Related
I was asked to do circular convolution between two functions by sampling them, using the functions cconv. A known result of this sort of convolution is: CCONV( sin(x), sin(x) ) == -pi*cos(x)
To test the above I did:
w = linspace(0,2*pi,1000);
l = linspace(0,2*pi,1999);
stem(l,cconv(sin(w),sin(w))
but the result I got was:
which is absolutely not -pi*cos(x).
Can anybody please explain what is wrong with my code and how to fix it?
In the documentation of cconv it says that:
c = cconv(a,b,n) circularly convolves vectors a and b. n is the length of the resulting vector. If you omit n, it defaults to length(a)+length(b)-1. When n = length(a)+length(b)-1, the circular convolution is equivalent to the linear convolution computed with conv.
I believe that the reason for your problem is that you do not specify the 3rd input to cconv, which then selects the default value, which is not the right one for you. I have made an animation showing what happens when different values of n are chosen.
If you compare my result for n=200 to your plot you will see that the amplitude of your data is 10 times larger whereas the length of your linspace is 10 times bigger. This means that some normalization is needed, likely a multiplication by the linspace step.
Indeed, after proper scaling and choice of n we get the right result:
res = 100; % resolution
w = linspace(0,2*pi,res);
dx = diff(w(1:2)); % grid step
stem( linspace(0,2*pi,res), dx * cconv(sin(w),sin(w),res) );
This is the code I used for the animation:
hF = figure();
subplot(1,2,1); hS(1) = stem(1,cconv(1,1,1)); title('Autoscaling');
subplot(1,2,2); hS(2) = stem(1,cconv(1,1,1)); xlim([0,7]); ylim(50*[-1,1]); title('Constant limits');
w = linspace(0,2*pi,100);
for ind1 = 1:200
set(hS,'XData',linspace(0,2*pi,ind1));
set(hS,'YData',cconv(sin(w),sin(w),ind1));
suptitle("n = " + ind1);
drawnow
% export_fig(char("D:\BLABLA\F" + ind1 + ".png"),'-nocrop');
end
I have a function V that is computed from two inputs (X,Y). Since the computation is quite demanding I just perform it on a grid of points and would like to rely on 2d linear interpolation. I now want to inverse that function for fixed Y. So basically my starting point is:
X = [1,2,3];
Y = [1,2,3];
V =[3,4,5;6,7,8;9,10,11];
Is is of course easy to obtain V at any combination of (X,Y), for instance:
Vq = interp2(X,Y,V,1.8,2.5)
gives
Vq =
8.3000
But how would I find X for given V and Y using 2d linear interploation? I will have to perform this task a lot of times, so I would need a quick and easy to implement solution.
Thank you for your help, your effort is highly appreciated.
P.
EDIT using additional info
If not both x and y have to be found, but one of them is given, this problem reduces to finding a minimum in only 1 direction (i.e. in x-direction). A simple approach is formulating this in a problem which can be minizmied by an optimization routine such as fminsearch. Therefore we define the function f which returns the difference between the value Vq and the result of the interpolation. We try to find the x which minimizes this difference, after we give an intial guess x0. Depending on this initial guess the result will be what we are looking for:
% Which x value to choose if yq and Vq are fixed?
xq = 1.8; % // <-- this one is to be found
yq = 2.5; % // (given)
Vq = interp2(X,Y,V,xq,yq); % // 8.3 (given)
% this function will be minimized (difference between Vq and the result
% of the interpolation)
f = #(x) abs(Vq-interp2(X, Y, V, x, yq));
x0 = 1; % initial guess)
x_opt = fminsearch(f, x0) % // solution found: 1.8
Nras, thank you very much. I did something else in the meantime:
function [G_inv] = G_inverse (lambda,U,grid_G_inverse,range_x,range_lambda)
for t = 1:size(U,1)
for i = 1:size(U,2)
xf = linspace(range_x(1), range_x(end),10000);
[Xf,Yf] = meshgrid(xf,lambda);
grid_fine = interp2(range_x,range_lambda,grid_G_inverse',Xf,Yf);
idx = find (abs(grid_fine-U(t,i))== min(min(abs(grid_fine-U(t,i))))); % find min distance point and take x index
G_inv(t,i)=xf(idx(1));
end
end
G_inv is supposed to contain x, U is yq in the above example and grid_G_inverse contains Vq. range_x and range_lambda are the corresponding vectors for the grid axis. What do you think about this solution, also compared to yours? I would guess mine is faster but less accurate. Spped is, however, a major issue in my code.
