I am looking for some algorithms to add a convex mirror effect and concave mirror effect to an image. I want to know also how to make this efficiently: applying the algorithm to image data or overlay it by a transparent image that contains the effect. But I don't think the second choice is applicable in this case.
If you are doing it manually instead of using hardware primitives, then the bresenham interpolation algorithm (usually used for line drawing) is the way to go: error propagation is far more efficient than other, more complex, methods.
What Bresenham does is just interpolation. Don't miss the opportunity to use its efficient design elsewhere (slope calculation for line-drwaing is just one of the many applications of interpolation: you can interpolate another dimension: 2D, 3D, transparency, reflection, colors, etc.).
25 years ago, I remember having used it to resize bitmaps and even do texture mapping in a real-time 3D engine! That was at a time graphic-accelerated video boards costed a fortune...
CImg library has a fisheye sample, in examples\CImg_demo.cpp. The core algorithm seems very simple (and fast, as generally this library). I think it's an approximation of the real optical effect, but could be modified to handle the convex mirroring. I don't know if it could be extended to handle 'negative' curvature.
You can use a pre-calculated sin() table and interpolate values to match the size of your bitmap. The inverse effect is achieved by either using an offset or a larger table.
Remembers me the (great times of the) DOS demos in the 80s...
Related
So, to start off, I'm not very good at computer graphics. I'm trying to implement a GUI toolkit where one of the features is being able to apply 3D transformations to 2D "layers". (a layer only has one Z coordinate, as pre-transform, it's a two dimensional axis aligned rectangle)
Now, this is pretty straightforward, until you come to 3D transformations that would push the layer back, requiring splitting the layer into several polygons in order to render it correctly, as illustrated here. And because we can have transparency, layers may not get completely occluded, while still requiring getting split.
So here is an illustration depicting the issue and the desired outcome. In this scenario, the blue layer (call it B) is on top of the red layer (R), while having the same Z position (but B was added after R). In this scenario, if we rotate B, its top two points will get a Z index lower than 0 while the bottom points will get an index higher than 0 (with the anchor point being the only point/line left as 0).
Can somebody suggest a good way of doing this on the CPU? I've struggled to find a suitable algorithm implementation (in C++ or C) that would be appropriate to this scenario.
Edit: To clarify myself, at this stage in the pipeline, there is no rendering yet. We just need to produce a set of polygons for each layer that would then represent the layer's transformed and occluded geometry. Then, if required, rendering (either software or hardware) is done if required, which is not always the case (for example, when doing hit testing).
Edit 2: I looked at binary space partitioning as an option of achieving this but I have only been able to find one implementation (in GL2PS), which I'm not sure how to use. I do have a vague understanding of how BSPs work, but I'm not sure how they can be used for occlusion culling.
Edit 3: I'm not trying to do colour and transparency blending at this stage. Just pure geometry. Transparency can be handled by the renderer, and overdraw is okay. In this case, the blue polygon can just be drawn under the red one, but with more complicated cases, depth sorting or even splitting up the polygons may be required (example of a scary case like that below). Although the viewport is fixed, because all layers can be transformed in 3D, creating a shape shown below is possible.
So what I'm really looking for is an algorithm that would geometrically split layer B into two blue shapes, one of which would be drawn "above" and one of which would be drawn below R. The part "below" would get overdraw, yes, but it's not a major issue. So B just need to be split into two polygons so it would appear to cut through R when those polygons are drawn in order. No need to worry about blending.
Edit 4: For the purpose of this, we cannot render anything at all. This all has to be done purely geometrically (producing 2D polygons). This is what I was originally getting at.
Edit 5: I should note that the overall number of quads per subscene is around 30 (average). Definitely won't go above 100. Unless the layers are 3D transformed (which is where this problem arises), they are just radix sorted by Z positions before being drawn. Layers with the same Z position are drawn in order in which they were added (first in, first out).
Sorry if I didn't make it clear in the original question.
