We Keep Coding

Why is this randomly generated spherical point cloud not uniformly distributed?

I'm trying to simulate radiation emitting from a point source. To do this, given the coordinates of a source and the desired length of emitted rays, I randomly generate a direction vector in spherical coordinates, convert it to cartesian, and return the correct end point. However, when I run this, and visualize the resulting point cloud (consisting of all the randomly generated end points) in Blender, I see that it's more densely populated at the "poles" of the sphere. I'd like the points to be uniformly distributed along the sphere. How can I achieve this?
The random generation function:
def getRadiationEmissionLineSeg(p, t):
if(p.size == 4):
#polar angle spans [0, pi] from +Z axis to -Z axis
#azimuthal angle spans [0, 2*pi] orthogonal to the zenith (in the XY plane)
theta = math.pi * random.random()
phi = 2 * math.pi * random.random()
#use r = 1 to get a unit direction vector
v = sphericalToCartesian(1, theta, phi)
#parametric vector form: vec = p + tv
#p = point that lies on vector (origin point in case of a ray)
#t = parameter (-inf, inf) for lines, [0, inf) for rays
#v = direction vector (must be normalized)
return p + t * v
The spherical coordinates -> cartesian conversion function:
def sphericalToCartesian(r, theta, phi):
x = r * math.sin(theta) * math.cos(phi)
y = r * math.sin(theta) * math.sin(phi)
z = r * math.cos(theta)
return npy.array([x, y, z, 0])

When you transform points by spherical coordinates and angle theta approaches pi, the circle which is an image of [0,2pi]x{theta} gets smaller and smaller. Since theta is uniformly distributed, there will be more points near poles. It could be seen on image of grid.
If you want to generate uniformly distributed points on sphere, you can use the fact that if you cut a sphere with two parallel planes, the area of the strip of spherical surface between the planes depends only on the distance between the planes. Hence, you can get a uniform distribution on the sphere using two uniformly distributed random variables:
z coordinate between -r and r,
an angle theta between [0, 2pi) corresponding to a longitude.
Then you can easily calculate x and y coordiantes.
Example code:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
r = 1
n = 1000
z = np.random.random(n)*2*r - r
phi = np.random.random(n)*2*np.pi
x = np.sqrt(1 - z**2)*np.cos(phi)
y = np.sqrt(1 - z**2)*np.sin(phi)
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(8, 8))
ax = plt.axes(projection='3d')
ax.scatter(x, y, z)
plt.show()
Results for n=100,250,1000:

Apply rotation defined by Euler angles to 3D image, in python

I'm working with 3D images and have to rotate them according to Euler angles (phi,psi,theta) in 'zxz' convention (these Euler angles are part of a dataset, so I have to use that convention). I found the function scipy.ndimage.rotate that seems useful in that regard.
arrayR = scipy.ndimage.rotate(array , phi, axes=(0,1), reshape=False)
arrayR = scipy.ndimage.rotate(arrayR, psi, axes=(1,2), reshape=False)
arrayR = scipy.ndimage.rotate(arrayR, the, axes=(0,1), reshape=False)
Sadly, this does not do what intended. This is why:
Definition:
In the z-x-z convention, the x-y-z frame is rotated three times: first
about the z-axis by an angle phi; then about the new x-axis by an
angle psi; then about the newest z-axis by an angle theta.
However with above code, the rotations are always with respect to the original axes. Which is why obtained rotations are not correct. Anyone has a suggestion to obtain correct rotations, as explained in the definition?
In other words, in the present 'zxz' convention the rotations are intrinsic (rotations about the axes of the rotating coordinate system XYZ, solidary with the moving body, which changes its orientation after each elemental rotation). If I use the above code, the rotations are extrinsic (rotations about the axes xyz of the original coordinate system, which is assumed to remain motionless). I need a way for doing extrinsic rotations, in python.