I am trying to achieve 3d reconstruction from 2 images. Steps I followed are,
1. Found corresponding points between 2 images using SURF.
2. Implemented eight point algo to find "Fundamental matrix"
3. Then, I implemented triangulation.
I have got Fundamental matrix and results of triangulation till now. How do i proceed further to get 3d reconstruction? I'm confused reading all the material available on internet.
Also, This is code. Let me know if this is correct or not.
Ia=imread('1.jpg');
Ib=imread('2.jpg');
Ia=rgb2gray(Ia);
Ib=rgb2gray(Ib);
% My surf addition
% collect Interest Points from Each Image
blobs1 = detectSURFFeatures(Ia);
blobs2 = detectSURFFeatures(Ib);
figure;
imshow(Ia);
hold on;
plot(selectStrongest(blobs1, 36));
figure;
imshow(Ib);
hold on;
plot(selectStrongest(blobs2, 36));
title('Thirty strongest SURF features in I2');
[features1, validBlobs1] = extractFeatures(Ia, blobs1);
[features2, validBlobs2] = extractFeatures(Ib, blobs2);
indexPairs = matchFeatures(features1, features2);
matchedPoints1 = validBlobs1(indexPairs(:,1),:);
matchedPoints2 = validBlobs2(indexPairs(:,2),:);
figure;
showMatchedFeatures(Ia, Ib, matchedPoints1, matchedPoints2);
legend('Putatively matched points in I1', 'Putatively matched points in I2');
for i=1:matchedPoints1.Count
xa(i,:)=matchedPoints1.Location(i);
ya(i,:)=matchedPoints1.Location(i,2);
xb(i,:)=matchedPoints2.Location(i);
yb(i,:)=matchedPoints2.Location(i,2);
end
matchedPoints1.Count
figure(1) ; clf ;
imshow(cat(2, Ia, Ib)) ;
axis image off ;
hold on ;
xbb=xb+size(Ia,2);
set=[1:matchedPoints1.Count];
h = line([xa(set)' ; xbb(set)'], [ya(set)' ; yb(set)']) ;
pts1=[xa,ya];
pts2=[xb,yb];
pts11=pts1;pts11(:,3)=1;
pts11=pts11';
pts22=pts2;pts22(:,3)=1;pts22=pts22';
width=size(Ia,2);
height=size(Ib,1);
F=eightpoint(pts1,pts2,width,height);
[P1new,P2new]=compute2Pmatrix(F);
XP = triangulate(pts11, pts22,P2new);
eightpoint()
function [ F ] = eightpoint( pts1, pts2,width,height)
X = 1:width;
Y = 1:height;
[X, Y] = meshgrid(X, Y);
x0 = [mean(X(:)); mean(Y(:))];
X = X - x0(1);
Y = Y - x0(2);
denom = sqrt(mean(mean(X.^2+Y.^2)));
N = size(pts1, 1);
%Normalized data
T = sqrt(2)/denom*[1 0 -x0(1); 0 1 -x0(2); 0 0 denom/sqrt(2)];
norm_x = T*[pts1(:,1)'; pts1(:,2)'; ones(1, N)];
norm_x_ = T*[pts2(:,1)';pts2(:,2)'; ones(1, N)];
x1 = norm_x(1, :)';
y1= norm_x(2, :)';
x2 = norm_x_(1, :)';
y2 = norm_x_(2, :)';
A = [x1.*x2, y1.*x2, x2, ...
x1.*y2, y1.*y2, y2, ...
x1, y1, ones(N,1)];
% compute the SVD
[~, ~, V] = svd(A);
F = reshape(V(:,9), 3, 3)';
[FU, FS, FV] = svd(F);
FS(3,3) = 0; %rank 2 constrains
F = FU*FS*FV';
% rescale fundamental matrix
F = T' * F * T;
end
triangulate()
function [ XP ] = triangulate( pts1,pts2,P2 )
n=size(pts1,2);
X=zeros(4,n);
for i=1:n
A=[-1,0,pts1(1,i),0;
0,-1,pts1(2,i),0;
pts2(1,i)*P2(3,:)-P2(1,:);
pts2(2,i)*P2(3,:)-P2(2,:)];
[~,~,va] = svd(A);
X(:,i) = va(:,4);
end
XP(:,:,1) = [X(1,:)./X(4,:);X(2,:)./X(4,:);X(3,:)./X(4,:); X(4,:)./X(4,:)];
end
function [ P1,P2 ] = compute2Pmatrix( F )
P1=[1,0,0,0;0,1,0,0;0,0,1,0];
[~, ~, V] = svd(F');
ep = V(:,3)/V(3,3);
P2 = [skew(ep)*F,ep];
end
From a quick look, it looks correct. Some notes are as follows:
You normalized code in eightpoint() is no ideal.
