98

I'm working on a project using Chrome - JS and WebKit 3D CSS3 transform matrix. The final goal is to create a tool for artistic projects using projectors and animation - somewhat far away from using maths...

I'm using a projector to project several squares over several shapes - as seen in the picture. What I would like to do is for the user to draw $4$ points on the screen (2D $x$ and $y$) and from there extract a matrix object that I could apply to a regular DIV element of a dimension of 100px by 100px. By finding scaleX, scaleY, rotation, rotationX, rotationZ and probably some perspective that I could apply to the div to relatively match the surface. I'm not really familiar with geometry beyond $\sin$ and $\cos$, and 3D in general and don't even know if that is something doable. If anyone could help me get started or point me in the right direction, I would greatly appreciate.

Here is an animated GIF (click to enlarge), hoping it makes it more clear to understand.

http://www.michael-iriarte.com/code/duncan.gif

mika
  • 1,003
  • As far as I can tell, you can do this with a transformation matrix only if the 4 points form a parallelogram. Are we allowed to make that assumption? – Peter Olson Feb 07 '13 at 01:47
  • I'm not sure what I'm gonna say is correct but wouldn't perspective(depth) break that assumption? – mika Feb 07 '13 at 01:48
  • BTW my work-in-progress project can be seen here http://michael-iriarte.com/code/projections/ (Webkit Only) – mika Feb 07 '13 at 01:52
  • Also the matrix I refer to is the webkit css 3D matrix - for example: -webkit-transform: matrix3d(0.59168, -0.23859, -0.76604, 0, 0.73058, 0.54033, 0.37782, 0, 0.34081, -0.74405, 0.52002, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1); – mika Feb 07 '13 at 01:57
  • 2
    @PeterOlson The transformation matrix is acting on 4D homogeneous coordinates (real projective space), so perspective transforms should be possible, no? – Erick Wong Feb 07 '13 at 02:04
  • @ErickWong Ah, I assumed it was just a simple 2x2 transformation matrix. – Peter Olson Feb 07 '13 at 02:05
  • 1
    @mika If it's possible to directly modify the matrix3d property, it might be easier to calculate the matrix than to extract the individual scaleX, scaleY, etc. Would this be acceptable? – Erick Wong Feb 07 '13 at 02:08
  • @ErickWong Yes if you use the following JS in the console: MEDIA_BOXES.$selected.find('.content').get(0)._gsTransform You will get a extracted object from that matrix with the following properties of the Object: perspective: 0 rotation: -0.4014257279586958 rotationX: 0.6283185307179586 rotationY: 0.8726646259971648 scaleX: 1 scaleY: 0.95 scaleZ: 1 skewX: 0 skewY: 0 x: 0 y: 0 z: 0 zOrigin: 0 So either way would work. – mika Feb 07 '13 at 02:23
  • in the mean time working on other questions to get you guys some bounty points :-) – mika Feb 08 '13 at 03:30
  • 1
    For anyone else finding this years later, I tried many different JS libraries before finally finding one that worked: https://www.npmjs.com/package/simple-homography (yes, with 0 weekly downloads) – Steve Bennett Aug 01 '23 at 23:32
  • @mika Do you agree with my edits? Is it rotationX or rotateX? – Rodrigo de Azevedo Dec 28 '23 at 23:23

4 Answers4

139

Computing a projective transformation

A projective transformation of the (projective) plane is uniquely defined by four projected points, unless three of them are collinear. Here is how you can obtain the $3\times 3$ transformation matrix of the projective transformation.

Step 1: Starting with the 4 positions in the source image, named $(x_1,y_1)$ through $(x_4,y_4)$, you solve the following system of linear equations:

$$\begin{pmatrix} x_1 & x_2 & x_3 \\ y_1 & y_2 & y_3 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\cdot \begin{pmatrix}\lambda\\\mu\\\tau\end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix}x_4\\y_4\\1\end{pmatrix}$$

The colums form homogenous coordinates: one dimension more, created by adding a $1$ as the last entry. In subsequent steps, multiples of these vectors will be used to denote the same points. See the last step for an example of how to turn these back into two-dimensional coordinates.

