I want to construct a 3D cube in MATLAB. I know that the units of any 3D shape are voxels not pixels. Here is what I want to do,
First, I want to construct a cube with some given dimensions x, y, and z.
Second, according to what I understand from different image processing tutorials, this cube must consists of voxels (3D pixels). I want to give every voxel an initial color value, say gray.
Third, I want to access every voxel and change its color, but I want to distinguish the voxels that represent the faces of the cube from those that represent the internal region. I want to axis every voxel by its position x,y, z. At the end, we will end up with a cube that have different colors regions.
I've searched a lot but couldn't find a good way to implement that, but the code given here seems very close in regard to constructing the internal region of the cube,
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/3280-voxel
But it's not clear to me how it performs the process.
Can anyone tell me how to build such a cube in MATLAB?
Thanks.
You want to plot voxels! Good! Lets see how we can do this stuff.
First of all: yeah, the unit of 3D shapes may be voxels, but they don't need to be. You can plot an sphere in 3D without it being "blocky", thus you dont need to describe it in term of voxels, the same way you don't need to describe a sinusoidal wave in term of pixels to be able to plot it on screen. Look at the figure below. (same happens for cubes)
If you are interested in drawing voxels, I generally would recommend you to use vol3D v2 from Matlab's FEX. Why that instead of your own?
Because the best (only?) way of plotting voxels is actually plotting flat square surfaces, 6 for each cube (see answer here for function that does that). This flat surfaces will also create some artifacts for something called z-fighting in computer graphics. vol3D actually only plots 3 surfaces, the ones looking at you, saving half of the computational time, and avoiding ugly plotting artifacts. It is easy to use, you can define colors per voxel and also the alpha (transparency) of each of them, allowing you to see inside.
Example of use:
% numbers are arbitrary
cube=zeros(11,11,11);
cube(3:9,3:9,3:9)=5; % Create a cube inside the region
% Boring: faces of the cube are a different color.
cube(3:9,3:9,3)=2;
cube(3:9,3:9,9)=2;
cube(3:9,3,3:9)=2;
cube(3:9,9,3:9)=2;
cube(3,3:9,3:9)=2;
cube(9,3:9,3:9)=2;
vold3d('Cdata',cube,'alpha',cube/5)
But yeah, that still looks bad. Because if you want to see the inside, voxel plotting is not the best option. Alphas of different faces stack one on top of the other and the only way of solving this is writing advanced computer graphics ray tracing algorithms, and trust me, that's a long and tough road to take.
Very often one has 4D data, thus data that contains 3D location and a single data for each of the locations. One may think that in this case, you really want voxels, as each of them have a 3D +color, 4D data. Indeed! you can do it with voxels, but sometimes its better to describe it in some other ways. As an example, lets see this person who wanted to highlight a region in his/hers 4D space (link). To see a bigger list I suggest you look at my answer in here about 4D visualization techniques.
Lets try wits a different approach than the voxel one. Lets use the previous cube and create isosurfaces whenever the 4D data changes of value.
iso1=isosurface(cube,1);
iso2=isosurface(cube,4);
p1=patch(iso1,'facecolor','r','facealpha',0.3,'linestyle','none');
p2=patch(iso2,'facecolor','g','facealpha',1,'linestyle','none');
% below here is code for it to look "fancy"
isonormals(cube,p1)
view(3);
axis tight
axis equal
axis off
camlight
lighting gouraud
And this one looks way better, in my opinion.
Choose freely and good plotting!
I'm trying to make a 3D reconstruction from a set of uncalibrated photographs in MATLAB. I use SIFT to detect feature points and matches between images. I want to make a projective reconstruction first and then update this to a metric one using auto-calibration.
I know how to estimate the 3D points from 2 images by computing the fundamental matrix, camera matrices and triangulation. Now say I have 3 images, a, b and c. I compute the camera matrices and 3D points for image a and b. Now I want to update the structure by adding image c. I estimate the camera matrix by using known 3D points (calculated from a and b) that match with 2D points in image c, since:
However when I reconstruct the 3D points between b and c they don't add up with the existing 3D points from a and b. I'm assuming this is because I don't know the correct depth estimates of the points (depicted by s in above formula).
