Explanation of the problem:
I have points with (x,y,z) coordinates at two+ distinct times. For convenience, they can be imagined as irregularly spaced points along the surface of an inverted paraboloid.
There is some minimal thickness to the paraboloid. The paraboloid changes shape slightly as time proceeds (like a balloon inflating) and when it does so, all of the points move.
By substracting the coordinates at time2 - time1, I can get the displacement vectors at each point.
It is important to note (and I suspect this might be the source of the problem) that at the first time point, the x and y coordinates range from 0 to 2000, and the z coordinates are all within a narrower range - say 350 to 450. During the deformation, each point has an x component of displacement, y component, and z component.
The x and y components are small (~50 at most), while the z component is the largest (goes up to 400 near the center, much less near the edges).
Using weighted moving least squares at the location of each point, I am trying to fit the components of displacements to a second degree polynomial surface in terms of the original x,y,z coordinates of the point: eg.
x component of
displacement = ax^2 + bxy + cx + dy^2.. + hz^2 + iz + j
I use the lsqr function in MATLAB,like so, looping through each point for each time interval:
Ux = displacements{k,1}(:,1);
Cx = lsqr((adjust_B_matrix'*W*adjust_B_matrix),(adjust_B_matrix'*W*Ux),1e-7,10000);
W is the weight matrix, and adjust_B_matrix is the matrix of all (x,y,z) coordinates at time 1, shifted so that they're all centered around the point at which I'm trying to fit the function.
What is going wrong?
It's just not working -- once I have the functions, they're re-centered around the actual coordinates of the points.
But once I plot the resulting points (initial pointx + displacementx, initial pointy + displacementy, initial pointz + displacementz) by plugging in the coordinates at time 1 into the now-discovered functions, it just spits out a surface that looks just like the surface at time 1.
What might be going wrong? Things I have tried:
It's not an issue with the code itself- I generated 'fake' data using a grid of points and it worked perfectly. The predicted locations were superimposed with the actual coordinates and I was able to get back the function I started with. But in my trial example, I used x,y,z from 0 to 5, evenly spaced.
Global fitting works (but I need local fitting...).
I tried MATLAB's curve fitting toolbox and just tried to fit one of the displacements to only x and y coordinates, globally. It worked perfectly.
I think I shouldn't have a singular matrix issue because I use a large radius (around 75-80) points in the calculations, somewhat dispersed in 3D space.
Suspicions:
I think it has to do with the uneven distribution of initial (x,y,z) coordinates, but I don't know why or how to fix the issue, or even what method I can use.
If you read this far, thank you so much. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Figure for reference:
green = predicted points at time 2. Overlapping mostly with red, the actual coordinates of the points at time 1.
blue is the correct coordinates of points at time 2 (this is where the green ones should be if things were working).
image
Updated link for files:
http://a.tmp.ninja/eWfkNmFZyTFk.zip
Contents - code, sample data (please load the .mat files).
I can't actually access the code you posted, so here's some general suggestions.
It does look like the curve fitting toolbox has tools that do exactly what you are looking for, checkout the bottom of this page: https://www.mathworks.com/help/curvefit/polynomial.html#bt9ykh.
It looks like for whatever your learned function for the displacement is just very small or zero everywhere. I suspect the issue is just a minor typo/error on your part somewhere in your pipeline, possibly translating what you have to work with the fit function will reveal the issue.
This really shouldn't be the issue, but in the future if you had much more unbalanced data you could normalize it all before fitting (x_norm = (x - x_mu)/x_std).
Also, I don't think this is your problem either, but you can check if your matrix is close to singular by checking the condition number using the cord() function. So you could check cond(adjust_B_matrix'Wadjust_B_matrix). Second, If you check the documentation for lsqr there is an option to get a debug return flag, that is worth checking too.
Related
I am making game in Unity engine, where car is moving along the bezier curve by percentage of bezier curve legth.
On this image you can see curve with 8 stop points (yellow spheres). Between each stop point is 20% gap of total distance.
