Color normalization results in gray tones - c

I use floating point numbers in my code (c code with openGL) to operate with colors, but the graphic I am using is in the rgb byte format. Loaded with the following code everything works correctly:
//... glfw window initialization...
for (int y = 0; y < 32; y++)
{
for (int x = 0; x < 32; x++)
{
int p = (y * 32 + x) * 3;
float r = rgb[p];
float g = rgb[p + 1];
float b = rgb[p + 2];
glColor3ub(r, g, b);
glPointSize(16);
glBegin(GL_POINTS);
glVertex2i(x * 16, y * 16);
glEnd();
}
}
Resulting in:
The error occurs if I try to normalize the bytes (one by one) with the following code:
//... glfw window initialization...
for (int y = 0; y < 32; y++)
{
for (int x = 0; x < 32; x++)
{
int p = (y * 32 + x) * 3;
float r = ((float)rgb[p]) / 255.0f;
float g = ((float)rgb[p + 1]) / 255.0f;
float b = ((float)rgb[p + 2]) / 255.0f;
glColor3f(r,g, b);
glPointSize(16);
glBegin(GL_POINTS);
glVertex2i(x * 16, y * 16);
glEnd();
}
}
The picture loaded this way has different colors:


Suppose the array rbg[] is signed, and consider a red component value 255.
In the first example the 255 is actually -1 and is converted to -1.000000 and this is then passed to the function after converting to type GLubyte which is unsigned 8-bit. The conversion rules will make this value 255 which is what you thought you had.
In the second example the 255 is again converted to -1.000000 and scaled to be -0.003922 instead of the expected 1.000000and so the result is very different from what you expected.
The solution is to define the array as unsigned char or uint8_t.

Related

Find Mystery Nums M/N

I am pretty sure I got this right just want to make sure though... In the following code, we have omitted the definitions of constants M and N
here are the two functions in question arith and optarith:
#define M /* Mystery number 1 */
#define N /* Mystery number 2 */
unsigned int arith(unsigned int x, unsigned int y){
unsigned int result = 0;
result = x * M + y/N;
return result;
}
We compiled this code for particular values of M and N. The compiler optimized the multiplication and
division. The following is a translation of the generated machine code back into C:
unsigned int optarith(unsigned int x, unsigned int y){
unsigned int t = 3 * x;
x <<= 6;
x -= 2 * t;
y >>= 4;
y = y/3;
return x + y;
}
so here's my work
so to find value M for the operation M * x
x <<= 6; // same as x = x * 64
x-= 2 * t; //same as x = x - 2 * (3 * x)
so basically x = 64x - 6x which is just 58x therefore M = 58
and to find the value N for operation y/N
y >>= 4; same as y = y/16;
y = y/3; same as y = (y/16)/3;
that makes y/48 so N = 48
Did I do this correctly?

Mandelbrot using Pthreads, stepping through array

I am working on a project to rewrite a sequential C-code algorithm for creating a mandelbrot set into a parallel one using pthreads. I've gone up against a wall so to speak, as my version simply outputs a more or less black picture (and nothing to what the original program results into), and I can't really see where I'm going wrong. Simply put, I could use a second pair of eyes on this one.
Here is the sequential code snippet that matters:
void mandelbrot(float width, float height, unsigned int *pixmap)
{
int i, j;
float xmin = -1.6f;
float xmax = 1.6f;
float ymin = -1.6f;
float ymax = 1.6f;
for (i = 0; i < height; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < width; j++) {
float b = xmin + j * (xmax - xmin) / width;
float a = ymin + i * (ymax - ymin) / height;
float sx = 0.0f;
float sy = 0.0f;
int ii = 0;
while (sx + sy <= 64.0f) {
float xn = sx * sx - sy * sy + b;
float yn = 2 * sx * sy + a;
sx = xn;
sy = yn;
ii++;
if (ii == 1500) {
break;
}
}
if (ii == 1500) {
pixmap[j+i*(int)width] = 0;
}
else {
int c = (int)((ii / 32.0f) * 256.0f);
pixmap[j + i *(int)width] = pal[c%256];
}
}
}
}
Here is my sequential version of the code:
void* Mandel(void* threadId) {
int x = *(int*)threadId;
float xmin = -1.6f;
float xmax = 1.6f;
float ymin = -1.6f;
float ymax = 1.6f;
float b = xmin + x * (xmax - xmin) / WIDTH;
for (int y = 0; y < 1024; y++)
{
float a = ymin + y * (ymax - ymin) / WIDTH;
float sx = 0.0f;
float sy = 0.0f;
int ii = 0;
while (sx + sy <= 64.0f) {
float xn = sx * sx - sy * sy + b;
float yn = 2 * sx * sy + a;
sx = xn;
sy = yn;
ii++;
if (ii == 1500) {
break;
}
}
if (ii == 1500) {
pixmap[x+y*(int)WIDTH] = 0;
}
else {
int c = (int)((ii / 32.0f) * 256.0f);
pixmap[x + y *(int)WIDTH] = pal[c%256];
}
}
}
Explanation of my thought process:
I create 1024 threads in the main function, and then call on the function above with each thread. They're supposed to a column each (since the x is a constant between 0 and 1023, while the y value changes from 0 to 1023 within the function). As you can see, most of the mathematical meat in the function itself is the same in both the sequential and my parallel versions of the code. Because of this, I think the problem comes from how I'm stepping through the array, but I cannot see the problem with my own eyes. Regardless, the value that ii eventually receives is used to calculate c, which in turn is used to decide the color value that's to be saved in the corresponding position in pixmap. (pal is basically just a large array filled with color values).
This function is the only piece of the code that I've actually touched to any major degree. The only difference in the main function is that I've created threads in it with the instruction to carry out the function Mandel.
I assume that anyone willing to help will want more information, and please let me know of any improvements to this post in case I have posted too little information.

