html5-img
1 / 40

Morphological Simplification

Morphological Simplification. Jason Williams and Jarek Rossignac GVU Center, IRIS Cluster, and College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology www.cc.gatech.edu/~jarek. Overarching objective. SIMPLIFICATION Understand what it means to simplify a shape or behavior

denis
Download Presentation

Morphological Simplification

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Morphological Simplification Jason Williams and Jarek Rossignac GVU Center, IRIS Cluster, and College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology www.cc.gatech.edu/~jarek

  2. Overarching objective SIMPLIFICATION Understand what it means to simplify a shape or behavior Develop explicit mathematical formalisms independently of any particular domain or representation not stated as the result of some algorithmic process Propose practical implementations MULTI-SCALE ANALYSIS Explore the possibility of analyzing the evolution of a shape or behavior, as it is increasingly simplified, so as to understand its morphological structure and identify/measure its features identify features of interior, boundary, exterior assess their resilience to simplification

  3. Complexity measures for 2D shapes Many measures of complexity are useful in different contexts: • Visibility: Convex, star… number of guards needed • Stabbing: Number of intersections with “random” ray • Wiggles: energy in high frequency Fourier coefficients • Algebraic: Polynomial degree of bounding curves • Fidelity: accuracy required (Hausdorff, area preservation) • Processing: Number of bounding elements • Transmission: compressed file size • Fractal: Fractal dimension • Kolmogorov: Length of data and program We focus primarily on morphological ones: • Sharpness: curvature statistics • Smallest feature size: distance between non adjacent parts of boundary • Topological: Number of components and holes • Non-roundness: perimeter2 /Area

  4. What do we simplify and how much? Simplification replaces a shape by a simpler one • What do we mean by “simpler”? • Informally, we want to • Remove details • Reduce sharpness and wiggles • Eliminate small components and holes • Hence increase the smallest feature size • Shorten (tighten) the perimeter • While minimizing local changes indensity • Ratio of interior points per square unit • How much do we want to simplify • We want to be able to use a geometric measure, r, to specify which of the details should be simplified and how • What does the measure mean? What is the size of a detail?

  5. Restricting simplification to a tolerance zone • We want to restrict all changes to the envelop: tight zone around the boundary bS of the shape S • the yellow fat curve, is the offset (bS)r f bS by r • We further restrict all changes to the Mortar • the green region, is the mortar Mr(bS)=(bSr)r of S • We explain why in the next few slides Mortar Envelop

  6. We need a vocabulary To discuss and to measure simplicity, we need precise terms • We will use three different measures • Smothness (value defined using Differential Geometry) • Regularity (value defined using Morphology) • Mortar (area near the details defined using Morphology) • We want to be able to: • Measure smoothness at every point of the boundary of the shape • Measure regularity at every point in space • Measure the global regularity and smoothness of the whole shape • Define and compute the Mortar for the desired tolerance • Simplify the shape in the Mortar: increasing its regularity & smoothness • A boundary point may be r-smooth or not, r-regular or not

  7. not r-smooth r-smooth r: B A C r-smoothness • A shape S is r-smooth if the curvature of every point B in its boundary bS exceeds r • How to check for r-smoothness at B? • For C2 curves: compare radius of curvature to r • For polygons: estimate radius of curvature • R=v2/(av)z , where v=AC/2 and a=BC–AB • A point may be r-smooth, but not r-regular

  8. Original L is not r-regular Removing the red and adding the green makes it r-regular This shape is r-smooth, but not r-regular r-regularity • A shape S is r-regular if S=Fr(S)=Rr(S) • Fr(S) = Srr, r-Fillet (closing) = area not reachable by r-disks out of S • Rr(S)= Srr, r-Rounding (opening) = area reachable by r-disks in S • Each point of bS can be approached by a disk(r) in S and by oneout of S

  9. Properties of r-regular shapes • Boundary is resilient to thickening by r • bS can be recovered from its rendering as a curve of thickness 2r • One-to-one mapping from boundary to its two offsets by r • The boundary of Sr (resp. Sr) may be obtained by offsetting each point of bS along the outward (resp. inward) normal. No need to trim. • r-regularity implies r-smoothness