If you "aren't good with computer graphics", Doing it on CPU (software rendering) will be extremely difficult for you, if polygons can be transparent.
The easiest way to do it is to use GPU rendering (OpenGL/Direct3D) with Depth Peeling technique.
Cpu solutions:
Soltuion #1 (extremely difficult):
(I forgot the name of this algorithm).
You need to split polygon B into two, - for example, using polygon A as clip plane, then render result using painter's algorithm.
To do that you'll need to change your rendering routines so they'll no longer use quads, but textured polygons, plus you'll have to write/debug clipping routines that'll split triangles present in scene in such way that they'll no longer break paitner's algorithm.
Big Problem: If you have many polygons, this solution can potentially split scene into infinite number of triangles. Also, writing texture rendering code yourself isn't much fun, so it is advised to use OpenGL/Direct3D.
This can be extremely difficult to get right. I think this method was discussed in "Computer Graphics Using OpenGL 2nd edition" by "Francis S. Hill" - somewhere in one of their excercises.
Also check wikipedia article on Hidden Surface Removal.
Solution #2 (simpler):
You need to implement multi-layered z-buffer that stores up to N transparent pixels and their depth.
Solution #3 (computationally expensive):
Just use ray-tracing. You'll get perfect rendering result (no limitations of depth peeling and cpu solution #2), but it'll be computationally expensive, so you'll need to optimize rendering routines a lot.
Bottom line:
If you're performing software rendering, use Solution #2 or #3. If you're rendering on hardware, use technique similar to depth-peeling, or implement raytracing on hardware.
--edit-1--
required knowledge for implementing #1 and #2 is "line-plane intersection". If you understand how to split line (in 3d space) into two using a plane, you can implement raytracing or clipping easily.
Required knowledge for #2 is "textured 3d triangle rendering" (algorithm). It is a fairly complex topic.
In order to implement GPU solution, you need to be able to find few OpenGL tutorials that deal with shaders.
--edit-2--
Transparency is relevant, because in order to get transparency right, you need to draw polygons from back to front (from farthest to closest) using painter's algorithms. Sorting polygons properly is impossible in certain situation, so they must be split, or you should use one of the listed techniques, otherwise in certain situations there will be artifacts/incorrectly rendered images.
If there's no transparency, you can implement standard zbuffer or draw using hardware OpenGL, which is a very trivial task.
--edit-3--
I should note that the overall number of quads per subscene is around 30 (average). Definitely won't go above 100.
If you will split polygons, it can easily go way above 100.
It might be possible to position polygons in such way that each polygon will split all others polygon.
Now, 2^29 is 536870912, however, it is not possible to split one surface with a plane in such way that during each split number of polygons would double. If one polygon is split 29 timse, you'll get 30 polygons in the best-case scenario, and probably several thousands in the worst case if splitting planes aren't parallel.
Here's rough algorithm outline that should work:
Prepare list of all triangles in scene.
Remove back-facing triangles.
Find all triangles that intersect each other in 3d space, and split them using line of intersection.
compute screen-space coordinates for all vertices of all triangles.
Sort by depth for painter's algorithm.
Prepare extra list for new primitives.
Find triangles that overlap in 2D (post projection) screen space.
For all overlapping triangles check their rendering order. Basically a triangle that is going to be rendered "below" another triangles should have no part that is above another triangle.
8.1. To do that, use camera origin point and triangle edges to split original triangles into several sub-regions, then check if regions conform to established sort order (prepared for painter's algorithm). Regions are created by splitting existing pair of triangles using 6 clip planes created by camera origin points and triangle edges.
8.2. If all regions conform to rendering order, leave triangles be. If they don't, remove triangles from list, and add them to the "new primitives" list.
IF there are any primitives in new primitives list, merge the list with triangle list, and go to #5.
By looking at that algorithm, you can easily understand why everybody uses Z-buffer nowadays.
Come to think about it, that's a good training exercise for universities that specialize in CG. The kind of exercise that might make your students hate you.