I found an answer shortly after posting this code. Silly me.
Anywho, the problem wasn't stepping through the array within the function, but actually how I created the threads.
This is how it looked in main when the problem occurred:
for(int k = 0; k < 1024; k++) {
pthread_create(&threads[k], NULL, (void*)Mandel, (void*) k);
}
The problem with doing it this way was that the loop continued, changing the value of k for the next thread, meaning that the last thread that we just created suddenly got an erronous value for k. This was solved by using an int array which saves the values of k as we go through each k value and create each thread, like shown below:
int id[1024];
for(int k = 0; k < 1024; k++) {
pthread_create(&threads[k], NULL, (void*)Mandel, (void*)(id+k));
}
I would like to point towards the post in the following link, for helping me answer this problem:
Pass integer value through pthread_create
Just goes to show that you can often find the answers you're looking for if you search long enough, for the most of the time.

Perlin Noise Attempt

I am trying my attempt at Perlin Noise (3-dimensional) as outlined in this document: http://lodev.org/cgtutor/randomnoise.html
However, this is what I'm getting.
It looks like the smoothing isn't working. You can see blocks the size of the 'size' parameter. Can someone point out what I'm doing wrong?
Here's my code:
%ffp
ctl(1):standard,"Size",range=(1,256), pos=(300,20), size=(120,*),val=64,track, action=preview
onFilterStart:
{
allocArray(9,64,64,64,4); // Array for noise depth
for(int z = 0; z < 64; z++)
for(int y = 0; y < 64; y++)
for(int x = 0; x < 64; x++) {
fputArray(9,x,y,z,(float)(rand() % 32768) / 32768.0);
}
return false;
}
forEveryTile:
{
double fractX,fractY,fractZ,xx,yy,zz;
int x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2,col;
double value = 0.0, value2 = 0.0, size, isize=(float)ctl(1);
// int X=screen Width, int Y=screen Height
for(int y = 0; y < Y; y++) {
for(int x = 0; x < X; x++) {
//for(int z = 0; z < 64; z++) {
value2 = 0.0;
size = isize;
while (size >=1.0) {
xx=(float)x/size;
yy=(float)y/size;
zz=(float)clock()/size;
fractX = xx - (int)(xx);
fractY = yy - (int)(yy);
fractZ = zz - (int)(zz);
x1 = ((int)(xx) + 64) % 64;
y1 = ((int)(yy) + 64) % 64;
z1 = ((int)(zz) + 64) % 64;
x2 = (x1 + 64- 1) % 64;
y2 = (y1 + 64- 1) % 64;
z2 = (z1 + 64- 1) % 64;
value=0.0;
value += fractX * fractY * fractZ * fgetArray(9,z1,y1,x1);
value += fractX * (1 - fractY) * fractZ * fgetArray(9,z1,y2,x1);
value += (1 - fractX) * fractY * fractZ * fgetArray(9,z1,y1,x2);
value += (1 - fractX) * (1 - fractY) * fractZ * fgetArray(9,z1,y2,x2);
value += fractX * fractY * (1 - fractZ) * fgetArray(9,z2,y1,x1);
value += fractX * (1 - fractY) * (1 - fractZ) * fgetArray(9,z2,y2,x1);
value += (1 - fractX) * fractY * (1 - fractZ) * fgetArray(9,z2,y1,x2);
value += (1 - fractX) * (1 - fractY) * (1 - fractZ) * fgetArray(9,z2,y2,x2);
value2 += value*size;
size /= 2.0;
}
col=(int)((float)(128.0 * value2 / isize));
col=max(min(col,255),0);
psetp(x,y,RGB(col,col,col));
//} //z
} //x
} //y
return true;
}