With the factorization method of Sturm and Triggs I can estimate the depths and find the structure and motion. However in order to do this, all points have to be visible in all views, which is not the case for my images. How can I estimate the depths for points not visible in all views?
This is not a question about Matlab. It is about an algorithm.
It is not mathematically possible to estimate the position of a 3D point in an image when you don't see an observation of the point in said image.
There are extensions for factorization to work with missing data. However, the field seems to have converged to Bundle Adjustment as the Gold Standard.
An excellent tutorial on how to achieve what you want can be found here, which is a culmination of several years of research into a working application. Starting from projective reconstruction up to the metric upgrade.
Using Stereo vision and based on Multiple View Geometry book (http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/hzbook/), I have created a 3D point cloud in MATLAB. To do that, I first calibrated the cameras and rectified the stereo images. Then feature extraction and matching. Then eliminated the noisy matched based on camera locations. Finally created the 3D point cloud using triangulation.
Now my question is how to convert this 3D point cloud from pixel domain to actual millimeter/centimeter domain knowing my focal length and camera calibration matrices?
the goal is to find DEPTH IN MILLIMETERS.
I know how to do it in disparity/depth map case using formula: Z=(t*f)/d.
But here in the sparse case, can I do something like this? http://matlab.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ#How_do_I_measure_a_distance_or_area_in_real_world_units_instead_of_in_pixels.3F
or there is a more sophisticated method with more in depth explanation?
Thanks.
The formula you wrote is valid only in the special case when the image planes of the two cameras are on the same geometrical plane, and the motion from one to the other is a translation parallel to one of the image axes.
In the general case you'll need to triangulate actual rays in 3D space, using one of the techniques described in that book (it has a whole chapter on reconstruction). The reconstruction will be metrical if your calibration is. In particular, if the coordinate transform between the cameras has a translation vector whose units are meters (or millimeters, or inches, ...).
I am working with structured 2.5D and unstructured 3D data, which generally is available in (X,Y,Z) coordinates, i.e. point clouds. Now I want to impose a regular voxel grid onto the data. This is not meant for visualization purposes, but rather for "cleaning" or fusing the data. I imagine cases, where e.g. 3 points fall within the volume of one voxel. Then I would aim at either just setting this voxel to "activated" and discarding the 3 original points or alternatively I would like to calculate the euclidian mean of the points and return the thus "cleaned" point cloud as an irregularly structured one again.
I hope I could make my intentions clear enough: It's not about visualization and not necessarily about using volumetric cubes instead of points. It's only about manipulating possibily irregular point clouds in a structured way.
I was thinking about kd-tree or octree based solutions in this context, but can anybody point me in the proper direction? Hinting at existing MATLAB implementations would be most appreciated.
If the data is irregularly spaced, what you want to use is something which both smooths and interpolates your data points. A very good method for doing so is Gaussian process regression. Here's an example for the same problem but in 2D.
I am doing a project in Matlab on Image processing
Is there any possibility of getting 3d image from 2d image?
If you have multiple images of the same object and the position of the camera when the picure was taken, then it is possible, but still not easy. You can find two such datasets and links to relevant articles here: http://vision.middlebury.edu/mview/
a 3d image would be a projection from 4d (and to show one of those you've got to project down to 2d) and most images that can be displayed on computer or in a picture frame are 2d projections of 3d objects due to this projection which in fact selects a slice of the higher dimensional space it doesn't contain the information needed to invert that projection and get back to 3d from a 2d image
but if you have sufficient sampling of the space it is possible to reconstruct a 3d object from 2d images of it but i don't know of any simple ways to do this
You can't do this without supporting data such as multiple 2D images describing the same 3D object. You then need to figure out the perspectives from which each image was taken, reconcile those into real space, and generate your points using a method such as intersection of stereo lines through each image plane onto the same physical coordinate.
You can also attempt a superpixel approach by exploiting lighting data within a single image, though these methods aren't as accurate.
This is a big field.
The Radon transform is used in tomography applications to reconstruct 3D representations (i.e.images) from many 2D projections of the 3D "scene". This transform and its inverse are present in the image processing toolbox of Matlab. You might want to have a look at it.
Hope this helps.
A.