It is best done on the points involved. Each set of points will have its scaling matrix. That is:
[pts1_n, T1] = normalize_pts(pts1);
[pts2_n, T2] = normalize-pts(pts2);
% ... code
% solution
F = T2' * F * T
As a side note (for efficiency) you should do
[~,~,V] = svd(A, 0);
You also want to enforce the constraint that the fundamental matrix has rank-2. After you compute F, you can do:
[U,D,v] = svd(F);
F = U * diag([D(1,1),D(2,2), 0]) * V';
In either case, normalization is not the only key to make the algorithm work. You'll want to wrap the estimation of the fundamental matrix in a robust estimation scheme like RANSAC.
Estimation problems like this are very sensitive to non Gaussian noise and outliers. If you have a small number of wrong correspondence, or points with high error, the algorithm will break.
Finally, In 'triangulate' you want to make sure that the points are not at infinity prior to the homogeneous division.
I'd recommend testing the code with 'synthetic' data. That is, generate your own camera matrices and correspondences. Feed them to the estimate routine with varying levels of noise. With zero noise, you should get an exact solution up to floating point accuracy. As you increase the noise, your estimation error increases.
In its current form, running this on real data will probably not do well unless you 'robustify' the algorithm with RANSAC, or some other robust estimator.
Good luck.
Good luck.
Which version of MATLAB do you have?
There is a function called estimateFundamentalMatrix in the Computer Vision System Toolbox, which will give you the fundamental matrix. It may give you better results than your code, because it is using RANSAC under the hood, which makes it robust to spurious matches. There is also a triangulate function, as of version R2014b.
What you are getting is sparse 3D reconstruction. You can plot the resulting 3D points, and you can map the color of the corresponding pixel to each one. However, for what you want, you would have to fit a surface or a triangular mesh to the points. Unfortunately, I can't help you there.
If what you're asking is how to I proceed from fundamental Matrix + corresponding points to a dense model then you still have a lot of work ahead of you.
relative camera locations (R,T) can be calculated from a fundamental matrix assuming you know the internal camera params (up to scale, rotation, translation). To get a full dense matrix there are a few ways to go. you can try using an existing library (PMVS for example). I'd look into OpenMVG but I'm not sure about matlab interface.
Another way to go, you can compute a dense optical flow (many available for matlab). Look for a epipolar OF (It takes a fundamental matrix and restricts the solution to lie on the epipolar lines). Then you can triangulate every pixel to get a depthmap.
Finally you will have to play with format conversions to get from a depthmap to VRML (You can look at meshlab)
Sorry my answer isn't more Matlab oriented.
I have discrete regular grid of a,b points and their corresponding c values and I interpolate it further to get a smooth curve. Now from interpolation data, I further want to create a polynomial equation for curve fitting. How to fit 3D plot in polynomial?
I try to do this in MATLAB. I used Surface fitting toolbox in MATLAB (r2010a) to curve fit 3-dimensional data. But, how does one find a formula that fits a set of data to the best advantage in MATLAB/MAPLE or any other software. Any advice? Also most useful would be some real code examples to look at, PDF files, on the web etc.
This is just a small portion of my data.
a = [ 0.001 .. 0.011];
b = [1, .. 10];
c = [ -.304860225, .. .379710865];
Thanks in advance.
To fit a curve onto a set of points, we can use ordinary least-squares regression. There is a solution page by MathWorks describing the process.