Your code is kind of hard to read as written.
For Perlin noise start out with a integer noise function, that behaves like a hash.
float noise(int x, int y, int z) { return hash(x+y*5+z*7); }
or
float noise(int x, int y, int z) { return array[x%w+y%h*w+z%d*w*h]; }
Those are just examples. The important part is that noise(x,y,z) = noise(x,y,z). The noise function has to return the same value for the same parameters every time.
There is a problem though: The noise function only takes integer parameters! But we would like to sample it at float values.
float noisesample (float x, float y, float z) { ... }
The easiest way to to that is using linear filtering. Any positive float value is between (int)pos and ((int)pos)+1. At sub-position pos-(int)pos. This gets us:
float Lerp(float a, float b, float f) { return a+(b-a)*f; }
Where f is the sub-position in the [0..1] range and a,b are the values to the left and right. If f is 0, Lerp returns a, if it is 1, it returns b. In between it does linear interpolation.
So use this for a simple 1D noisesample function:
float noisesample(float x) { return Lerp(noise((int)x), noise((int)x+1), fract(x) }
with
float fract(float x) { return x-(int)x; }
I am using (int)x liberally here, it is the same as floor(x) if x is positive.
To go from a single parameter noisesample to x,y is easy: Do the Lerp twice for x at y and y+1, and Lerp between those:
float noisesample(float x, float y) {
float y0 = Lerp(noise((int)x,(int)y), noise((int)x+1,(int)y), fract(x) }
float y1 = Lerp(noise((int)x,(int)y+1), noise((int)x+1,(int)y+1), fract(x) }
return Lerp ( y0, y1, fract(y) );
}
First interpolate x, twice, then interpolate between the results in y. In total we sample noise() 4 times. I leave it as an exercise how to write noisesample ( float x, float y, float z). It will sample noise() eight times and call Lerp 7 times.
All that got us is that we can sample noise (somewhat smooth - there are smoother ways!) at float coordinates. And that is what we need to make perlin noise!
float perlin(float x, float y, float z, int oc=4) {
// maybe: x = x*2^oc, y, z...
float r = 0;
float s = 1;
for ( int i=0; i<oc; i++ ) {
r += noisesample(x,y,z) * s;
s/=2.0f; // to taste
x/=2.0f;
y/=2.0f;
z/=2.0f;
}
return r;
}
The key idea is to understand sampling. It's just a combination of sampling a simple integer noise function.

Calculating exponents in C without pow()

int main ()
{
int n = 0;
int base = 0;
while(n < 10)
{
int x = 2;
int answer = power(x, n);
float neganswer = negpower(x, n);
printf("%d %d %f\n", base, answer, neganswer);
base++;
n++;
}
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
int power(int base, int power)
{
int result, i;
result = 1;
for (i=0; i < power; i++)
{
result *= base;
}
return result;
}
int negpower(int base, int power)
{
float result, i;
result = 1.0;
for (i=0; i < power; i++)
{
result = result / base;
}
return result;
}
So I'm trying to call upon this function that i've made, and I think its calculating it correctly, however it is only outputting 1.0000000 followed directly by 0.0000000. I think I've got problems with carrying the float value, can anyone chime in?
Thanks

This is because you are returning a float from negpower() which has return type of int and assigning it to a float neganswer.
Change
int negpower(int base, int power)
to
float negpower(int base, int power)
Output:
Side note:
Always add required header files.
A prototype should be declared if a function definition appears after the main().

The answer is much simpler. Your negpower function returns an int, when you actually return a float from it. Change the prototype and it should work alright.

