We Keep Coding

Python - How to resample a 2D shape?

I am writing a python script for some geometrical data manipulation (calculating motion trajectories for a multi-drive industrial machine). Generally, the idea is that there is a given shape (let's say - an ellipse, but it general case it can be any convex shape, defined with a series of 2D points), which is rotated and it's uppermost tangent point must be followed. I don't have a problem with the latter part but I need a little hint with the 2D shape preparation.
Let's say that the ellipse was defined with too little points, for example - 25. (As I said, ultimately this can be any shape, for example a rounded hexagon). To maintain necessary precision I need far more points (let's say - 1000), preferably equally distributed over whole shape or with higher density of points near corners, sharp curves, etc.
I have a few things ringing in my head, I guess that DFT (FFT) would be a good starting point for this resampling, analyzing the scipy.signal.resample() I have found out that there are far more functions in the scipy.signal package which sound promising to me...
What I'm asking for is a suggestion which way I should follow, what tool I should try for this job, which may be the most suitable. Maybe there is a tool meant exactly for what I'm looking for or maybe I'm overthinking this and one of the implementations of FFT like resample() will work just fine (of course, after some adjustments at the starting and ending point of the shape to make sure it's closing without issues)?
Scipy.signal sounds promising, however, as far as I understand, it is meant to work with time series data, not geometrical data - I guess this may cause some problems as my data isn't a function (in a mathematical understanding).
Thanks and best regards!

As far as I understood, what you want is to get an interpolated version of your original data.
The DFT (or FFT) will not achieve this purpose, since it will perform an Fourier Transform (which is not what you want).
Talking theoretically, what you need to interpolate your data is to define a function to calculate the result in the new-data-points.
So, let's say your data contains 5 points, in which one you have a 1D (to simplify) number stored, representing your data, and you want a new array with 10 points, filled with the linear-interpolation of your original data.
Using numpy.interp:
import numpy as np
original_data = [2, 0, 3, 5, 1] # define your data in 1D
new_data_resolution = 0.5 # define new sampling distance (i.e, your x-axis resolution)
interp_data = np.interp(
x = np.arange(0, 5-1+new_data_resolution , new_data_resolution), # new sampling points (new axis)
xp = range(original_data),
fp = original_data
)
# now interp_data contains (5-1) / 0.5 + 1 = 9 points
After this, you will have a (5-1) / new_resolution (which is greater than 5, since new_resolution < 1)-length data, which values will be (in this case) a linear interpolation of your original data.
After you have achieved/understood this example, you can dive in the scipy.interpolate module to get a better understanding in the interpolation functions (my example uses a linear function to get the data in the missing points).
Applying this to n-D dimensional arrays is straight-forward, iterating over each dimension of your data.

How to calculate the average/best Rotation between two coordinate systems?

Through a sensor I get the rotation between points in coordinate system A to points in coordinate system B. The measured rotations between the coordinate systems are not 100% identical due to the noise of the sensor.
How can I determine the average or optimal rotation matrix between the coordinate systems? Similar to this problem: stackoverflow: Averaging Quatenion, but contrary to that I do not want to use Quaternions, but try some least square approach.
Given: Rba(n): Rotation matrix from a to b, measured at n different time points
Wanted: Rba optimal
My approach: Minimization of the squared distance.
First I define n random points in space and apply the rotations to these points.
And now I can calculate the rotation by means of the Krabsch algorithm using singular value decomposition to minimize the square distance between the input points and the transformed points.
However, what I don't understand is that the calculated rotation matrix seems to be dependent on the input points. That is, I get different rotation matrices as a result for different input points, although the applied rotation matrices Rba(n) remain the same.
Why is that? And what is the right way?

scipy.stats.wasserstein_distance implementation

I am trying to understand the implementation that is used in
scipy.stats.wasserstein_distance
for p=1 and no weights, with u_values, v_values the two 1-D distributions, the code comes down to
u_sorter = np.argsort(u_values) (1)
v_sorter = np.argsort(v_values)
all_values = np.concatenate((u_values, v_values)) (2)
all_values.sort(kind='mergesort')
deltas = np.diff(all_values) (3)
u_cdf_indices = u_values[u_sorter].searchsorted(all_values[:-1], 'right') (4)
v_cdf_indices = v_values[v_sorter].searchsorted(all_values[:-1], 'right')
v_cdf = v_cdf_indices / v_values.size (5)
u_cdf = u_cdf_indices / u_values.size
return np.sum(np.multiply(np.abs(u_cdf - v_cdf), deltas)) (6)
What is the reasoning behind this implementation, is there some literature?
I did look at the paper cited which I believe explains why calculating the Wasserstein distance in its general definition in 1D is equivalent to evaluating the integral,
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |U-V|,
with U and V the cumulative distribution functions for the distributions u_values and v_values,
but I don't understand how this integral is evaluated in scipy implementation.
In particular,
a) why are they multiplying by the deltas in (6) to solve the integral?
b) how are v_cdf and u_cdf in (5) the cumulative distribution functions U and V?
Also, with this implementation the element order of the distribution u_values and v_values is not preserved. Shouldn't this be the case in the general Wasserstein distance definition?
Thank you for your help!