  10. When is a point of bS smooth, regular? • How to check for r-regularity at B? • Check whether offset points is at distance r from bS • Dist(B±rN,bS)<r ? • Want a set-theoretic definition? • B is r-regular if it does not lie in the mortar Mr(S) • The mortar is the set of all points that are not r-regular • It is defined in the next slide

  11. Anticore =Fr(S) Mortar (definition) Original set S Fillet: Fr(S) Adds the green Rounding: Rr(S) Removes the red Mortar: Mr(S) = Fr(S) – Rr(S) Core = Rr(S) The plane is divided into core, mortar, and aniticore

  12. Example of Mortar Core Original shape Mortar

  13. Properties of the mortar • All points of the mortar are closer than r to the boundary bS • Restricting the effect of simplification to the mortar will ensure that we do not modify the shape in places far from its boundary • The mortar excludes r-regular regions • Restricting the effect of simplification to the mortar will ensure that regular portions of the boundary are not affected by simplification S Mr(S) M2r(S)

  14. The mortar is the fillet of the boundary • Theorem: Mr(S) is the topological interior of Fr(bS) • Remove lower-dimensional (dangling) portions Mr(S) S i(Fr(bS)) bS

  15. Mr(S) = Fr(S) – Rr(S) Core = Rr(S) Using the Mortar to decompose bS Given r, the regular segments of S are defined as the connected components of r-regular points of bS. • Th1: Regular segment = connected component of bS–Mr(S) • Places where the core and anticore touch • Th2: Irregular segment = connected component of bSMr(S) • Note that irregular points may still be r-smooth Regular segments

  16. Mortar for multi-resolution analysis of space Mr(S) M2r(S) Regularity of a feature indicates its “thickness”

  17. Analyzing the regularity of space • The regularity of a point B with respect to a set S is defined as the minimum r for which B  Mr(S) • Points close to sharp features or constrictions are less regular • Different from signed distance field

  18. Morphological Simplifications • Fillet (closing) fills in creases and concave corners • Rounding (opening) removes convex corners and branches • Fillet and rounding operations may be combined to produce more symmetric filters that tend to smoothen both concave and convex features • Fr(Rr(S)) and Rr(Fr(S)) combinations tend to: • Simplify topology: Eliminate small holes and components • Smoothen the shape almost everywhere • Regularize almost everywhere • Increase roundness (by reducingperimeter) • However they • Do not guarantee r-regularity or r-smoothness • Tend to increase or to decrease the density Neither Fr(Rr(S)) nor Rr(Fr(S)) will make this set r-regular

  19. S R2r(S) F2r(S) Fr(S) Rr(S) F2r(R2r(S)) Rr(Fr(S)) R2r(F2r(S)) Fr(Rr(S)) Rounding and filleting combos

  20. Which is better: FR or RF? Removed by rounding S Fr(S) Rr(S) Which option is better? The one that best preserves average density Fr(Rr(S)) Rr(Fr(S))

  21. The Mason filter • We don’t have to make a global choice of FR versus RF • Do it independently for each component of the mortar • The Mason algorithm For each connected segment M of Mr(S) replace MS by MFr(Rr(S)) or by M Rr(Fr(S)), whichever best preservesthe shape i.e., minimizes area of the symmetric difference between original and result “Mason: Morphological Simplification", J Williams, A Powell, and J Rossignac. GVU Tech. Report GIT-GVU-04-05. http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/~jarek/papers.html • Mason preserves density (average area) better than a global Fr(Rr(S))or Rr(Fr(S)), but does not guarantee smoothness nor minimality of perimeter

  22. Mason in Granada S Mortar Mr(S): removed&added Fr(Rr(S)) Mason Rr(Fr(S))

  23. Rr (Fr (S)) Fr (Rr (S)) Mason Mason on a simple shape S

  24. 3D Mason in China

  25. Can we improve on Mason? • Want to ensure r-smoothness • Want to minimize perimeter • Willing to give up some r-regularity • Willing to give up some density preservation • Formulate the solution using a Tight Hull… next slide

