Is there a way to determine whether two Shape objects are the same? By same I mean they have same shape and size, preferably (but not necessarily) also same x and y?
There is no comparison method, so like #Calculuswhiz pointed out in the comments, you would have to write a function to do the comparison. For most display objects, you would need to compare x, y, scale, rotation, and skew (or do a matrix comparison), and then for graphics, you would have to iterate the .graphics._instructions array to compare each graphic instruction.
If this is a critical function of your app, it might make sense to modify each graphic command to have an equals method for easier comparison.
Could you put small invisible circles at the points of your shapes then loop through them all to see if they hit all the little circles at the points of another shape? If they do then they could be said to be the same. We do something like that for blob hit tests and we have had people compare user made blobs in this manner https://zimjs.com/hittestpath.html
Related
I am trying to extract camera matrix from essential matrix. I found some answers about this.
determine camera rotation and translation matrix from essential matrix
Rotation and Translation from Essential Matrix incorrect
In these answers, they suggest me to use newE where [U,S,V] = svd(E) and newE = U*diag(1,1,0)*Vt. I don't understand why I need to use newE. As I know, singular values are unique. So changing singular values to diag(1,1,0) seems to make E to completely different values.
I read 'Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision' also, but it just refers to the ideal case, i.e., singular values are (1,1,0). I didn't find the reason of using newE.
Please can anyone explain me why people use newE?
If I understand your question correctly, then since you source data (and thus E) is usually noisy real world data, then by using diag(1,1,0) you are constraining the matrix to be of the correct scale and rank and algebraically enforcing the geometric constraints.
Wikipedia also a has a nice section explaining this.
In my meshing application I will have to specify fix points within a domain. The idea is that, the fix points must also be the element points after the domain is being meshed.
Furthermore, the elements around the fix points should be more dense. The general concept is that for the fix points, there should exist a radius r around those points, such that the mesh size inside r is of different sizes than outside of the r. The mesh sizes inside and outside of the r should be specifiable.
Are these two things doable in CGAL 2D Mesh algorithm?
Using your wording, all the input point of the initial constrained Delaunay triangulation will be fix points, because the 2D mesh generator only insert new points in the triangulation: it never removes any point.
As for the density, you can copy, paste, and modify a criteria class, such as CGAL::Delaunay_mesh_size_criteria_2<CDT> so that the local size upper bound is smaller around the fix points.
Now, the difficulty is how to implement that new size policy. Your criteria class could store a const reference to another Delaunay_triangulation_2, that contains only the fixed points you want. Then, for each triangle query, you can call nearest_vertex and then actually check if the distance between the query point is smaller that the radius bound of your circles. For a triangle, you can either verify that for only its barycenter, or for all three points of the triangle. Then, according to the result of that/those query(s), you can modify the size bound, in the code of your copy of CGAL::Delaunay_mesh_size_criteria_2<CDT>.
Yes, no points will be removed from the triangulation by the mesher.
Note however that if you insert points too close to a constraint this will induce a refinement of the constraint while it is not Gabriel.
I'm trying to display 2D data with axis labels using both contour and pcolormesh. As has been noted on the matplotlib user list, these functions obey different conventions: pcolormesh expects the x and y values to specify the corners of the individual pixels, while contour expects the centers of the pixels.
What is the best way to make these behave consistently?
One option I've considered is to make a "centers-to-edges" function, assuming evenly spaced data:
def centers_to_edges(arr):
dx = arr[1]-arr[0]
newarr = np.linspace(arr.min()-dx/2,arr.max()+dx/2,arr.size+1)
return newarr
Another option is to use imshow with the extent keyword set.
The first approach doesn't play nicely with 2D axes (e.g., as created by meshgrid or indices) and the second discards the axis numbers entirely
Your data is a regular mesh? If it doesn't, you can use griddata() to obtain it. I think that if your data is too big, a sub-sampling or regularization always is possible. If the data is too big, maybe your output image always will be small compared with it and you can exploit this.