I am going to come out say give the simpler solution, which may not fit your problem. Why not just change your artwork to prevent this problem from occuring.
In problem 1, just divide the polys in Maya or whatever beforehand. For the 3 lines problem, again, divide your polys at the intersections to prevent fighting. Pre-computed solutions will always run faster than on the fly ones - especially on limited hardware. From profesional experience, I can say that it also does scale, well it scales ok. It just requires some tweaking from the art side and technical reviews to make sure nothing is created "ilegally." You may end up getting more polys doing it this way than rendering on the fly, but at least you won't have to do a ton of math on CPUs that may not be up to the task.
If you do not have control over the artwork pipeline, this won't work as writing some sort of a converter would take longer than getting a BSP sub-division routine up and running. Still, KISS is often the best solution.
As I said on the title.
I just want to know which is better between using image files and drawing vector shapes (or path).
I know that using vector is better for appearance but what about performance.
And if this depends on cases. Can anyone explain.
(This question may include WP7, Silverlight, WPF or even in general cases.)
Here is a general answer to compare pros/cons of Bitmap (what I think you mean by "image file") vs. Vector.
Bitmap-based images (gif, tiff, jpeg, png, bmp) are essentially the concept of mapping colours (and other data such as alpha layer) to a pixel grid. Different file formats offer variations of what is supported and levels of compression but this is the high-level concept. The complete map of pixels and data is stored in the file as a matrix/table.
Vector-based images, as you say, are path based. Instead of storing information by pixels, the file format will store geometric points and data.
The pros for bitmaps are:
They usually render faster than a vector. This is because there is minimal computation involved in presenting the image (just take the pixel map and display).
They handle "photographic" content better than a vector.
They are more portable than vector. GIF, JPEG, PNG, BMP are more standard than any vector format (where usually Adobe has the market)
The cons for bitmaps are:
They don't scale without degradation (pixelization)
Manipulation (i.e. resizing, blurring, lighting, etc) of a bitmap is more processor expensive than a vector
The files are usually much larger than vector-based files
The pros for vectors are:
Flexible for scaling and manipulation
Smaller file formats than vector
Ideal for print and animation (i.e. manipulating a shape to produce the animation effect)
The cons for vectors are:
Render time, depending on the complexity of the vector, can be longer
Portability most formats are highly proprietary
Work for "graphic" based images but not useful for photorealism
Hope this helps.
Jeremiah Morrill gave a great overview of WPF rendering that basically shows a vector will always be more expensive to render than an image. Basically an image gets treated as a directx texture...no matter the size, scaling or whatever, there is a set constant cost for rendering an image. As Jer's overview shows, even the simplest vector image takes a number of operations to render in WPF. The moral of the story is that when giving an option, go for the image instead of vector.
Based on our experience with Windows Phone 7 (Non-mango) apps, we find using Images instead of using drawing produces a far more responsiveness hence UX Performance for continuous animation in pages. (YMMV)
I would initially say that images render faster than vectors. The complexer the vector, more time it takes to render. The bigger the image, more time to render.
I'm going to speculate that (in Silverlight terms) most of the current video hardware is capable of directly handling the images rendering getting so a boost in the performance. I'm not sure if calculations for vectors can be done at video hardware level.
From the point of view of Windows Phone 7, you'll typically get faster rendering of images/bitmaps rather than paths/vectors. As a general rule for mobile development, due to the constrained resources on the device and the increased need to consider performance, if you can do something once, such as preparing an image, at design (or compile) time that definitely preferable to doing it multiple times on each client.
Be very careful of applying rules across platforms (WPF, Silverlight & WP7) as they are used for different things in different situations and are under different constraints. Things you have to consider on the phone may not be as much of an issue in a WPF app running on an high powered PC.
here are my questions. I heard that opengl ignores the vertices which are outside the viewing frustum and doesn't consider them in rendering pipeline. Recently I ran into a same post that said you should check this your self and if a point is not inside, it is you duty to find out not opengl's! Now,
Is this true about opengl? does it understand if a point is not inside, and not to render it?