On the image above everything is working correctly, but when I move handles, that the handles have different length problem occurs.
As you can see on image above, distances between stop points are not equal. It is because of my algorithm, because I am finding point of segment by multiplying segment length by interpolation (t). In short problem is that: if t=0.5 it is not in the 50% percent of the segment. As you can see on first image, stop points are in half of segment, but in the second image it is not in half of segment. This problem will be fixed, if there is some mathematical formula, how to find distance middle point.
As you can see on the image above, there are two mid points. T param mid point can be found by setting t to 0.5 (it is what i am doing now), but it is not half of the distance.
How can I find distance mid point (for cubic bezier curve, that have handles in different distance)?
You have correctly observed that the parameter value t=0.5 is generally not the point in the middle of the length. That is a good start but the difficulty lies in the mathematics beneath.
Denoting the components of your parametric curve by x(t) and y(t), the length of the curve
between t=0 (the beginning) and a chosen parameter value t = u is equal to
What you are trying to do is to find u such that l(u) is one half of l(1). This is sometimes possible but often difficult or impossible. So what can you do?
One possibility is to approximate the point you want. A straightforward way is to approximate your Bezier curve by a piecewise linear curve (simply by choosing many parameter values 0 = t_0 < t_1 < ... < t_n = 1 and connecting the values in these parameters by line segments). Now it is easy to compute the entire length (Pythagoras Theorem is your friend) as well as the middle point (walk along the piecewise linear curve the prescribed length). The more points you sample, the more precise you will be and the more time your computation will take, so there is a trade-off. Of course, you can use a more complicated numerical scheme for the approximation but that is beyond the scope of the answer.
The second possibility is to restrict yourself to a subclass of Bezier curves that will let you do what you want. These are called Pythagorean-Hodograph (shortly PH) curves. They have the extremely useful property that there exists a polynomial sigma(t) such that
This means that you can compute the integral above and search for the correct value of u. However, everything comes at a price and the price here is that you will have less freedom, where to put the control points (for me as a mathematician, a cubic Bézier curve has four control points; computer graphics people often speak of "handles" so you might have to translate into your terminology). For the cubic case you can find the conditions on slide 15 of this seminar talk by Vito Vitrih.
Denote:
the control points,
;
then the Bézier curve is a PH curve if and only if
.
It is up to you to figure out, if you can enforce this condition in your situation or if it is too restrictive for your application.
(I use MATLAB R2015a). I have a plot of edge points of an object (obtained using edge detection), and I have a plot of the template of the object. I want to rotate the template until it matches with the detected edge points. (Figure link included: solid blue - template, red dots - edge detected points; the rotation is subtle, but it's there.)
I plan to rotate the template in a loop about the centroid through different values of thetas (which I know how to do), and ask the code to 'stop executing when it matches with the edge' (which is what I want to know how) and return the corresponding theta.
The number of points making up the template and that making up the edges are not the same, so splitting the plots into 3 lines and 1 (half) ellipse and directly comparing does not work.
Using regionprops 'orientation' does not give the expected result for each frame because of the way the edges are being detected in each frame. (I can elaborate more on this if required)
I have intentionally plotted points using plot, rather than keeping the edge as a BW image because, otherwise, I'm having to round off indices while creating the template, and for my application, I cannot afford to lose precision like that.
I'm not lazy, I don't want somebody to just code it up for me. None of my ideas worked and I'm unable to think any differently, so perhaps somebody with a fresh mind and more experience in Matlab will have some idea.