The order of the PDF, histogram or KDE is preserved and is important in Wasserstein distance. If you only pass the u_values and v_values then it has to calculate something like a PDF, KDE or histogram. Normally you would provide the PDF and the range of U and V as the 4 arguments to the function wasserstein_distance. So in the case where samples are provided you are not passing a real datapoint, simply a collection of repeated "experiments". Numbers 1 and 4 in your list of code blocks basically bins your data by the number of discrete values. A CDF is the number of discrete values until that point or P(x<X). The CDF is basically the cumulative sum of a PDF, histogram or KDE. Number 5 does the normalization of the CDF to between 0.0 and 1.0 or said another way it divides the bin by the number of bins.
So the order of the discrete values is preserved, not the original order in the datapoint.
B) It may make more sense if you plot the CDF's of a datapoint such as an image file by using the code above.
The transportation problem however may not need a PDF, but rather a datapoint of ordered features or some way to measure distance between features in which case you would calculate it differently.

Estimation of fundamental matrix or essential matrix from feature matching

I am estimating the fundamental matrix and the essential matrix by using the inbuilt functions in opencv.I provide input points to the function by using ORB and brute force matcher.These are the problems that i am facing:
1.The essential matrix that i compute from in built function does not match with the one i find from mathematical computation using fundamental matrix as E=k.t()FK.
2.As i vary the number of points used to compute F and E,the values of F and E are constantly changing.The function uses Ransac method.How do i know which value is the correct one??
3.I am also using an inbuilt function to decompose E and find the correct R and T from the 4 possible solutions.The value of R and T also change with the changing E.More concerning is the fact that the direction vector T changes without a pattern.Say it was in X direction at a value of E,if i change the value of E ,it changes to Y or Z.Y is this happening????.Has anyone else had the same problem.???
How do i resolve this problem.My project involves taking measurements of objects from images.
Any suggestions or help would be welcome!!

Both F and E are defined up to a scale factor. It may help to normalize the matrices, e. g. by dividing by the last element.
RANSAC is a randomized algorithm, so you will get a different result every time. You can test how much it varies by triangulating the points, or by computing the reprojection errors. If the results vary too much, you may want to increase the number of RANSAC trials or decrease the distance threshold, to make sure that RANSAC converges to the correct solution.

Yes, Computing Fundamental Matrix gives a different matrix every time as it is defined up to a scale factor.
It is a Rank 2 matrix with 7DOF(3 rot, 3 trans, 1 scaling).
The fundamental matrix is a 3X3 matrix, F33(3rd col and 3rd row) is scale factor.
You make ask why do we append matrix with constant at F33, Because of (X-Left)F(x-Right)=0, This is a homogenous equation with infinite solutions, we are adding a constraint by making F33 constant.

Sign on results of fft

I am attempting to calculate the MTF from a test target. I calculate the spread function easily enough, but the FFT results do not quite make sense to me. To summarize,the values seem to alternate giving me a reflection of what I would expect. To test, I used a simple square wave and numpy:
from numpy import fft
data = []
for x in range (0, 20):
data.append(0)
data[9] = 10
data[10] = 10
data[11] = 10
dataFFT = fft.fft(data)
The results look correct, with the exception of the sign... I am seeing the following for the first 4 values as an example:
30.00000000 +0.00000000e+00j
-29.02113033 +7.10542736e-15j
26.18033989 -1.24344979e-14j
-21.75570505 +1.24344979e-14j
So my question is why positive->negative->positive->negative in the real plane? This is not what I would expect... It I plot it, it almost appears that the correct function is mirrored around the x axis.
Note: I was expecting the following as an example:
This is what I am getting:

Your pulse is symmetric and positioned in the center of your FFT window (around N/2). Symmetric real data corresponds to only the cosine or "real" components of an FFT result. Note that the cosine function alternates between being -1 and 1 at the center of the FFT window, depending on the frequency bin index (representing cosine periods per FFT width). So the correlation of these FFT basis functions with a positive going pulse will also alternate as long as the pulse is narrower than half the cosine period.
If you want the largest FFT coefficients to be mostly positive, try centering your narrow rectangular pulse around time 0 (or circularly, time N), where the cosine function is always 1 for any frequency.

It works if you shift the data around 0 instead of half your array, with:
dataFFT = fft.fft(np.fftshift(data))

This isn't all that unexpected. If you want to check against conventional plots, make sure you convert that info to magnitude and phase before coming to any conclusions.
I did a quick check using your code and numpy.abs for mag, numpy,angle for phase. It sure looks like a sinc() function to me, which is what would be expected if the time-domain is a square pulse. If you do this, you'll find a pretty wide sinc, as would be expeceted for a short duration pulse on so few samples.

you forget to specify if your data is Real or Complex
not everyone code in python/numpy (including me) and if you do not know this then you probably handle data to/from FFT the wrong way.
FFT input can be both real or complex domain
FFT output is complex domain
so check the docs for your FFT implementation and specify it and also repair your data handling accordingly. Complex domain usually have first value Re and Second Im but that depends on FFT implementation/configuration.
signal
here is an example of impulse response from FFT
first is input Real domain signal (Im=0) single finite nonzero width pulse and second is the Re part of FFT output. The third is the Im part of FFT output. If you zoom it a bit then you will see amplitude range of y axis of each signal (on left).
Do not forget that different FFT implementations can have different normalization constants which will change the amplitude of signal. If you want magnitude and phase convert it like this:
mag=sqrt(Re*Re+Im*Im); // power
ang=atanxy(Re,Im); // phase angle
atanxy(dx,dy) is 4 quadrant arctan also called atan2 but be careful to get the operand order the same as your atanxy/atan2 implementation needs. Also can use mine C++ atanxy implementation
[Notes]
if your input signal is Real domain then FFT output is symmetric. Both Re and Im signals will be like:
{ a0,a1,a2,a3,...,a(n-1),a(n-1)...,a3,a2,a1,a0 }
exactly like on the image above. On the left are low frequencies and in the middle is the top frequency. If your input signal is Complex domain then the output can be anything.