Step 2: Scale the columns by the coefficients you just computed:

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{lll} \lambda\cdot x_1 & \mu\cdot x_2 & \tau\cdot x_3 \\ \lambda\cdot y_1 & \mu\cdot y_2 & \tau\cdot y_3 \\ \lambda & \mu & \tau \end{array}\right)$$

This matrix will map $(1,0,0)$ to a multiple of $(x_1,y_1,1)$, $(0,1,0)$ to a multiple of $(x_2,y_2,1)$, $(0,0,1)$ to a multiple of $(x_3,y_3,1)$ and $(1,1,1)$ to $(x_4,y_4,1)$. So it will map these four special vectors (called basis vectors in subsequent explanations) to the specified positions in the image.

Step 3: Repeat steps 1 and 2 for the corresponding positions in the destination image, in order to obtain a second matrix called $B$.

This is a map from basis vectors to destination positions.

Step 4: Invert $A$ to obtain $A^{-1}$ (or use the adjugate as discussed below).

$A$ maps from basis vectors to the source positions, so the inverse matrix maps in the reverse direction.

Step 5: Compute the combined Matrix $C = B\cdot A^{-1}$.

$A^{-1}$ maps from source positions to basis vectors, while $B$ maps from there to destination positions. So the combination maps source positions to destination positions. This is the matrix of the transformation you were requesting.

Step 6: To map a location $(x,y)$ from the source image to its corresponding location in the destination image, compute the product

$$\begin{pmatrix}x'\\y'\\z'\end{pmatrix} = C\cdot\begin{pmatrix}x\\y\\1\end{pmatrix}$$

These are the homogenous coordinates of your transformed point.

Step 7: Compute the position in the destination image like this:

\begin{align*} x'' &= \frac{x'}{z'} \\ y'' &= \frac{y'}{z'} \end{align*}

This is called dehomogenization of the coordinate vector.

How to use this projective transformation with CSS

In general such a transformation will not be an affine transformation, so you cannot express this in terms of affine transformations like scaling, rotating and shearing, since these cannot express perspectivity. You might however try to simply set the first two entries of the last row to zero, so you get an affine transformation which might be close enough to your desired transformation.

If on the other hand you can use a matrix3d transformation, then you can take the 2D projective transformation matrix $C$ computed as described above, and use its entries to build a 3D projective transformation matrix like this:

$$\begin{pmatrix} C_{1,1} & C_{1,2} & 0 & C_{1,3} \\ C_{2,1} & C_{2,2} & 0 & C_{2,3} \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ C_{3,1} & C_{3,2} & 0 & C_{3,3} \end{pmatrix}$$

This transformation will transform $x$ and $y$ coordinate as above, but leave the $z$ coordinates of the homogenous coordinate vectors alone. Dehomogenization might still change the value of the $z$ coordinate in space, but as you don't really care about these, this should be good enough.

I've written a proof-of-concept implementation. The user interface is pretty crude, but the math works well enough. The implementation there uses the adjugate matrix instead of the inverse, both in solving the linear equations in step 1 and for the reverse transform in step 4. The result differs only by a scalar factor, which is irrelevant for homogenous coordinates. The benefit is that this avoids computing a bunch of determinants and performing a bunch of divisions.

If you wanted to, you could play the same game for five points in 3D space, in order to compute the full spatial projective transformation matrix. But that only makes sense if you actually have depth, sice no four of the five points may be coplanar.