This is optimized library if you are interested:
#ifdef DOCUMENTATION
title pow x raised to power y
index x raised to power y
usage
.s
double x, y, f, pow();
.br
f = pow(x, y);
.s
description
.s
Returns value of x raised to power y
.s
diagnostics
.s
There are three error possible error messages from this function.
.s
If the x argument is negative the message 'pow arg negative',
followed by the value of x, is written to stderr. The value
of pow for |x| is returned.
.s
If x = 0.0 and y <= 0.0 or if result overflows the message 'pow
overflow', followed by the value of y, is written to stderr.
The value of HUGE is returned.
.s
If the result underflows and if warnings are enabled (normally not),
the message 'pow underflow', followed by the value of y, is written
to stderr. The value of 0 is returned.
.s
The suggestion of Cody and Waite, that the domain be reduced to
simplify the overflow test, has been adopted, consequently overflow
is reported if the result would exceed HUGE * 2**(-1/16).
2**(-1/16) is approximately 0.9576.
.s
internal
.s
Algorithm from Cody and Waite pp. 84-124. This algorithm required
two auxiliary programs POWGA1 and POWGA2 to calculate, respectively,
the arrays a1[] and a2[] used to represent the powers of 2**(-1/16)
to more than machine precision.
The source code for these programs are in the files POWGA1.AUX and
POWGA2.AUX. The octal table on page 98 of Cody and Waite is in the
file POWOCT.DAT which is required on stdin by POWGA2.
.s
author
.s
Hamish Ross.
.s
date
.s
27-Jan-85
#endif
#include <math.h>
#define MAXEXP 2031 /* (MAX_EXP * 16) - 1 */
#define MINEXP -2047 /* (MIN_EXP * 16) - 1 */
static double a1[] = {
1.0,
0.95760328069857365,
0.91700404320467123,
0.87812608018664974,
0.84089641525371454,
0.80524516597462716,
0.77110541270397041,
0.73841307296974966,
0.70710678118654752,
0.67712777346844637,
0.64841977732550483,
0.62092890603674203,
0.59460355750136054,
0.56939431737834583,
0.54525386633262883,
0.52213689121370692,
0.50000000000000000
};
static double a2[] = {
0.24114209503420288E-17,
0.92291566937243079E-18,
-0.15241915231122319E-17,
-0.35421849765286817E-17,
-0.31286215245415074E-17,
-0.44654376565694490E-17,
0.29306999570789681E-17,
0.11260851040933474E-17
};
static double p1 = 0.833333333333332114e-1;
static double p2 = 0.125000000005037992e-1;
static double p3 = 0.223214212859242590e-2;
static double p4 = 0.434457756721631196e-3;
static double q1 = 0.693147180559945296e0;
static double q2 = 0.240226506959095371e0;
static double q3 = 0.555041086640855953e-1;
static double q4 = 0.961812905951724170e-2;
static double q5 = 0.133335413135857847e-2;
static double q6 = 0.154002904409897646e-3;
static double q7 = 0.149288526805956082e-4;
static double k = 0.442695040888963407;
double pow(x, y)
double x, y;
{
double frexp(), g, ldexp(), r, u1, u2, v, w, w1, w2, y1, y2, z;
int iw1, m, p;
if (y == 0.0)
return(1.0);
if (x <= 0.0) {
if (x == 0.0) {
if (y > 0.0)
return(x);
cmemsg(FP_POWO, &y);
return(HUGE);
}
else {
cmemsg(FP_POWN, &x);
x = -x;
}
}
g = frexp(x, &m);
p = 0;
if (g <= a1[8])
p = 8;
if (g <= a1[p + 4])
p += 4;
if (g <= a1[p + 2])
p += 2;
p++;
z = ((g - a1[p]) - a2[p / 2]) / (g + a1[p]);
z += z;
v = z * z;
r = (((p4 * v + p3) * v + p2) * v + p1) * v * z;
r += k * r;
u2 = (r + z * k) + z;
u1 = 0.0625 * (double)(16 * m - p);
y1 = 0.0625 * (double)((int)(16.0 * y));
y2 = y - y1;
w = u2 * y + u1 * y2;
w1 = 0.0625 * (double)((int)(16.0 * w));
w2 = w - w1;
w = w1 + u1 * y1;
w1 = 0.0625 * (double)((int)(16.0 * w));
w2 += (w - w1);
w = 0.0625 * (double)((int)(16.0 * w2));
iw1 = 16.0 * (w1 + w);
w2 -= w;
while (w2 > 0.0) {
iw1++;
w2 -= 0.0625;
}
if (iw1 > MAXEXP) {
cmemsg(FP_POWO, &y);
return(HUGE);
}
if (iw1 < MINEXP) {
cmemsg(FP_POWU, &y);
return(0.0);
}
m = iw1 / 16;
if (iw1 >= 0)
m++;
p = 16 * m - iw1;
z = ((((((q7*w2 + q6)*w2 + q5)*w2 + q4)*w2 + q3)*w2 + q2)*w2 + q1)*w2;
z = a1[p] + a1[p] * z;
return(ldexp(z, m));
}

You have all sorts of ints in there. When you do that, the decimal gets truncated. You should make your power functions return floats, and use a float base.

fast algorithm for drawing filled circles?