I am developing a grass scene which has about 4000 grasses on rectangles. I have awful FPS, and the only solution I came up was to decide which grasses are inside the viewport and then only render them! My question here is that what solution is best for me to find out which rectangle is not inside or which one is?
Please consider that my question is not about points mainly but about rectangles. Also I need to sort the grasses based on their distance, so it is better if native on client side memory.
Please let me know if there are any effective and real-time ways to find out if any given mesh is inside or outside the frustum. Thanks.
Even if is true then OpenGL does not show polygons outside the frustum ( as any other 3d engines ) it has to consider them to check if there are inside or not and then fps slow down. Usually some smart optimization algorithm is needed to avoid flooding the scene with invisible objects. Check for example BSP trees+PVS or Portals as a starting point.
To check if there is some bottleneck in the application, you can try with gDebugger. If nothing is reasonable wrong optimizing in order to draw just the PVS ( possible visible set ) is the way to go.
OpenGL won't render pixels ("fragments") outside your screen, so it has to clip somehow...
More precisely :
You submit your geometry
You make a Draw Call (glDrawArrays or glDrawElements)
Each vertex goes through the vertex shader, which computes the final position of the vertex in camera space. If you didn't write a vertex shader (=old opengl), the driver will create one for you.
The perspective division transforms these coordinates in Normalized Device Coordinates. Roughly, its means that the frustum of your camera is deformed to fit in a [-1,1]x[-1,1]x[-1,1] box
Everything outside this box is clipped. This can mean completely discarding a triangle, or subdivide it if it is across a clipping plane
Each remaining triangle is rasterized into fragments
Each fragment goes through the fragment shader
So basically, OpenGL knows how to clip, but each vertex still has to go through the vertex shader. So submitting your entire world will work, of course, but if you can find a way not to submit everything, your GPU will be happier.
This is a tradeoff, of course. If you spend 10ms checking each and every patch of grass on the CPU so that the GPU has only the minimal amount of data to draw, it's not a good solution either.
If you want to optimize grass, I suggest culling big patches (5m x 5m or so). It's standard AABB-frustum testing.
If you want to optimize a more generic model, you can investigate quadtree for "flat" models, octrees and bsp-trees for more complex objects.
Yes, OpenGL does not rasterize triangles outsize the viewing frustrum. But, this doesn't mean that this is optimal for applications: OpenGL implementation shall transform the vertex coordinate (by using fixed pipeline or vertex shaders), then, having the normalized coordinates it finally knows whether the triangle lie inside the viewing frustrum.
This mean that no pixel is rasterized in that cases, but the vertex data is processed all the same; simply doesn't produce fragments derived from a non visible triangle!
The OpenGL extension ARB_occlusion_query may help you, but in the discussion section make it clear:
Do occlusion queries make other visibility algorithms obsolete?
No.
Occlusion queries are helpful, but they are not a cure-all. They
should be only one of many items in your bag of tricks to decide
whether objects are visible or invisible. They are not an excuse
to skip frustum culling, or precomputing visibility using portals
for static environments, or other standard visibility techniques.
For the question regarding the mesh sorting on depth, you shall use the depth buffer: essentially the mesh fragment is effectively rendered only if its distance from the viewport is less than the previous fragment in the same position. This make you aware of sorting meshes. This buffer is essentially free, and it allows you to improve performances since it discard more far fragments.
Yes. Like others have pointed out, OpenGL has to perform a lot of per-vertex operations to determine if it is in the frustum. It must do this for every vertex you send it. In addition to the processing overhead that must take place, keep in mind that there is also additional overhead in the transmission of those vertices from the CPU to the GPU. You want to avoid sending information to the GPU that it isn't going to use. Though the bandwidth between the CPU and GPU is quite good on modern hardware, there's still a limit.