MvG
  • 42,596
  • 4
    This answer is based on a similar post on SO, although the math formating here is a big bonus. This Math Stackexchange post shows another interesting application of determining transformation matrices in this way. It really is a powerful operation. – MvG Mar 23 '13 at 19:45
  • 2
    *Wow this is really working nicely!* Thanks so much for the help, this is really great! I will keep you posted on my project progress. Thanks again for your time! – mika Mar 25 '13 at 17:45
  • 1
    Very, very helpful explanation. I got stuck for a bit in my implementation, because I didn't see the transform-origin: 0 0; in the css, so things were weird. But it works now! http://www.flickr.com/photos/forresto/8759741112/ – forresto May 20 '13 at 22:06
  • 6
    I think this is one of the best answers I've encountered on StackExchange. The math formatting and the explanations are priceless, worked as a charm. Thanks a lot! – MeLight Oct 18 '13 at 22:53
  • 2
    I just learned that robjohn wrote a similar answer prior to the above post, and although I prefer my own answer, some readers might gain insight from comparing it with that answer as well. – MvG Apr 05 '14 at 19:47
  • I finally started writing a jQuery plugin, you can follow or contribute here if interested link – mika Jul 03 '14 at 15:00
  • @mika: Thanks for notifying me of this project. But please keep in mind that content on Stack Exchange is licensed CC-By-SA. So please credit my code to me, and add a suitable license information to your project. An even better solution would have been using the distinction between author and committer in git, but I guess retrofitting that into the history would be a hell of a lot of work. – MvG Jul 03 '14 at 15:18
  • What's overflow: clip? – yckart Apr 16 '16 at 23:57
  • Thank you Mar, theat was really interesting. But I see here a glitch. As you mentioned, (1,0,0) is mapped not to (x1,y1,1), but to a multiple of it, precisely (λx1, λy1, λ), (0,1,0) is converted to (μx2,μy2,μ), (0,0,1) to (τx3,τy3,τ) and only (1,1,1) is mapped exactly to (x4,y4,1). For matrix B the values of λ, μ and τ will be different, therefore matrices A and B map to different sets vectors. As a result, B⋅A−1 might be not what we are really looking for, unless the tuples (λ, μ, τ) are close to each other for A and B. – cyanide Nov 28 '16 at 04:58
  • Sorry for intrusion, MvG, it's all right. This is what the dehomogenization is for. If (λ, μ, τ) are same, mapping is affine. For a better affine transform in general case, instead of just dropping the last line, it may be better to find (λ, μ, τ) for source and target points, then use the average values ((λ1+λ2)*0.5 etc) for both matrices A and B. BTW, Android Matrix function setPolyToPoly creates a matrix for mapping up to 4 points and manual doesn't mention any approximation! Works for me! Unfortunately the source is burried inside the native code. – cyanide Nov 28 '16 at 06:20
  • This is a great, clear answer! I just followed this calculation through by hand to check I understood it, and after correcting a silly matrix multiplication mistake, it worked perfectly. – Chris Jan 11 '18 at 15:32
  • 1
    The symbolic expression of matrices $A^{-1}$ and $B$ is not so complicated, you can find them here. – mmj Jan 04 '19 at 12:36
  • Very interesting. A little remark : the link to "matrix3d" is broken ; it should be replaced by https://www.w3.org/TR/css-transforms-1/. – Jean Marie Feb 26 '19 at 22:32
  • @JeanMarie: CSS transforms version 1 doesn't seem to have that function. The link still works, you just have to minimize the warning that the doc is outdated. The correct replacement at the moment would be https://drafts.csswg.org/css-transforms-2/#funcdef-matrix3d but since this link does not refer to a specific version of the draft, it may become even more dead over time. MDN would be another document I could reference. I guess I'll do that, and hope it remains valid reasonably long. Thanks for the heads up. – MvG Feb 28 '19 at 21:45
  • I had thought projective geometry had been unpopular for long and few people would use it, but I didn't expect to have young and powerful experts. – user106688 Feb 05 '20 at 03:28
  • 1
    This algorithm is very compact and highly efficient. I was using OpenCV's getPerspectiveTransform to do such calculation, it cost more than 10ms on an embedded chip. After porting your JS code to C, it now cost less than 1ms. – Quotation Jun 18 '20 at 02:23
  • The answer could not be clearer. Here is a JS implementation at GitHub (https://github.com/Ra-Na/Projective-Transform-PHP-JS) and in action (https://trapez.gluege.boerde.de/) – Rainer Glüge Jun 18 '21 at 10:49
  • This has been very helpful in resolving the problem I posed here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4339236/how-to-tranform-a-square-ish-tile-into-an-arbitrary-quadrilateral. I wonder if there is a version of this in complex coordinates. – Cye Waldman Dec 22 '21 at 22:43
  • Does the jsfiddle still work? It just shows a white area for me (chrome 114.0.5735.133 on linux) – Don Hatch Jun 21 '23 at 20:18
  • @DonHatch: Seems something changed on the JSFiddle page layout. For some reason the html and body tag was at height 0, clipping everything I put into it. http://jsfiddle.net/zbh98nLv/ should be better. Thanks for the comment. – MvG Jun 22 '23 at 14:40
  • Now that I can see it-- wow, nice demo! I wonder if it is demonstrating a bug in the rendering engine, though-- if I exchange TL and TR, the red-bordered div of text should end up in two pieces-- but only the top piece (above TR and TL) is shown; the bottom piece (that should be below BL and BR) is missing. – Don Hatch Jun 22 '23 at 22:08
  • This is the only place I've found a coherent explanation of the maths involved, and with such a useful implementation demo too! – Laurengineer Jan 02 '24 at 11:47
  • Does this presuppose that you know 4 points for which you know both the source and destination coordinates? – user20672 Feb 04 '24 at 21:14
12