I am using Bresenham's circle algorithm for fast circle drawing. However, I also want to (at the request of the user) draw a filled circle.
Is there a fast and efficient way of doing this? Something along the same lines of Bresenham?
The language I am using is C.

Having read the Wikipedia page on Bresenham's (also 'Midpoint') circle algorithm, it would appear that the easiest thing to do would be to modify its actions, such that instead of
setPixel(x0 + x, y0 + y);
setPixel(x0 - x, y0 + y);
and similar, each time you instead do
lineFrom(x0 - x, y0 + y, x0 + x, y0 + y);
That is, for each pair of points (with the same y) that Bresenham would you have you plot, you instead connect with a line.

Just use brute force. This method iterates over a few too many pixels, but it only uses integer multiplications and additions. You completely avoid the complexity of Bresenham and the possible bottleneck of sqrt.
for(int y=-radius; y<=radius; y++)
for(int x=-radius; x<=radius; x++)
if(x*x+y*y <= radius*radius)
setpixel(origin.x+x, origin.y+y);

Here's a C# rough guide (shouldn't be that hard to get the right idea for C) - this is the "raw" form without using Bresenham to eliminate repeated square-roots.
Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap(200, 200);
int r = 50; // radius
int ox = 100, oy = 100; // origin
for (int x = -r; x < r ; x++)
{
int height = (int)Math.Sqrt(r * r - x * x);
for (int y = -height; y < height; y++)
bmp.SetPixel(x + ox, y + oy, Color.Red);
}
bmp.Save(#"c:\users\dearwicker\Desktop\circle.bmp");

You can use this:
void DrawFilledCircle(int x0, int y0, int radius)
{
int x = radius;
int y = 0;
int xChange = 1 - (radius << 1);
int yChange = 0;
int radiusError = 0;
while (x >= y)
{
for (int i = x0 - x; i <= x0 + x; i++)
{
SetPixel(i, y0 + y);
SetPixel(i, y0 - y);
}
for (int i = x0 - y; i <= x0 + y; i++)
{
SetPixel(i, y0 + x);
SetPixel(i, y0 - x);
}
y++;
radiusError += yChange;
yChange += 2;
if (((radiusError << 1) + xChange) > 0)
{
x--;
radiusError += xChange;
xChange += 2;
}
}
}

Great ideas here!
Since I'm at a project that requires many thousands of circles to be drawn, I have evaluated all suggestions here (and improved a few by precomputing the square of the radius):
http://quick-bench.com/mwTOodNOI81k1ddaTCGH_Cmn_Ag
The Rev variants just have x and y swapped because consecutive access along the y axis are faster with the way my grid/canvas structure works.
The clear winner is Daniel Earwicker's method ( DrawCircleBruteforcePrecalc ) that precomputes the Y value to avoid unnecessary radius checks. Somewhat surprisingly that negates the additional computation caused by the sqrt call.
Some comments suggest that kmillen's variant (DrawCircleSingleLoop) that works with a single loop should be very fast, but it's the slowest here. I assume that is because of all the divisions. But perhaps I have adapted it wrong to the global variables in that code. Would be great if someone takes a look.
EDIT: After looking for the first time since college years at some assembler code, I managed find that the final additions of the circle's origin are a culprit.
Precomputing those, I improved the fastest method by a factor of another 3.7-3.9 according to the bench!
http://quick-bench.com/7ZYitwJIUgF_OkDUgnyMJY4lGlA
Amazing.
This being my code:
for (int x = -radius; x < radius ; x++)
{
int hh = (int)std::sqrt(radius_sqr - x * x);
int rx = center_x + x;
int ph = center_y + hh;
for (int y = center_y-hh; y < ph; y++)
canvas[rx][y] = 1;
}

I like palm3D's answer. For being brute force, this is an amazingly fast solution. There are no square root or trigonometric functions to slow it down. Its one weakness is the nested loop.
Converting this to a single loop makes this function almost twice as fast.
int r2 = r * r;
int area = r2 << 2;
int rr = r << 1;
for (int i = 0; i < area; i++)
{
int tx = (i % rr) - r;
int ty = (i / rr) - r;
if (tx * tx + ty * ty <= r2)
SetPixel(x + tx, y + ty, c);
}
This single loop solution rivals the efficiency of a line drawing solution.
int r2 = r * r;
for (int cy = -r; cy <= r; cy++)
{
int cx = (int)(Math.Sqrt(r2 - cy * cy) + 0.5);
int cyy = cy + y;
lineDDA(x - cx, cyy, x + cx, cyy, c);
}

