I'm working on a Unity3D project to determine some personal properties of a body tracked by the Kinect (V2). Getting a persons length is no issue, but i'm struggeling to get someone weight.
I'm trying to calculate a body's volume (in M2) and multiply by an average BMI, but getting the volume seems hard.
I created a point-cloud by using a particle-system from the depth-image, but i can't wrap my head around the depth-values, which are crucial for determing a persons volume. I need to know the distance from a depth-pixel to the kinect-camera and calculate a volume from that somehow.
Has anyone done something similair or already has something to calculate a persons weight from the kinectData?
Now this is a kind of challenging question. in order to do this you will need to separate the body into shapes. For example head is like a globe and neck as a cylinder. so as you consider head like a globe then you can get the usual 'd' and calculate volume same as the cylinder. For the lower body you can treat it as a box having height and width.There you can get the depth by getting the side view of the person. Anyway it is impossible you to calculate exact amount of volume with a different way.
Related
Gephi has a great functionality to size nodes based on a given variable. The nodes seem to be sized so that the radius of the circle is linearly proportional to the value of the variable. How do I get the area of the circle to be proportional to the value of the variable?
Using the spline functionality to get exact proportionality seems quite complicated. I imagine one solution might be to export the node table, calculate the square root of the variable, and re-import the data. I was wondering whether I am missing any more direct solution.
Calculating the square root would be valid if we were displaying squares. But since we are displaying circles, the correct Excel formula would probably be:
=SQRT(*value here*/(2*PI()))
I'm trying to use GA to train an ANN whose job is to move a bar vertically so that it makes a ball bounce without hitting the wall behind the bar, in other words, a single bar pong.
I'm going to ask it directly because i think to know what the problem is.
The game window is 200x200 pixels, so i created 40000 input neurons.
The obvious doubt is: can GA handle chromosomes of 40000(input)*10(hidden)*2 elements(genes)?
Since i think the answer is no(i implemented this solution and doesn't seem to work), the solution seems simple, i feed the NN with only 4 parameters which are the coordinates x,y of bar and ball, nailed it.
Nice solution, but the problem is: how can i apply such a solution in a game like supermario where the number of enemies in the screen is not fixed? Surely i cannot create a NN with dynamic numbers of inputs.
I hope you can help me.
You have to use features to represent your state. For example, you can divide the screen in tiles and assign a value according to a function that takes into account the enemy (e.g., a boolean if the enemy is in the tile or the distance to the closest enemy).
You can still use pixels but you might need to preprocess them in order to reduce their size (e.g., use a recurrent NN).
Btw, a NN might not be able to handle 200x200 pixels, but it was able to learn to play Atari games using a representation of the state by preprocessed pixels of size 84x84x4 (see this paper).
I'm working on an IPhone robot that would be moving around. One of the challenges is estimating distance to objects- I don't want the robot to run into things. I saw some very expensive (~1000$) laser rangefinders, and would like to emulate one using iPhone.
I got one or two camera feeds and two laser pointers. The laser pointers are mounted about 6 inches apart, at an angle The angle of lasers in relation to the cameras is known. The Angle of cameras to each other is known.
The lasers are pointing ahead of cameras, creating 2 dots on a camera feed. Is it possible to estimate the distance to the dots by looking at the distance between the dots in a camera image?
The lasers form a trapezoid from the
/wall \
/ \
/laser mount \
As the laser mount gets closer to the wall, the points should be moving further away from each other.
Is what I'm talking about feasible? Has anyone done something like that?
Would I need one or two cameras for such calculation?
If you just don't want to run into things, rather than have an accurate idea of the distance to them, then you could go "dambusters" on it and just detect when the two points become one - this would be at a known distance from the object.
For calculation, it is probaby cheaper to have four lasers instead, in two pairs, each pair at a different angle, one pair above the other. Then a comparison between the relative differences of the dots would probably let you work out a reasonably accurate distance. Math overflow for that one, though.
In theory, yes, something like this can work. Google "light striping" or "structured light depth measurement" for some good discussions of using this sort of idea on a larger scale.
In practice, your measurements are likely to be crude. There are a number of factors to consider: the camera intrinsic parameters (focal length, etc) and extrinsic parameters will affect how the dots appear in the image frame.
With only two sample points (note that structured light methods use lines, etc), the environment will present difficulties for distance measurement. Surfaces that are directly perpendicular to the floor (and direction of travel) can be handled reasonably well. Slopes and off-angle walls may be detectable, but you will find many situations that will give ambiguous or incorrect distance measures.
I am developing an app which uses LK for tracking and POSIT for estimation. I am successful in getting rotation matrix, projection matrix and able to track perfectly but the problem for me is I am not able to translate 3D object properly. The object is not fitting in to the right place where it has to fit.