I found a satisfying solution following this link: https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/gist/lhk/f05ee20b5a826e4c8b9bb3e528348688
This method uses np.meshgrid, scipy.ndimage.map_coordinates. The above link uses some third party library for generating the rotation matrix, however I use scipy.spatial.transform.Rotation. This function allows to define both intrinsic and extrinsic rotations: see description of scipy.spatial.transform.Rotation.from_euler.
Here is my function:
import numpy as np
from scipy.spatial.transform import Rotation as R
from scipy.ndimage import map_coordinates
# Rotates 3D image around image center
# INPUTS
# array: 3D numpy array
# orient: list of Euler angles (phi,psi,the)
# OUTPUT
# arrayR: rotated 3D numpy array
# by E. Moebel, 2020
def rotate_array(array, orient):
phi = orient[0]
psi = orient[1]
the = orient[2]
# create meshgrid
dim = array.shape
ax = np.arange(dim[0])
ay = np.arange(dim[1])
az = np.arange(dim[2])
coords = np.meshgrid(ax, ay, az)
# stack the meshgrid to position vectors, center them around 0 by substracting dim/2
xyz = np.vstack([coords[0].reshape(-1) - float(dim[0]) / 2, # x coordinate, centered
coords[1].reshape(-1) - float(dim[1]) / 2, # y coordinate, centered
coords[2].reshape(-1) - float(dim[2]) / 2]) # z coordinate, centered
# create transformation matrix
r = R.from_euler('zxz', [phi, psi, the], degrees=True)
mat = r.as_matrix()
# apply transformation
transformed_xyz = np.dot(mat, xyz)
# extract coordinates
x = transformed_xyz[0, :] + float(dim[0]) / 2
y = transformed_xyz[1, :] + float(dim[1]) / 2
z = transformed_xyz[2, :] + float(dim[2]) / 2
x = x.reshape((dim[1],dim[0],dim[2]))
y = y.reshape((dim[1],dim[0],dim[2]))
z = z.reshape((dim[1],dim[0],dim[2])) # reason for strange ordering: see next line
# the coordinate system seems to be strange, it has to be ordered like this
new_xyz = [y, x, z]
# sample
arrayR = map_coordinates(array, new_xyz, order=1)
Note:
You can also use this function for intrinsic rotations, simply adapt the first argument of 'from_euler' to your Euler convention. In this case, you obtain equivalent result than in my 1st post (using scipy.ndimage.rotate). However I noticed that the present code is 3x faster (0.01s for 40^3 volume) than when using scipy.ndimage.rotate (0.03s for 40^3 volume).
Hope this will help someone!

There seem to be a bit confusion about the "axes" parameter in your first post. To do a rotation about the x axis, the plane of rotation would be the yz plane which means your "axes" parameter should be set to (1,2). Also the first and the third rotations are, presumably about the x and z axes. But, both your rotations are in the xy plane. Could these be possibly the reasons behind the discrepancies in your answers? I am not convinced by your explanations about the new and original axes. The independent calls to the "rotate" function does not have access to the old data in any form or shape. It only sees the new axes and rotated array.