Assuming both image and template are bitmaps (= template isn't given as 3x lines + half of ellipse), and you know the position and size of the template, just not the angle:
For each edge, find the closest point on the template, and sum all the distances, or perhaps sum of sqrt of distances, or some other metric that penalizes many small outliers - many points will be slightly wrong if rotation is slightly wrong. Few points that are completely wrong are noise to ignore. So, something like:
minDist = inf;
minAngle = -1;
for t = 1 : length(thetas)
templatePoints = ...; % calculate template points.
for i = 1 : length(edges)
edge = edges(i); % assuming this edge is (x, y) edge point
mind = inf; % Min distance
for j = 1 : length(templatePoints)
d = sum(sqrt((edge - templatePoints).^2));
if (d < mind)
mind = d;
end
end
end
currentDist = sum(mind);
if (currentDist < minDist)
...
end
When you complete the full circle of template rotation select the rotation with the lowest difference.
This procedure might be a bit problematic because you might have template rotated by 10.5 deg and you are going in a step of 1 deg, so you will not have totally optimal angle in the end. Plus you will try tons of completely wrong angles, slowing you down.
But to find the optimal angle you can change angle step, say you first try every 10 deg rotation, then every 1deg around the minimum, then every 0.1deg etc. Or use optimization method. Gradient descent should work fine if you don't have too much noise, use simulated annealing for noisy images. Use the same code as above, currentDist is a good enough optimization parameter - it should be as close to 0 as possible.
If you have unknown template size too, or unknown template position, you definitely should use simulated annealing, gradient descent will almost surely get stuck in a local minimum. Use code similar to above to calculate difference between the edges and template, and put all the unknown parameters to the method.
One option is to make an image of your result for each rotation, but do not make it binary, make it grayscale. There are ways of making this so the "maximum interpolated edge" is where your continuous function is (such as Xiaolin Wu's line algorithm, for example).
As you are matching an image, you are not loosing precision, but putting the precision of your target to the same level as your image.
Once you get this, for each rotation, use a metric to evaluate how the 2 grayscale (yes, not binary) images match, using i.e. correlation coefficient, mutual information, universal quality index (UQI), etc.
I want to assign vector to a contourf graph, in order to show the direction and magnitude of wind.
For this I am using contourf(A) and quiver(x,y), where as A is a matrix 151x401 and x,y are matrices with the same sizes (151x401) with magnitude and direction respectively.
When I am using large maps i get the position of the arrows but they are to densily placed and that makes the graph look bad.
The final graph has the arrows as desired, but they are to many of them and too close, I would like them to be more scarce and distributed with more gap between them, so as to be able to increase their length and at the same time have the components of the contour map visible.
Can anyone help , any pointers would be helpful
i know its been a long time since the question was asked, but i think i found a way to make it work.
I attach the code in case someone encounters the same issues
[nx,ny]= size(A) % A is the matrix used as base
xx=1:1:ny; % set the x-axis to be equal to the y
yy=1:1:nx; % set the y-axis to be equal to the x
contourf(xx,yy,A)
hold on, delta = 8; %delta is the distance between arrows)
quiver(xx(1:delta:end),yy(1:delta:end),B(1:delta:end,1:delta:end),C(1:delta:end,1:delta:end),1) % the 1 at the end is the size of the arrows
set(gca,'fontsize',12);, hold off
A,B,C are the corresponding matrices ones want to use
I have a convex polygon in 3D. For simplicity, let it be a square with vertices, (0,0,0),(1,1,0),(1,1,1),(0,0,1).. I need to arrange these vertices in counter clockwise order. I found a solution here. It is suggested to determine the angle at the center of the polygon and sort them. I am not clear how is that going to work. Does anyone have a solution? I need a solution which is robust and even works when the vertices get very close.
A sample MATLAB code would be much appreciated!
This is actually quite a tedious problem so instead of actually doing it I am just going to explain how I would do it. First find the equation of the plane (you only need to use 3 points for this) and then find your rotation matrix. Then find your vectors in your new rotated space. After that is all said and done find which quadrant your point is in and if n > 1 in a particular quadrant then you must find the angle of each point (theta = arctan(y/x)). Then simply sort each quadrant by their angle (arguably you can just do separation by pi instead of quadrants (sort the points into when the y-component (post-rotation) is greater than zero).
Sorry I don't have time to actually test this but give it a go and feel free to post your code and I can help debug it if you like.