As an example, let's start with some random data:
% some 3d points
data = mvnrnd([0 0 0], [1 -0.5 0.8; -0.5 1.1 0; 0.8 0 1], 50);
As #BasSwinckels showed, by constructing the desired design matrix, you can use mldivide or pinv to solve the overdetermined system expressed as Ax=b:
% best-fit plane
C = [data(:,1) data(:,2) ones(size(data,1),1)] \ data(:,3); % coefficients
% evaluate it on a regular grid covering the domain of the data
[xx,yy] = meshgrid(-3:.5:3, -3:.5:3);
zz = C(1)*xx + C(2)*yy + C(3);
% or expressed using matrix/vector product
%zz = reshape([xx(:) yy(:) ones(numel(xx),1)] * C, size(xx));
Next we visualize the result:
% plot points and surface
figure('Renderer','opengl')
line(data(:,1), data(:,2), data(:,3), 'LineStyle','none', ...
'Marker','.', 'MarkerSize',25, 'Color','r')
surface(xx, yy, zz, ...
'FaceColor','interp', 'EdgeColor','b', 'FaceAlpha',0.2)
grid on; axis tight equal;
view(9,9);
xlabel x; ylabel y; zlabel z;
colormap(cool(64))
As was mentioned, we can get higher-order polynomial fitting by adding more terms to the independent variables matrix (the A in Ax=b).
Say we want to fit a quadratic model with constant, linear, interaction, and squared terms (1, x, y, xy, x^2, y^2). We can do this manually:
% best-fit quadratic curve
C = [ones(50,1) data(:,1:2) prod(data(:,1:2),2) data(:,1:2).^2] \ data(:,3);
zz = [ones(numel(xx),1) xx(:) yy(:) xx(:).*yy(:) xx(:).^2 yy(:).^2] * C;
zz = reshape(zz, size(xx));
There is also a helper function x2fx in the Statistics Toolbox that helps in building the design matrix for a couple of model orders:
C = x2fx(data(:,1:2), 'quadratic') \ data(:,3);
zz = x2fx([xx(:) yy(:)], 'quadratic') * C;
zz = reshape(zz, size(xx));
Finally there is an excellent function polyfitn on the File Exchange by John D'Errico that allows you to specify all kinds of polynomial orders and terms involved:
model = polyfitn(data(:,1:2), data(:,3), 2);
zz = polyvaln(model, [xx(:) yy(:)]);
zz = reshape(zz, size(xx));
There might be some better functions on the file-exchange, but one way to do it by hand is this:
x = a(:); %make column vectors
y = b(:);
z = c(:);
%first order fit
M = [ones(size(x)), x, y];
k1 = M\z;
%least square solution of z = M * k1, so z = k1(1) + k1(2) * x + k1(3) * y
Similarly, you can do a second order fit:
%second order fit
M = [ones(size(x)), x, y, x.^2, x.*y, y.^2];
k2 = M\z;
which seems to have numerical problems for the limited dataset you gave. Type help mldivide for more details.
To make an interpolation over some regular grid, you can do like so:
ngrid = 20;
[A,B] = meshgrid(linspace(min(a), max(a), ngrid), ...
linspace(min(b), max(b), ngrid));
M = [ones(numel(A),1), A(:), B(:), A(:).^2, A(:).*B(:), B(:).^2];
C2_fit = reshape(M * k2, size(A)); % = k2(1) + k2(2)*A + k2(3)*B + k2(4)*A.^2 + ...
%plot to compare fit with original data
surfl(A,B,C2_fit);shading flat;colormap gray
hold on
plot3(a,b,c, '.r')
A 3rd-order fit can be done using the formula given by TryHard below, but the formulas quickly become tedious when the order increases. Better write a function that can construct M given x, y and order if you have to do that more than once.
This sounds like more of a philosophical question than specific implementation, specifically to bit - "how does one find a formula that fits a set of data to the best advantage?" In my experience that is a choice you have to make depending on what you're trying to achieve.
What defines "best" for you? For a data fitting problem you can keep adding more and more polynomial coefficients and making a better R^2 value... but will eventually "over fit" the data. A downside of high order polynomials is behavior outside the bounds of the sample data which you've used to fit your response surface - it can quickly go off in some wild direction which may not be appropriate for whatever it is you're trying to model.
Do you have insight into the physical behavior of the system / data you're fitting? That can be used as a basis for what set of equations to use to create a math model. My recommendation would be to use the most economical (simple) model you can get away with.
I'm going to start off by stating that, yes, this is homework (my first homework question on stackoverflow!). But I don't want you to solve it for me, I just want some guidance!
The equation in question is this:
I'm told to take N = 50, phi1 = 300, phi2 = 400, 0<=x<=1, and 0<=y<=1, and to let x and y be vectors of 100 equally spaced points, including the end points.