I check the code https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/gist/lhk/f05ee20b5a826e4c8b9bb3e528348688
There is a minor bug. The tested image is square, but if doing rectangular image, it will encounter some problems. below are correct ones for 2D and 3D rotations (noted that the Euler angle sequence used in my example is 'ZYZ', you should define this before using it):
def rotate_array_2D(array, orient):
# create a transformation matrix
angle=orient/180.*np.pi
c=np.cos(angle)
s=np.sin(angle)
mat=np.array([[c,s],[-s,c]])
# create meshgrid
dim = array.shape
ax = np.arange(dim[0])
ay = np.arange(dim[1])
coords = np.meshgrid(ax, ay)
# stack the meshgrid to position vectors, center them around 0 by substracting dim/2
xy = np.vstack([coords[0].reshape(-1) - float(dim[0]) / 2, # x coordinate, centered
coords[1].reshape(-1) - float(dim[1]) / 2]) # y coordinate, centered
# apply transformation
transformed_xy = np.dot(mat, xy)
# extract coordinates
x = transformed_xy[0, :] + float(dim[0]) / 2
y = transformed_xy[1, :] + float(dim[1]) / 2
x = x.reshape((dim[1],dim[0]))
y = y.reshape((dim[1],dim[0]))
new_xy = [x,y]
# sample
arrayR = map_coordinates(array, new_xy, order=1).T
return arrayR
def rotate_array_3D(array, orient):
rot = orient[0]
tilt = orient[1]
phi = orient[2]
# create meshgrid
dim = array.shape
ax = np.arange(dim[0])
ay = np.arange(dim[1])
az = np.arange(dim[2])
coords = np.meshgrid(ax, ay, az)
# stack the meshgrid to position vectors, center them around 0 by substracting dim/2
xyz = np.vstack([coords[0].reshape(-1) - float(dim[0]) / 2, # x coordinate, centered
coords[1].reshape(-1) - float(dim[1]) / 2, # y coordinate, centered
coords[2].reshape(-1) - float(dim[2]) / 2]) # z coordinate, centered
# create transformation matrix
r = R.from_euler('ZYZ', [rot, tilt, phi], degrees=True)
mat = r.as_matrix()
# apply transformation
transformed_xyz = np.dot(mat, xyz)
# extract coordinates
x = transformed_xyz[0, :] + float(dim[0]) / 2
y = transformed_xyz[1, :] + float(dim[1]) / 2
z = transformed_xyz[2, :] + float(dim[2]) / 2
x = x.reshape((dim[1],dim[0],dim[2]))
y = y.reshape((dim[1],dim[0],dim[2]))
z = z.reshape((dim[1],dim[0],dim[2])) # I test the rotation in 2D and this strange thing can be explained
new_xyz = [x,y,z]
arrayR = map_coordinates(array, new_xyz, order=1).T
return arrayR

Test whether points are inside ellipses, without using Matplotlib?

I'm working on a Python-based data analysis. I have some x-y data points, and some ellipses, and I want to determine whether points are inside any of the ellipses. The way that I've been doing this works, but it's kludgy. As I think about distributing my software to other people, I find myself wanting a cleaner way.
Right now, I'm using matplotlib.patches.Ellipse objects. Matplotlib Ellipses have a useful method called contains_point(). You can work in data coordinates on a Matplotlib Axes object by calling Axes.transData.transform().
The catch is that I have to create a Figure and an Axes object to hold the Ellipses. And when my program runs, an annoying Matplotlib Figure object will get rendered, showing the Ellipses, which I don't actually need to see. I have tried several methods to suppress this output. I have succeeded in deleting the Ellipses from the Axes, using Axes.clear(), resulting in an empty graph. But I can't get Matplolib's pyplot.close(fig_number) to delete the Figure itself before calling pyplot.show().
Any advice is appreciated, thanks!

Inspired by how a carpenter draws an ellipse using two nails and a piece of string, here is a numpy-friendly implementation to test whether points lie inside given ellipses.
One of the definitions of an ellipse, is that the sum of the distances to the two foci is constant, equal to the width (or height if it would be larger) of the ellipse. The distance between the center and the foci is sqrt(a*a - b*b), where a and b are half of the width and height. Using that distance and rotation by the desired angle finds the locations of the foci. numpy.linalg.norm can be used to calculate the distances using numpy's efficient array operations.
After the calculations, a plot is generated to visually check whether everything went correct.
import numpy as np
from numpy.linalg import norm # calculate the length of a vector
x = np.random.uniform(0, 40, 20000)
y = np.random.uniform(0, 20, 20000)
xy = np.dstack((x, y))
el_cent = np.array([20, 10])
el_width = 28
el_height = 17
el_angle = 20
# distance between the center and the foci
foc_dist = np.sqrt(np.abs(el_height * el_height - el_width * el_width) / 4)
# vector from center to one of the foci
foc_vect = np.array([foc_dist * np.cos(el_angle * np.pi / 180), foc_dist * np.sin(el_angle * np.pi / 180)])
# the two foci
el_foc1 = el_cent + foc_vect
el_foc2 = el_cent - foc_vect
# for each x,y: calculate z as the sum of the distances to the foci;
# np.ravel is needed to change the array of arrays (of 1 element) into a single array
z = np.ravel(norm(xy - el_foc1, axis=-1) + norm(xy - el_foc2, axis=-1) )
# points are exactly on the ellipse when the sum of distances is equal to the width
# z = np.where(z <= max(el_width, el_height), 1, 0)
# now create a plot to check whether everything makes sense
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
from matplotlib import patches as mpatches
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
# show the foci as red dots
plt.plot(*el_foc1, 'ro')
plt.plot(*el_foc2, 'ro')
# create a filter to separate the points inside the ellipse
filter = z <= max(el_width, el_height)
# draw all the points inside the ellipse with the plasma colormap
ax.scatter(x[filter], y[filter], s=5, c=z[filter], cmap='plasma')
# draw all the points outside with the cool colormap
ax.scatter(x[~filter], y[~filter], s=5, c=z[~filter], cmap='cool')
# add the original ellipse to verify that the boundaries match
ellipse = mpatches.Ellipse(xy=el_cent, width=el_width, height=el_height, angle=el_angle,
facecolor='None', edgecolor='black', linewidth=2,
transform=ax.transData)
ax.add_patch(ellipse)
ax.set_aspect('equal', 'box')
ax.autoscale(enable=True, axis='both', tight=True)
plt.show()