Luckily you have a convex polygon, so you can use the angle trick: find a point in the interior (e.g., find the midpoint of two non-adjacent points), and draw vectors to all the vertices. Choose one vector as a base, calculate the angles to the other vectors and order them. You can calculate the angles using the dot product: A · B = A B cos θ = |A||B| cos θ.
Below are the steps I followed.
The 3D planar polygon can be rotated to 2D plane using the known formulas. Use the one under the section Rotation matrix from axis and angle.
Then as indicated by #Glenn, an internal points needs to be calculated to find the angles. I take that internal point as the mean of the vertex locations.
Using the x-axis as the reference axis, the angle, on a 0 to 2pi scale, for each vertex can be calculated using atan2 function as explained here.
The non-negative angle measured counterclockwise from vector a to vector b, in the range [0,2pi], if a = [x1,y1] and b = [x2,y2], is given by:
angle = mod(atan2(y2-y1,x2-x1),2*pi);
Finally, sort the angles, [~,XI] = sort(angle);.
It's a long time since I used this, so I might be wrong, but I believe the command convhull does what you need - it returns the convex hull of a set of points (which, since you say your points are a convex set, should be the set of points themselves), arranged in counter-clockwise order.
Note that MathWorks recently delivered a new class DelaunayTri which is intended to superseded the functionality of convhull and other older computational geometry stuff. I believe it's more accurate, especially when the points get very close together. However I haven't tried it.
Hope that helps!
So here's another answer if you want to use convhull. Easily project your polygon into an axes plane by setting one coordinate zero. For example, in (0,0,0),(1,1,0),(1,1,1),(0,0,1) set y=0 to get (0,0),(1,0),(1,1),(0,1). Now your problem is 2D.
You might have to do some work to pick the right coordinate if your polygon's plane is orthogonal to some axis, if it is, pick that axis. The criterion is to make sure that your projected points don't end up on a line.
I have a certain geographic region defined by the bottom left and top right coordinates. How can I divide this region into areas of 20x20km. I mean in practial the shape of the earth is not flat it's round. The bounding box is just an approximation. It's not even rectangular in actual sense. It's just an assumption. Lets say the bottomleft coordinate is given by x1,y1 and the topright coordinate is given by x2,y2, the length of x1 to x2 at y1 is different than that of the length between x1 to x2 at y2. How can I overcome this issue
Actually, I have to create a spatial meshgrid for this region using matlab's meshgrid function. So that the grids are of area 20x20km.
meshgrid(x1:deltaY:x2,y1:deltaX:y2)
As you can see I can have only one deltaX and one deltaY. I want to choose deltaX and deltaY such that the increments create grid of size 20x20km. However this deltaX and deltaY are supposed to vary based upon the location. Any suggestions?
I mean lets say deltaX=del1. Then distance between points (x1,y1) to (x1,y1+del1) is 20km. BUt when I measure the distance between points (x2,y1) to (x2, y1_del1) the distance is < 20km. The meshgrid function above does creates mesh. But the distances are not consistent. Any ideas how to overcome this issue?
Bear in mind that 20km on the surface of the earth is a REALLY short distance, about .01 radians - so the area you're looking at would be approximated as flat for anything non-scientific. Assuming it is scientific...
To get something other than monotonic steps in meshgrid you should create a function which takes as its input your desired (x,y) and maps it relative to (x_0,y_0) and (x_max,y_max) in your units of choice. Here's an inline function demonstrating the idea of using a function for meshgrid steps
step=inline('log10(x)');
[x,y]=meshgrid(step(1:10),step(1:10));
image(255*x.*y)
colormap(gray(255))
So how do you determine what the function should be? That's hard for us to answer exactly without a little more information about what your data set looks like, how you're interacting with it, and what your accuracy requirements are. If you have access to the actual location at every point, you should vary one dimension at a time (if your data grid is aligned with your latitude grid, for example) and use a curve fit with model selection techniques (akaike/bayes criterion) to find the best function for your data.