  26. Tight Hulls • The tight hull, TH(R,F), of a set R inside a set F is the set H that has the smallest perimeter and satisfies RHF • Extends the idea of a convex hull, CH(R), which may be defined in 2D as the simply connected set that contains R and has smallest perimeter. Hence, CH(R)=TH(R,F) where F is the whole plane. • bH is the shortest path around R in F F R

  27. Related prior art • O(n) algorithm exists based on the Visibility graph • “Euclidean shortest path in the presence of rectilinear barriers”, D.T. Lee and . P. Preparata, Netwirks, 14:393-410, 1984 • “Shortest paths and networks” Joe Mitchell, in Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry, Page 610, 2004. • “Shortest Paths in the Plane with Polygonal Obstacles" J Storer and J Reif • Relative convex hull • Jack Sklansky and Dennis F. Kibler. A theory of nonuniformly digitized binary pictures. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-6(9):637-647, 1976. • http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~stever/pattern/MPP/node7.html#SECTION00041000000000000000 • Minimal Perimeter Polygon • Steven M. Robbin, April 97 • http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~stever/pattern/MPP/talk.html

  28. F R Properties of tight hulls • Let H= TH(R,F) • bH contains the portions of bR that are on the convex hull of R • bRbCH(R)  bH • bH is made of some convex portions of bR and of some concave portions of bF joined by short-cuts (straight edges) • Edge (A,B) is a short-cut if A is a silhouette point for B and vice versa.

  29. Computing tight hulls for polygons • Start with CH(R), the convex hull of R • Identify each edge (A,B) of CH(R) that is not on bR and that crosses bF • Compute shortest path from A to B in F–R

  30. Computing tight hulls for smooth shapes • Shortest path • Reasonably easy for shapes bounded by lines and circular arcs. • Track minimum distance field backwards • Propagate constrained distance field from A • Walk back from B along the gradient until you reach A • Constrained curvature flow • Iterative smoothing (contraction) of boundary of Fr(S) while preventing penetration in Rr(S) and in the complement of Fr(S) • Morphological shaving (for discrete representations) • Grow core by adding to it straight line segments of contiguous mortar pixels that start and end at a core pixel

  31. Tightening • The tightening of a shape S is: Tr(S) = TH(Rr(S),Fr(S)) • “Tightening: Perimeter-reducing, curvature-limiting morphological simplification", Jason Williams and Jarek Rossignac. In preparation. S

  32. Example of tightening

  33. Topological choices of tightening Invalid ? Invalid ?

  34. Properties of tightenings • bTr(S) is r-smooth • Tr(S) may have irregular parts

  35. The road-tightening problem • By law, the state must own all land located at a distance less or equal to r from a state road. • The states owns an old road C and wants to make it r-smooth so it becomes a highway. • Can it do so without purchasing any new land? • For simplicity, assume first that C is a manifold closed loop.

  36. 3D tightening

  37. The road-tightening solution • Let S be the area enclosed by C. • The new road will be bTr(S). • With some restrictions on C, we can extend this result to open road segments.

  38. Comparisons simplified shapes R(F(S)) F(R(S)) mason tightening

  39. FR, RF, mason, tightening red = R(F(S)) cyan = Mortar Blue = Tightening brown = Mason Yellow = Core Green = F(R(S))

  40. Summary and future work • We propose to measure simplicity by regularity and smoothness • Defining regularity for all points of space will support a multi-resolution analysis of shape (interior, boundary, exterior) • We restrict simplifications to the mortar, ensuring that regular areas are preserved • Mason improves on FR and RF combos by better preserving density • Tightening improves on Mason by minimizing perimeter and guaranteeing r-smoothness • We have applied it to the tightening of curves • Future plans • Multi-resolution shape analysis and segmentation using regularity • Higher dimensions: surfaces, volumes, animations

More Related