The simplest solution here is to use shapely.
If you have an array of shape Nx2 containing a set of vertices (xy) then it is trivial to construct the appropriate shapely.geometry.polygon object and check if an arbitrary point or set of points (points) is contained within -
import shapely.geometry as geom
ellipse = geom.Polygon(xy)
for p in points:
if ellipse.contains(geom.Point(p)):
# ...
Alternatively, if the ellipses are defined by their parameters (i.e. rotation angle, semimajor and semiminor axis) then the array containing the vertices must be constructed and then the same process applied. I would recommend using the polar form relative to center as this is the most compatible with how shapely constructs the polygons.
import shapely.geometry as geom
from shapely import affinity
n = 360
a = 2
b = 1
angle = 45
theta = np.linspace(0, np.pi*2, n)
r = a * b / np.sqrt((b * np.cos(theta))**2 + (a * np.sin(theta))**2)
xy = np.stack([r * np.cos(theta), r * np.sin(theta)], 1)
ellipse = affinity.rotate(geom.Polygon(xy), angle, 'center')
for p in points:
if ellipse.contains(geom.Point(p)):
# ...
This method is advantageous because it supports any properly defined polygons - not just ellipses, it doesn't rely on matplotlib methods to perform the containment checking, and it produces a very readable code (which is often important when "distributing [one's] software to other people").
Here is a complete example (with added plotting to show it working)
import shapely.geometry as geom
from shapely import affinity
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
n = 360
theta = np.linspace(0, np.pi*2, n)
a = 2
b = 1
angle = 45.0
r = a * b / np.sqrt((b * np.cos(theta))**2 + (a * np.sin(theta))**2)
xy = np.stack([r * np.cos(theta), r * np.sin(theta)], 1)
ellipse = affinity.rotate(geom.Polygon(xy), angle, 'center')
x, y = ellipse.exterior.xy
# Create a Nx2 array of points at grid coordinates throughout
# the ellipse extent
rnd = np.array([[i,j] for i in np.linspace(min(x),max(x),50)
for j in np.linspace(min(y),max(y),50)])
# Filter for points which are contained in the ellipse
res = np.array([p for p in rnd if ellipse.contains(geom.Point(p))])
plt.plot(x, y, lw = 1, color='k')
plt.scatter(rnd[:,0], rnd[:,1], s = 50, color=(0.68, 0.78, 0.91)
plt.scatter(res[:,0], res[:,1], s = 15, color=(0.12, 0.67, 0.71))
plt.show()

How to generate random and lattice points inside of an irregular object?