What you want is a Scene Graph. Scene graphs are frequently implemented with some kind of spatial partitioning scheme, e.g., Quadtrees, Octrees, BSPTrees, etc etc. Spatial partitioning allows you to intelligently determine what geometries are visible. Instead of doing this on a per-vertex basis (like OpenGL is forced to do) it can eliminate huge spatial subsets of geometry at a time. When rendering a complex scene, the performance savings can be enormous.
I am working on a small project where I have to write a low level app. I'd like to display text in that app, and I would even like it to be anti aliased (à la ClearType). No libraries allowed, I have to draw each char pixel by pixel.
What is the best way to do this? Can you recommend some known algorithms? How should I store/read the fonts?
Thanks!
You mean you just want to smooth the edges of an existing bitmapped font? This is easy if your original font is 16x32 and you want to render it at 8x16 or something like that, but if you don't have a higher-resolution bitmap to begin with, smoothing is a highly nontrivial operation involving a lot of guesswork. In that case, I would lookup the 2xsai algorithm (which gives visually-pleasing results for this kind of thing) and first perform it to upscale the font to double resolution, then scale it back down with a area-averaging algorithm (i.e. take each destination pixel from the average of a 4-pixel square).
I would also recommend saving your final "anti-aliased" bitmap font and simply using it in your program, rather than performing all this work at runtime.
Putting all together:
There are two main types of fonts:
1) Monospaced: all the characters have fixed size, and you define a bitmap for each. No need for Anti Aliasing (you can hardcode the grey levels in the bitmap). Look horrible when resized.
2) True Type: each letter is defined by a set of parameters for Bezier curves. Can be easily scaled to any size, but requires lots of program logic (and processing power!) for that. Anti Aliasing is useful here (and especially the sub-pixel rendering techniquies).
As I see you want to use bitmapped font and rescaling? You could just precompute several of them, thus avoiding complex runtime logic.
As R. suggested, keeping the bitmaps at higher resolution in greyscale instead of BW will help. I'd suggest using size that is divisible by most small numbers, so that the bitmap can be downscaled easily. Also, if this resolution is high enough, then you can keep it in BW and downscale to greyscale (using surface integral).
EDIT: feel free to edit it and please don't vote. Just put all those commentaries together.
It is hard to build a good font engine, especially if you need to do scaling and anti-aliasing. So I suggest you take the easy path:
Decide on the fonts and sizes you want to use.
Generate a bitmap font for every font/size combination you need to use. This can be done with a tool like Bitmap Font Generator.
Use the bitmap fonts in your program. Blitting bitmaps should be relatively easy.
If you want more features, I suggest you look into using an engine like FreeType before trying to make your own solution.
Well, reading a TTF (or any other) font and rendering some glyph into the bitmap isnt that hard, given you know some stuff about rasterization and bezier curves. The bad point is that if you want the text to look good, it's gonna take a huge amount of code. Aliased font is pretty hard to render, I'm not talking about hinting. There needs to be a routine for kerning, multi-character sequences, something that decides which glyphs map to your characters and also encoding stuff, ...
You might want to use a bitmap font, which comes pre-rendered - then the whole rendering operation is a simple image copy, eventually with some resampling or rotation; but well, you lose the vector font features.
My advice is to take FreeType and live with it, it's a nice library just for this, and can be statically linked and stripped of unnecessary bloat very easily.
My application presents an image that can be scaled to a certain size. I'm using the Image WPF control with the scaling method of FANT.
However, there is no documentation how this scaling algorithm works.
Can anyone reference me to the relevant link for this algorithm description?
Nir
Avery Lee of VirtualDub states that it's a box filter for downscaling and linear for upscaling. If I'm not mistaken, "box filter" here means basically that each output pixel is a "flat" average of several input pixels.
In practice, it's a lot more blurry for downscaling than GDI's cubic downscaling, so the theory about averaging sounds about right.
I know what it is, but I couldn't find much on Google either :(
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4056711 is the appropriate paper I think; behind a pay-wall.
You don't need to understand the algorithm to use it. You should explicitly make the choice each time you create a bitmap control that is scaled whether you want it high-quality scaled or low quality scaled.