Will some one help me regarding this?
Check this links, they may provide you some ideas.
http://computer-vision-talks.com/2011/11/pose-estimation-problem/
http://www.morethantechnical.com/2010/11/10/20-lines-ar-in-opencv-wcode/
Now, you must also check whether the intrinsic camera parameters are correct. Even a small error in estimating the field of view can cause troubles when trying to reconstruct 3D space. And from your details, it seems that the problem are bad fov angles (field of view).
You can try to measure them, or feed the half or double value to your algorithm.
There are two conventions for fov: half-angle (from image center to top or left, or from bottom to top, respectively from left to right) Maybe you just mixed them up, using full-angle instead of half, or vice-versa
Maybe you can show us how you build a transformation matrix from R and T components?
Remember, that cv::solvePnP function returns inverse transformation (e.g camera in world) - it finds object pose in 3D space where camera is in (0;0;0). For almost all cases you need inverse it to get correct result: {Rt; -T}
I want to ask about jelly physics ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I74rJFB_W1k ), where I can find some good place to start making things like that ? I want to make simulation of cars crash and I want use this jelly physics, but I can't find a lot about them. I don't want use existing physics engine, I want write my own :)
Something like what you see in the video you linked to could be accomplished with a mass-spring system. However, as you vary the number of masses and springs, keeping your spring constants the same, you will get wildly varying results. In short, mass-spring systems are not good approximations of a continuum of matter.
Typically, these sorts of animations are created using what is called the Finite Element Method (FEM). The FEM does converge to a continuum, which is nice. And although it does require a bit more know-how than a mass-spring system, it really isn't too bad. The basic idea, derived from the study of continuum mechanics, can be put this way:
Break the volume of your object up into many small pieces (elements), usually tetrahedra. Let's call the entire collection of these elements the mesh. You'll actually want to make two copies of this mesh. Label one the "rest" mesh, and the other the "world" mesh. I'll tell you why next.
For each tetrahedron in your world mesh, measure how deformed it is relative to its corresponding rest tetrahedron. The measure of how deformed it is is called "strain". This is typically accomplished by first measuring what is known as the deformation gradient (often denoted F). There are several good papers that describe how to do this. Once you have F, one very typical way to define the strain (e) is:
e = 1/2(F^T * F) - I. This is known as Green's strain. It is invariant to rotations, which makes it very convenient.
Using the properties of the material you are trying to simulate (gelatin, rubber, steel, etc.), and using the strain you measured in the step above, derive the "stress" of each tetrahdron.
For each tetrahedron, visit each node (vertex, corner, point (these all mean the same thing)) and average the area-weighted normal vectors (in the rest shape) of the three triangular faces that share that node. Multiply the tetrahedron's stress by that averaged vector, and there's the elastic force acting on that node due to the stress of that tetrahedron. Of course, each node could potentially belong to multiple tetrahedra, so you'll want to be able to sum up these forces.
Integrate! There are easy ways to do this, and hard ways. Either way, you'll want to loop over every node in your world mesh and divide its forces by its mass to determine its acceleration. The easy way to proceed from here is to:
Multiply its acceleration by some small time value dt. This gives you a change in velocity, dv.
Add dv to the node's current velocity to get a new total velocity.
Multiply that velocity by dt to get a change in position, dx.
Add dx to the node's current position to get a new position.
This approach is known as explicit forward Euler integration. You will have to use very small values of dt to get it to work without blowing up, but it is so easy to implement that it works well as a starting point.
Repeat steps 2 through 5 for as long as you want.
I've left out a lot of details and fancy extras, but hopefully you can infer a lot of what I've left out. Here is a link to some instructions I used the first time I did this. The webpage contains some useful pseudocode, as well as links to some relevant material.
http://sealab.cs.utah.edu/Courses/CS6967-F08/Project-2/
The following link is also very useful:
http://sealab.cs.utah.edu/Courses/CS6967-F08/FE-notes.pdf
This is a really fun topic, and I wish you the best of luck! If you get stuck, just drop me a comment.
That rolling jelly cube video was made with Blender, which uses the Bullet physics engine for soft body simulation. The bullet documentation in general is very sparse and for soft body dynamics almost nonexistent. You're best bet would be to read the source code.
Then write your own version ;)
Here is a page with some pretty good tutorials on it. The one you are looking for is probably in the (inverse) Kinematics and Mass & Spring Models sections.
Hint: A jelly can be seen as a 3 dimensional cloth ;-)
Also, try having a look at the search results for spring pressure soft body model - they might get you going in the right direction :-)
See this guy's page Maciej Matyka, topic of soft body
Unfortunately 2d only but might be something to start with is JellyPhysics and JellyCar