If you use imshow() with "extent" and "interpolation='nearest'", you will see that the data is cell-centered, and extent provided the lower edges of cells (corners). On the other hand, contour assumes that the data is cell-centered, and X,Y must be the center of cells. So, you need to be care about the input domain for contour. The trivial example is:
x = np.arange(-10,10,1)
X,Y = np.meshgrid(x,x)
P = X**2+Y**2
imshow(P,extent=[-10,10,-10,10],interpolation='nearest',origin='lower')
contour(X+0.5,Y+0.5,P,20,colors='k')
My tests told me that pcolormesh() is a very slow routine, and I always try to avoid it. griddata and imshow() always is a good choose for me.
Basically, I have a set of up to 100 co-ordinates, along with the desired tangents to the curve at the first and last point.
I have looked into various methods of curve-fitting, by which I mean an algorithm with takes the inputted data points and tangents, and outputs the equation of the cure, such as the gaussian method and interpolation, but I really struggled understanding them.
I am not asking for code (If you choose to give it, thats acceptable though :) ), I am simply looking for help into this algorithm. It will eventually be converted to Objective-C for an iPhone app, if that changes anything..
EDIT:
I know the order of all of the points. They are not too close together, so passing through all points is necessary - aka interpolation (unless anyone can suggest something else). And as far as I know, an algebraic curve is what I'm looking for. This is all being done on a 2D plane by the way
I'd recommend to consider cubic splines. There is some explanation and code to calculate them in plain C in Numerical Recipes book (chapter 3.3)
Most interpolation methods originally work with functions: given a set of x and y values, they compute a function which computes a y value for every x value, meeting the specified constraints. As a function can only ever compute a single y value for every x value, such an curve cannot loop back on itself.
To turn this into a real 2D setup, you want two functions which compute x resp. y values based on some parameter that is conventionally called t. So the first step is computing t values for your input data. You can usually get a good approximation by summing over euclidean distances: think about a polyline connecting all your points with straight segments. Then the parameter would be the distance along this line for every input pair.
So now you have two interpolation problem: one to compute x from t and the other y from t. You can formulate this as a spline interpolation, e.g. using cubic splines. That gives you a large system of linear equations which you can solve iteratively up to the desired precision.
The result of a spline interpolation will be a piecewise description of a suitable curve. If you wanted a single equation, then a lagrange interpolation would fit that bill, but the result might have odd twists and turns for many sets of input data.
I'm stuck with the following problem and I hope I can explain it coherent.
So, I have a number (about 10) of descrete positions on a coordinate system.
Now, I want to analyse data from a program where user could label each point as somethingA and somethingB.
I extracted the data points for each class. So I have about 60 points for the somethingA class and a little bit less for the other class. One class stands for good points and one for bad points. I want to find the positions which have the most good/bad labels. I do that with machine learning algorithms, I just want to visualize this with plots.
I now want to plot those points. So I make one plot per class. But since in every class every point occurs at least once, the two plots would look exactly the same.
But, the amount of occurences has a different distribution thoughout the positions.
Maybe point A has 20 occurences in class A and 1 in class B, both plots would look the same.
So, my question is: How can I take the number of occurences for points into account when plotting scatters in Matplotlib?
Either with different colors (like a heatmap?) maybe with a cool legend.
Or with different sizes (e.g. higher amount = bigger cirlce).
Any help would be appreciated!
I don't know if this helps you but I have had a problem where I wanted a scatterplot to reflect both positions as well as two variables that were attributed to the data points.
Since size and color in the scatter function do not allow variables themselves, meaning one has to specify color code and size in the usual way, meaning sth like
ax.scatter(..., c=whatEverFunction, s=numberOfOccurences, ...)
did not work for me.
what I did was to bin the values of the two variables I wanted to visualize. In my case the variable nodeMass and another variable.
for i in range(Number):
mask[i] = False
if(lowerBound1<variableOne[i]<upperBound1):
mask[i] = True & pmask[i]
if len(positionX[mask])>0:
ax.scatter(positionX[mask], positionY[mask], positionZ[mask],C='#424242',s=10, edgecolors='none')
for i in range(Number):
mask[i] = False
if(lowerBound2<variableOne[i]<upperBound2):
mask[i] = True & pmask[i]
if len(positionX[mask])>0:
ax.scatter(positionX[mask], positionY[mask], positionZ[mask],c='#9E0050',s=25,edgecolors='none')
I know it is not very elegant but it worked for me. I had to make as many for loops as I had bins in my variables. With if-querys and the masks I could at least avoid redundant or 'unreadable' plots.