palm3D's brute-force algorithm I found to be a good starting point. This method uses the same premise, however it includes a couple of ways to skip checking most of the pixels.
First, here's the code:
int largestX = circle.radius;
for (int y = 0; y <= radius; ++y) {
for (int x = largestX; x >= 0; --x) {
if ((x * x) + (y * y) <= (circle.radius * circle.radius)) {
drawLine(circle.center.x - x, circle.center.x + x, circle.center.y + y);
drawLine(circle.center.x - x, circle.center.x + x, circle.center.y - y);
largestX = x;
break; // go to next y coordinate
}
}
}
Next, the explanation.
The first thing to note is that if you find the minimum x coordinate that is within the circle for a given horizontal line, you immediately know the maximum x coordinate.
This is due to the symmetry of the circle. If the minimum x coordinate is 10 pixels ahead of the left of the bounding box of the circle, then the maximum x is 10 pixels behind the right of the bounding box of the circle.
The reason to iterate from high x values to low x values, is that the minimum x value will be found with less iterations. This is because the minimum x value is closer to the left of the bounding box than the centre x coordinate of the circle for most lines, due to the circle being curved outwards, as seen on this image
The next thing to note is that since the circle is also symmetric vertically, each line you find gives you a free second line to draw, each time you find a line in the top half of the circle, you get one on the bottom half at the radius-y y coordinate. Therefore, when any line is found, two can be drawn and only the top half of the y values needs to be iterated over.
The last thing to note is that is that if you start from a y value that is at the centre of the circle and then move towards the top for y, then the minimum x value for each next line must be closer to the centre x coordinate of the circle than the last line. This is also due to the circle curving closer towards the centre x value as you go up the circle. Here is a visual on how that is the case.
In summary:
If you find the minimum x coordinate of a line, you get the maximum x coordinate for free.
Every line you find to draw on the top half of the circle gives you a line on the bottom half of the circle for free.
Every minimum x coordinate has to be closer to the centre of the circle than the previous x coordinate for each line when iterating from the centre y coordinate to the top.
You can also store the value of (radius * radius), and also (y * y) instead of calculating them
multiple times.

Here's how I'm doing it:
I'm using fixed point values with two bits precision (we have to manage half points and square values of half points)
As mentionned in a previous answer, I'm also using square values instead of square roots.
First, I'm detecting border limit of my circle in a 1/8th portion of the circle. I'm using symetric of these points to draw the 4 "borders" of the circle. Then I'm drawing the square inside the circle.
Unlike the midpoint circle algorith, this one will work with even diameters (and with real numbers diameters too, with some little changes).
Please forgive me if my explanations were not clear, I'm french ;)
void DrawFilledCircle(int circleDiameter, int circlePosX, int circlePosY)
{
const int FULL = (1 << 2);
const int HALF = (FULL >> 1);
int size = (circleDiameter << 2);// fixed point value for size
int ray = (size >> 1);
int dY2;
int ray2 = ray * ray;
int posmin,posmax;
int Y,X;
int x = ((circleDiameter&1)==1) ? ray : ray - HALF;
int y = HALF;
circlePosX -= (circleDiameter>>1);
circlePosY -= (circleDiameter>>1);
for (;; y+=FULL)
{
dY2 = (ray - y) * (ray - y);
for (;; x-=FULL)
{
if (dY2 + (ray - x) * (ray - x) <= ray2) continue;
if (x < y)
{
Y = (y >> 2);
posmin = Y;
posmax = circleDiameter - Y;
// Draw inside square and leave
while (Y < posmax)
{
for (X = posmin; X < posmax; X++)
setPixel(circlePosX+X, circlePosY+Y);
Y++;
}
// Just for a better understanding, the while loop does the same thing as:
// DrawSquare(circlePosX+Y, circlePosY+Y, circleDiameter - 2*Y);
return;
}
// Draw the 4 borders
X = (x >> 2) + 1;
Y = y >> 2;
posmax = circleDiameter - X;
int mirrorY = circleDiameter - Y - 1;
while (X < posmax)
{
setPixel(circlePosX+X, circlePosY+Y);
setPixel(circlePosX+X, circlePosY+mirrorY);
setPixel(circlePosX+Y, circlePosY+X);
setPixel(circlePosX+mirrorY, circlePosY+X);
X++;
}
// Just for a better understanding, the while loop does the same thing as:
// int lineSize = circleDiameter - X*2;
// Upper border:
// DrawHorizontalLine(circlePosX+X, circlePosY+Y, lineSize);
// Lower border:
// DrawHorizontalLine(circlePosX+X, circlePosY+mirrorY, lineSize);
// Left border:
// DrawVerticalLine(circlePosX+Y, circlePosY+X, lineSize);
// Right border:
// DrawVerticalLine(circlePosX+mirrorY, circlePosY+X, lineSize);
break;
}
}
}
void DrawSquare(int x, int y, int size)
{
for( int i=0 ; i<size ; i++ )
DrawHorizontalLine(x, y+i, size);
}
void DrawHorizontalLine(int x, int y, int width)
{
for(int i=0 ; i<width ; i++ )
SetPixel(x+i, y);
}
void DrawVerticalLine(int x, int y, int height)
{
for(int i=0 ; i<height ; i++ )
SetPixel(x, y+i);
}
To use non-integer diameter, you can increase precision of fixed point or use double values.
It should even be possible to make a sort of anti-alias depending on the difference between dY2 + (ray - x) * (ray - x) and ray2 (dx² + dy² and r²)

