h/2 : h/-2; // Distance to top or bottom edge (from center)
var dx = cos>0 ? w/2 : w/-2; // Distance to left or right edge (from center)
if(abs(dx*sine) < abs(dy*cosine)) { // if (distance to vertical line) < (distance to horizontal line)
dy = (dx * sine) / cosine; // calculate distance to vertical line
} else { // else: (distance to top or bottom edge) < (distance to left or right edge)
dx = (dy * cosine) / sine; // move to top or bottom line
}
return GPoint(dx, dy); // Return point on rectangle edge
}
Use:
rectangle_width = 100;
rectangle_height = 150;
rectangle_center_x = 300;
rectangle_center_y = 300;
draw_rect(rectangle_center_x - (rectangle_width/2), rectangle_center_y - (rectangle_center_h/2), rectangle_width, rectangle_height);
GPoint point = getPointOnRect(angle, rectangle_width, rectangle_height);
point.x += rectangle_center_x;
point.y += rectangle_center_y;
draw_line(rectangle_center_x, rectangle_center_y, point.x, point.y);
One simple way to do this using an angle as a parameter is to simply clip the X and Y values using the bounds of the rectangle. In other words, calculate position as though the icon will rotate around a circular or elliptical path, then apply this:
(Assuming axis-aligned rectangle centered at (0,0), with X-axis length of XAxis and Y-axis length of YAxis):
if (X > XAxis/2)
X = XAxis/2;
if (X < 0 - XAxis/2)
X = 0 - XAxis/2;
if (Y > YAxis/2)
Y = YAxis/2;
if (Y < 0 - YAxis/2)
Y = 0 - YAxis/2;
The problem with this approach is that the angle will not be entirely accurate and the speed along the perimeter of the rectangle will not be constant. Modelling an ellipse that osculates the rectangle at its corners can minimize the effect, but if you are looking for a smooth, constant-speed "orbit," this method will not be adequate.
If think you mean rotate like the earth rotates around the sun (not the self-rotation... so your question is about how to slide along the edges of a rectangle?)
If so, you can give this a try:
# pseudo coode
for i = 0 to 499
if i < 100: x++
else if i < 250: y--
else if i < 350: x--
else y++
drawTheIcon(x, y)
Update: (please see comment below)
to use an angle, one line will be
y / x = tan(th) # th is the angle
the other lines are simple since they are just horizontal or vertical. so for example, it is x = 50 and you can put that into the line above to get the y. do that for the intersection of the horizontal line and vertical line (for example, angle is 60 degree and it shoot "NorthEast"... now you have two points. Then the point that is closest to the origin is the one that hits the rectangle first).
Use a 2D transformation matrix. Many languages (e.g. Java) support this natively (look up AffineTransformation); otherwise, write out a routine to do rotation yourself, once, debug it well, and use it forever. I must have five of them written in different languages.
Once you can do the rotation simply, find the location on the rectangle by doing line-line intersection. Find the center of the orbited icon by intersecting two lines:
A ray from your center of rotation at the angle you desire
One of the four sides, bounded by what angle you want (the four quadrants).
Draw yourself a sketch on a piece of paper with a rectangle and a centre of rotation. First translate the rectangle to centre at the origin of your coordinate system (remember the translation parameters, you'll need to reverse the translation later). Rotate the rectangle so that its sides are parallel to the coordinate axes (same reason).
Now you have a triangle with known angle at the origin, the opposite side is of known length (half of the length of one side of the rectangle), and you can now:
-- solve the triangle
-- undo the rotation
-- undo the translation