I have an irregular 3d object and want to know the surface of this object. The object can be both convex or non convex type. I can get the surface of this object applying any method like marching cube, surface contour, or isosurface.
All this methods give me triangulated mesh which is basically contains edges and vertex.
My task is to generate random and lattice points inside the object.
How should i check whether my point is inside or outside?
Any suggestion?
Thanks a lot.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d.art3d import Poly3DCollection
from skimage import measure, io
from skimage.draw import ellipsoid
import skimage as sk
import random
I=np.zeros((50,50,50),dtype=np.float)
for i in range(50):
for j in range(50):
for k in range(50):
dist=np.linalg.norm([i,j,k]-O)
if dist<8:
I[i,j,k]=0.8#random.random()
dist=np.linalg.norm([i,j,k]-O2)
if dist<16:
I[i,j,k]=1#random.random()
verts, faces, normals, values = measure.marching_cubes_lewiner(I,0.7)
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(10, 10))
ax = fig.add_subplot(111, projection='3d')
mesh = Poly3DCollection(verts[faces])
mesh.set_edgecolor('k')
ax.add_collection3d(mesh)
plt.show()
%now forget the above code and suppose i have only verts and
%faces information. Now how to generate random points inside this Data
Data=verts[faces]
???????

For random points inside the closed shape:
Select linear density of samples
Make bounding box enclosing the shape
Select entry point on the box
Select exit point, compute direction cosines (wx, wy, wz). Find all segments inside the shape along the ray
Start the ray from entry point
Get to first segment and and set it to pstart
Sample length s from exponential distribution with selected linear density
Find point pend = pstart + s (wx, wy, wz)
If it is in the first segment, store it, and make pstart = pend. Go to step 7.
If it is not, go to the start of another segment, and set it to pstart. Go to step 7. If there is no segment left, you're done with one ray, go to step 3 and generate another ray.
Generate some predefined number of rays, collect all stored points, and you're done