If you want a fast algorithm, consider drawing a polygon with N sides, the higher is N, the more precise will be the circle.

I would just generate a list of points and then use a polygon draw function for the rendering.

It may not be the algorithm yo are looking for and not the most performant one,
but I always do something like this:
void fillCircle(int x, int y, int radius){
// fill a circle
for(int rad = radius; rad >= 0; rad--){
// stroke a circle
for(double i = 0; i <= PI * 2; i+=0.01){
int pX = x + rad * cos(i);
int pY = y + rad * sin(i);
drawPoint(pX, pY);
}
}
}

The following two methods avoid the repeated square root calculation by drawing multiple parts of the circle at once and should therefore be quite fast:
void circleFill(const size_t centerX, const size_t centerY, const size_t radius, color fill) {
if (centerX < radius || centerY < radius || centerX + radius > width || centerY + radius > height)
return;
const size_t signedRadius = radius * radius;
for (size_t y = 0; y < radius; y++) {
const size_t up = (centerY - y) * width;
const size_t down = (centerY + y) * width;
const size_t halfWidth = roundf(sqrtf(signedRadius - y * y));
for (size_t x = 0; x < halfWidth; x++) {
const size_t left = centerX - x;
const size_t right = centerX + x;
pixels[left + up] = fill;
pixels[right + up] = fill;
pixels[left + down] = fill;
pixels[right + down] = fill;
}
}
}
void circleContour(const size_t centerX, const size_t centerY, const size_t radius, color stroke) {
if (centerX < radius || centerY < radius || centerX + radius > width || centerY + radius > height)
return;
const size_t signedRadius = radius * radius;
const size_t maxSlopePoint = ceilf(radius * 0.707106781f); //ceilf(radius * cosf(TWO_PI/8));
for (size_t i = 0; i < maxSlopePoint; i++) {
const size_t depth = roundf(sqrtf(signedRadius - i * i));
size_t left = centerX - depth;
size_t right = centerX + depth;
size_t up = (centerY - i) * width;
size_t down = (centerY + i) * width;
pixels[left + up] = stroke;
pixels[right + up] = stroke;
pixels[left + down] = stroke;
pixels[right + down] = stroke;
left = centerX - i;
right = centerX + i;
up = (centerY - depth) * width;
down = (centerY + depth) * width;
pixels[left + up] = stroke;
pixels[right + up] = stroke;
pixels[left + down] = stroke;
pixels[right + down] = stroke;
}
}