So the first thing I did was set those variables, and used x = linspace(0,1) and y = linspace(0,1) to make the correct vectors.
The question is Write a MATLAB script file called potential.m which calculates phi(x,y) and makes a filled contour plot versus x and y using the built-in function contourf (see the help command in MATLAB for examples). Make sure the figure is labeled properly. (Hint: the top and bottom portions of your domain should be hotter at about 400 degrees versus the left and right sides which should be at 300 degrees).
However, previously, I've calculated phi using either x or y as a constant. How am I supposed to calculate it where both are variables? Do I hold x steady, while running through every number in the vector of y, assigning that to a matrix, incrementing x to the next number in its vector after running through every value of y again and again? And then doing the same process, but slowly incrementing y instead?
If so, I've been using a loop that increments to the next row every time it loops through all 100 values. If I did it that way, I would end up with a massive matrix that has 200 rows and 100 columns. How would I use that in the linspace function?
If that's correct, this is how I'm finding my matrix:
clear
clc
format compact
x = linspace(0,1);
y = linspace(0,1);
N = 50;
phi1 = 300;
phi2 = 400;
phi = 0;
sum = 0;
for j = 1:100
for i = 1:100
for n = 1:N
sum = sum + ((2/(n*pi))*(((phi2-phi1)*(cos(n*pi)-1))/((exp(n*pi))-(exp(-n*pi))))*((1-(exp(-n*pi)))*(exp(n*pi*y(i)))+((exp(n*pi))-1)*(exp(-n*pi*y(i))))*sin(n*pi*x(j)));
end
phi(j,i) = phi1 - sum;
end
end
for j = 1:100
for i = 1:100
for n = 1:N
sum = sum + ((2/(n*pi))*(((phi2-phi1)*(cos(n*pi)-1))/((exp(n*pi))-(exp(-n*pi))))*((1-(exp(-n*pi)))*(exp(n*pi*y(j)))+((exp(n*pi))-1)*(exp(-n*pi*y(j))))*sin(n*pi*x(i)));
end
phi(j+100,i) = phi1 - sum;
end
end
This is the definition of contourf. I think I have to use contourf(X,Y,Z):
contourf(X,Y,Z), contourf(X,Y,Z,n), and contourf(X,Y,Z,v) draw filled contour plots of Z using X and Y to determine the x- and y-axis limits. When X and Y are matrices, they must be the same size as Z and must be monotonically increasing.
Here is the new code:
N = 50;
phi1 = 300;
phi2 = 400;
[x, y, n] = meshgrid(linspace(0,1),linspace(0,1),1:N)
f = phi1-((2./(n.*pi)).*(((phi2-phi1).*(cos(n.*pi)-1))./((exp(n.*pi))-(exp(-n.*pi)))).*((1-(exp(-1.*n.*pi))).*(exp(n.*pi.*y))+((exp(n.*pi))-1).*(exp(-1.*n.*pi.*y))).*sin(n.*pi.*x));
g = sum(f,3);
[x1,y1] = meshgrid(linspace(0,1),linspace(0,1));
contourf(x1,y1,g)
Vectorize the code. For example you can write f(x,y,n) with:
[x y n] = meshgrid(-1:0.1:1,-1:0.1:1,1:10);
f=exp(x.^2-y.^2).*n ;
f is a 3D matrix now just sum over the right dimension...
g=sum(f,3);
in order to use contourf, we'll take only the 2D part of x,y:
[x1 y1] = meshgrid(-1:0.1:1,-1:0.1:1);
contourf(x1,y1,g)
The reason your code takes so long to calculate the phi matrix is that you didn't pre-allocate the array. The error about size happens because phi is not 100x100. But instead of fixing those things, there's an even better way...
MATLAB is a MATrix LABoratory so this type of equation is pretty easy to compute using matrix operations. Hints:
Instead of looping over the values, rows, or columns of x and y, construct matrices to represent all the possible input combinations. Check out meshgrid for this.
You're still going to need a loop to sum over n = 1:N. But for each value of n, you can evaluate your equation for all x's and y's at once (using the matrices from hint 1). The key to making this work is using element-by-element operators, such as .* and ./.
Using matrix operations like this is The Matlab Way. Learn it and love it. (And get frustrated when using most other languages that don't have them.)
Good luck with your homework!