I am sharing the code which I have written. It might be useful for others if anybody is interested for similar kind of problem. This is not the optimize code. As grid spacing value decrease computation time increase. Also depends upon the number of triangle of mesh. Any suggestion for optimizing or improve the code is welcome. Thanks
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d.art3d import Poly3DCollection
import numpy as np
#from mayavi import mlab
verts # numpy array of vertex (triangulated mesh)
faces # numpy array of faces (triangulated mesh)
%This function is taken from here
%https://www.erikrotteveel.com/python/three-dimensional-ray-tracing-in-python/
def ray_intersect_triangle(p0, p1, triangle):
# Tests if a ray starting at point p0, in the direction
# p1 - p0, will intersect with the triangle.
#
# arguments:
# p0, p1: numpy.ndarray, both with shape (3,) for x, y, z.
# triangle: numpy.ndarray, shaped (3,3), with each row
# representing a vertex and three columns for x, y, z.
#
# returns:
# 0.0 if ray does not intersect triangle,
# 1.0 if it will intersect the triangle,
# 2.0 if starting point lies in the triangle.
v0, v1, v2 = triangle
u = v1 - v0
v = v2 - v0
normal = np.cross(u, v)
b = np.inner(normal, p1 - p0)
a = np.inner(normal, v0 - p0)
# Here is the main difference with the code in the link.
# Instead of returning if the ray is in the plane of the
# triangle, we set rI, the parameter at which the ray
# intersects the plane of the triangle, to zero so that
# we can later check if the starting point of the ray
# lies on the triangle. This is important for checking
# if a point is inside a polygon or not.
if (b == 0.0):
# ray is parallel to the plane
if a != 0.0:
# ray is outside but parallel to the plane
return 0
else:
# ray is parallel and lies in the plane
rI = 0.0
else:
rI = a / b
if rI < 0.0:
return 0
w = p0 + rI * (p1 - p0) - v0
denom = np.inner(u, v) * np.inner(u, v) - \
np.inner(u, u) * np.inner(v, v)
si = (np.inner(u, v) * np.inner(w, v) - \
np.inner(v, v) * np.inner(w, u)) / denom
if (si < 0.0) | (si > 1.0):
return 0
ti = (np.inner(u, v) * np.inner(w, u) - \
np.inner(u, u) * np.inner(w, v)) / denom
if (ti < 0.0) | (si + ti > 1.0):
return 0
if (rI == 0.0):
# point 0 lies ON the triangle. If checking for
# point inside polygon, return 2 so that the loop
# over triangles can stop, because it is on the
# polygon, thus inside.
return 2
return 1
def bounding_box_of_mesh(triangle):
return [np.min(triangle[:,0]), np.max(triangle[:,0]), np.min(triangle[:,1]), np.max(triangle[:,1]), np.min(triangle[:,2]), np.max(triangle[:,2])]
def boundingboxoftriangle(triangle,x,y,z):
localbox= [np.min(triangle[:,0]), np.max(triangle[:,0]), np.min(triangle[:,1]), np.max(triangle[:,1]), np.min(triangle[:,2]), np.max(triangle[:,2])]
#print 'local', localbox
for i in range(1,len(x)):
if (x[i-1] <= localbox[0] < x[i]):
x_min=i-1
if (x[i-1] < localbox[1] <= x[i]):
x_max=i
for i in range(1,len(y)):
if (y[i-1] <= localbox[2] < y[i]):
y_min=i-1
if (y[i-1] < localbox[3] <= y[i]):
y_max=i
for i in range(1,len(z)):
if (z[i-1] <= localbox[4] < z[i]):
z_min=i-1
if (z[i-1] < localbox[5] <= z[i]):
z_max=i
return [x_min, x_max, y_min, y_max, z_min, z_max]
spacing=5 # grid spacing
boundary=bounding_box_of_mesh(verts)
print boundary
x=np.arange(boundary[0]-2*spacing,boundary[1]+2*spacing,spacing)
y=np.arange(boundary[2]-2*spacing,boundary[3]+2*spacing,spacing)
z=np.arange(boundary[4]-2*spacing,boundary[5]+2*spacing,spacing)
Grid=np.zeros((len(x),len(y),len(z)),dtype=np.int)
print Grid.shape
data=verts[faces]
xarr=[]
yarr=[]
zarr=[]
# actual number of grid is very high so checking every grid is
# inside or outside is inefficient. So, I am looking for only
# those grid which is near to mesh boundary. This will reduce
#the time and later on internal grid can be interpolate easily.
for i in range(len(data)):
#print '\n', data[i]
AABB=boundingboxoftriangle(data[i],x,y,z) ## axis aligned bounding box
#print AABB
for gx in range(AABB[0],AABB[1]+1):
if gx not in xarr:
xarr.append(gx)
for gy in range(AABB[2],AABB[3]+1):
if gy not in yarr:
yarr.append(gy)
for gz in range(AABB[4],AABB[5]+1):
if gz not in zarr:
zarr.append(gz)
print len(xarr),len(yarr),len(zarr)
center=np.array([np.mean(verts[:,0]), np.mean(verts[:,1]), np.mean(verts[:,2])])
print center
fw=open('Grid_value_output_spacing__.dat','w')
p1=center #np.array([0,0,0])
for i in range(len(xarr)):
for j in range(len(yarr)):
for k in range(len(zarr)):
p0=np.array([x[xarr[i]],y[yarr[j]],z[zarr[k]]])
for go in range(len(data)):
value=ray_intersect_triangle(p0, p1, data[go])
if value>0:
Grid[i,j,k]=value
break
fw.write(str(xarr[i])+'\t'+str(yarr[j])+'\t'+str(zarr[k])+'\t'+str(x[xarr[i]])+'\t'+str(y[yarr[j]])+'\t'+str(z[zarr[k]])+'\t'+str(Grid[i,j,k])+'\n')
print i
fw.close()
#If the grid value is greater than 0 then it is inside the triangulated mesh.
#I am writing the value of only confusing grid near boundary.
#Deeper inside grid of mesh can be interpolate easily with above information.
#If grid spacing is very small then generating random points inside the
#mesh is equivalent to choosing the random grid.

how to generate new points as offset with gaussian distribution for some points in spherical coordinates in python