This was used in my new 3D printer Firmware, and it is proven the
fastest way for filled circle of a diameter from 1 to 43 pixel. If
larger is needed, the following memory block(or array) should be
extended following a structure I wont waste my time explaining...
If you have questions, or need larger diameter than 43, contact me, I
will help you drawing the fastest and perfect filled circles... or
Bresenham's circle drawing algorithm can be used above those
diameters, but having to fill the circle after, or incorporating the
fill into Bresenham's circle drawing algorithm, will only result in
slower fill circle than my code. I already benchmarked the different
codes, my solution is 4 to 5 times faster. As a test I have been
able to draw hundreds of filled circles of different size and colors
on a BigTreeTech tft24 1.1 running on a 1-core 72 Mhz cortex-m4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Wp5yn3ADI
// this must be declared anywhere, as static or global
// as long as the function can access it !
uint8_t Rset[252]={
0,1,1,2,2,1,2,3,3,1,3,3,4,4,2,3,4,5,5,5,2,4,5,5,
6,6,6,2,4,5,6,6,7,7,7,2,4,5,6,7,7,8,8,8,2,5,6,7,
8,8,8,9,9,9,3,5,6,7,8,9,9,10,10,10,10,3,5,7,8,9,
9,10,10,11,11,11,11,3,5,7,8,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,
12,12,3,6,7,9,10,10,11,12,12,12,13,13,13,13,3,6,
8,9,10,11,12,12,13,13,13,14,14,14,14,3,6,8,9,10,
11,12,13,13,14,14,14,15,15,15,15,3,6,8,10,11,12,
13,13,14,14,15,15,15,16,16,16,16,4,7,8,10,11,12,
13,14,14,15,16,16,16,17,17,17,17,17,4,7,9,10,12,
13,14,14,15,16,16,17,17,17,18,18,18,18,18,4,7,9,
11,12,13,14,15,16,16,17,17,18,18,18,19,19,19,19,
19,7,9,11,12,13,15,15,16,17,18,18,19,19,20,20,20,
20,20,20,20,20,7,9,11,12,14,15,16,17,17,18,19,19
20,20,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21};
// SOLUTION 1: (the fastest)
void FillCircle_v1(uint16_t x, uint16_t y, uint16_t r)
{
// all needed variables are created and set to their value...
uint16_t radius=(r<1) ? 1 : r ;
if (radius>21 ) {radius=21; }
uint16_t diam=(radius*2)+1;
uint16_t ymir=0, cur_y=0;
radius--; uint16_t target=(radius*radius+3*radius)/2; radius++;
// this part draws directly into the ILI94xx TFT buffer mem.
// using pointers..2 versions where you can draw
// pixels and lines with coordinates will follow
for (uint16_t yy=0; yy<diam; yy++)
{ ymir= (yy<=radius) ? yy+target : target+diam-(yy+1);
cur_y=y-radius+yy;
uint16_t *pixel=buffer_start_addr+x-Rset[ymir]+cur_y*buffer_width;
for (uint16_t xx= 0; xx<=(2*Rset[ymir]); xx++)
{ *pixel++ = CANVAS::draw_color; }}}
// SOLUTION 2: adaptable to any system that can
// add a pixel at a time: (drawpixel or add_pixel,etc_)
void FillCircle_v2(uint16_t x, uint16_t y, uint16_t r)
{
// all needed variables are created and set to their value...
uint16_t radius=(r<1) ? 1 : r ;
if (radius>21 ) {radius=21; }
uint16_t diam=(radius*2)+1;
uint16_t ymir=0, cur_y=0;
radius--; uint16_t target=(radius*radius+3*radius)/2; radius++;
for (uint16_t yy=0; yy<diam; yy++)
{ ymir= (yy<=radius) ? yy+target : target+diam-(yy+1);
cur_y=y-radius+yy;
uint16_t Pixel_x=x-Rset[ymir];
for (uint16_t xx= 0; xx<=(2*Rset[ymir]); xx++)
{ //use your add_pixel or draw_pixel here
// using those coordinates:
// X position will be... (Pixel_x+xx)
// Y position will be... (cur_y)
// and add those 3 brackets at the end
}}}
// SOLUTION 3: adaptable to any system that can draw fast
// horizontal lines
void FillCircle_v3(uint16_t x, uint16_t y, uint16_t r)
{
// all needed variables are created and set to their value...
uint16_t radius=(r<1) ? 1 : r ;
if (radius>21 ) {radius=21; }
uint16_t diam=(radius*2)+1;
uint16_t ymir=0, cur_y=0;
radius--; uint16_t target=(radius*radius+3*radius)/2; radius++;
for (uint16_t yy=0; yy<diam; yy++)
{ ymir= (yy<=radius) ? yy+target : target+diam-(yy+1);
cur_y=y-radius+yy;
uint16_t start_x=x-Rset[ymir];
uint16_t width_x=2*Rset[ymir];
// ... then use your best drawline function using those values:
// start_x: position X of the start of the line
// cur_y: position Y of the current line
// width_x: length of the line
// if you need a 2nd coordinate then :end_x=start_x+width_x
// and add those 2 brackets after !!!
}}

I did pretty much what AlegGeorge did but I changed three lines. I thought that this is faster but these are the results am I doing anything wrong? my function is called DrawBruteforcePrecalcV4. here's the code:
for (int x = 0; x < radius ; x++) // Instead of looping from -radius to radius I loop from 0 to radius
{
int hh = (int)std::sqrt(radius_sqr - x * x);
int rx = center_x + x;
int cmx = center_x - x;
int ph = center_y+hh;
for (int y = center_y-hh; y < ph; y++)
{
canvas[rx][y] = 1;
canvas[cmx][y] = 1;
}
}

Resources