I am working with some points in spherical coordinates. I need to generate new points as the error points for them and a kind of offset for the old points.
The new point should be in a specific distance from the old one which distributing by gaussian distribution. The angle of new point compared to old one is not important.I am trying to generate new points for r direction. no matter what are phi and theta (Spherical coordinates)
To generate the new point distributing by gaussian function, I tried the numpy.rand.normal(mean,std,..). But It is generating 1D random points over mean value and this mean value is a real number. In my case I need an approach to specify the position of the old point and I have one given standard deviation for this distance from the original points.
Honesty, I dont have a copy of my code. It is on the university's server. But let's assume I have an array of size 100*3 including the spherical (or cartesian) coordinates of some points on a surface of a cylinder. In spherical case, the first column presents the radius value, the second column is theta and third one shows the phi for the points. now I want to generate random points from them using gaussian distribution. there is a given standard deviation for the gaussian distribution. The only important thing is that the new points generated by gaussian distribution are limited in r value. No matter the position of points in term of theta and phi.
When I tried numpy.rand.normal(mean,std,..), this generate some random points over the mean value. It does not help me. I want new points over my old ones with the given STD.
any idea would be appreciated.
This is a code, similar to mine written By Ophion How to generate regular points on cylindrical surface
def make_cylinder(radius, length, nlength, alpha, nalpha, center, orientation):
#Create the length array
I = np.linspace(0, length, nlength)
#Create alpha array avoid duplication of endpoints
#Conditional should be changed to meet your requirements
if int(alpha) == 360:
A = np.linspace(0, alpha, num=nalpha, endpoint=False)/180*np.pi
else:
A = np.linspace(0, alpha, num=nalpha)/180*np.pi
#Calculate X and Y
X = radius * np.cos(A)
Y = radius * np.sin(A)
#Tile/repeat indices so all unique pairs are present
pz = np.tile(I, nalpha)
px = np.repeat(X, nlength)
py = np.repeat(Y, nlength)
points = np.vstack(( pz, px, py )).T
#Shift to center
shift = np.array(center) - np.mean(points, axis=0)
points += shift
#Orient tube to new vector
#Grabbed from an old unutbu answer
def rotation_matrix(axis,theta):
a = np.cos(theta/2)
b,c,d = -axis*np.sin(theta/2)
return np.array([[a*a+b*b-c*c-d*d, 2*(b*c-a*d), 2*(b*d+a*c)],
[2*(b*c+a*d), a*a+c*c-b*b-d*d, 2*(c*d-a*b)],
[2*(b*d-a*c), 2*(c*d+a*b), a*a+d*d-b*b-c*c]])
ovec = orientation / np.linalg.norm(orientation)
cylvec = np.array([1,0,0])
if np.allclose(cylvec, ovec):
return points
#Get orthogonal axis and rotation
oaxis = np.cross(ovec, cylvec)
rot = np.arccos(np.dot(ovec, cylvec))
R = rotation_matrix(oaxis, rot)
return points.dot(R)
now calling the function:
points = make_cylinder(3, 5, 5, 360, 10, [0,2,0], [1,0,0])
sigma = 0.5 # given STD
ossfet_points = numpy.random.normal(np.mean(point[:,0]), sigma, size=(n,3))

If I'm not mistaken, you want random points on a spherical manifold with a gaussian distribution of distances from the center. If so, then you have the latter problem solved by sampling gaussian values of the radius using numpy.rand.normal
To get random spherical points is a little bit more tricky, but here's some code to do it (and a description of the math behind it at Wolfram MathWorld):
import numpy as np
num_points = 500
U = np.random.random(num_points)
V = np.random.random(num_points)
import math as m
def spherical_to_cartesian(vec):
'''
Convert spherical polar coordinates to cartesian coordinates:
See the definition of spherical_cartesian_to_polar.
#param vec: A vector of the 3 polar coordinates (r, u, v)
#return: (x, y, z)
'''
(r, u, v) = vec
x = r * m.sin(u) * m.cos(v)
y = r * m.sin(u) * m.sin(v)
z = r * m.cos(u)
return [x, y, z]
radius = 1.
points = np.array([spherical_to_cartesian([radius, 2 * np.pi * u, np.arccos(2*v - 1)]) for u,v in zip(U,V)])
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
ax = Axes3D(fig)
ax.plot(points[:,0], points[:,1], points[:,2], 'o')
Which will give you points like this:
Now if you want them to have normally distributed radii, you just need to substitute your randomly generated values in the list comprehension which uses the variable radius like this:
radii = np.random.normal(10, 3, 100)
points = np.array([spherical_to_cartesian([r, 2 * np.pi * u, np.arccos(2*v - 1)]) for r,u,v in zip(radii, U,V)])
Is this more or less what you're looking for?