I am fairly certain there is no closed-form general solution for this problem, which leaves you with numerical approximations. One simplifying technique would be to eliminate perspective from your problem and imagine the four points your visitors draw to be the shadow cast by a light shining from infinity. You could then, basically, guess and check, using guesses of whatever sophistication you desire.

I've written a really rough demo of what I'm talking about containing some unsophisticated assumptions. Because it removes perspective, it doesn't precisely solve your question, but see if the results might be satisfactory.

The user enters four points onto an HTML canvas with his or her mouse. The script then tries to iteratively converge on a CSS transform of a square to match the shape.

I've linked to some sample output. On the left, the yellow quadrilateral is the original hand drawing, the greys are the successive approximations, and the red is the final estimate. On the right, you see a square div styled with the CSS transformation.

Script output screenshot

An obvious upgrade would be a better convergence function, perhaps using Newton's Method or something of its ilk, but I haven't taken the time to figure out the partial differential equations this would require.

(The code runs in-browser in synchronous Javascript, and locks the browser on my computer for between 5 and 20 seconds on average, so be careful.)

Glorfindel
  • 3,955
  • Wow i tested your demo on real projections and it really blew my mind! Unfortunately the parallelogram approach theoretically doesn't meet my objective at 100%. it is a really convincing answer but I'm a believer and still hope someone can come up with the perfect approach. Thank you so much for digging into it! – mika Feb 09 '13 at 04:57
  • 6
    There is a closed form, if you can use projective transformations. In case you are interested, see my answer. – MvG Mar 23 '13 at 22:22
7

This isn't my solution, just a link to what, for me, was the perfect solution:

http://franklinta.com/2014/09/08/computing-css-matrix3d-transforms/

The way it's made, you can paste the JS into the page you're working on and line up the points exactly how you want, then copy the CSS from the inspector.

As far as I can tell (which is only superficially), this does the same thing as MvG's JS Fiddle, but it's packaged in a way that was more useful to me. HTH!

LinusR
  • 171
  • 1
    This is perfect for a quick prototype and then the first answer for explanations. Thank you so much for this link – lesolorzanov Jan 22 '20 at 17:23
  • If I'm not mistaken, the method on that web page isn't as good as @MvG 's, since it constrains one of the coefficients to be 1; it will blow up if that coefficient is in fact 0 or close to it. MvG 's method doesn't seem to suffer from that problem, as far as I can see. – Don Hatch Jun 21 '23 at 11:32
1

I could be wrong, but I believe the transform should be a projective transformation of the plane; i.e. a Möbius transform.

Any Möbius transform is completely determined by three points; the wikipedia link should give you enough information to obtain the transform.

Since you are asking the user to provide four points, it is possible that he could provide an impossible set of points. Ideally, the distortion is minor, and a reasonable strategy might be to compute all four possible transforms (there are four ways of selecting corners) and averaging them.

Another possibility is to try and correct the four endpoints, finding a small perturbation that has cross ratio 2, which (if I've calculated correctly) is the cross ratio of the default square with vertices 0, 1, 1+i, i. (All transformations of squares should have the same cross ratio!) Then use the transformation corresponding to the corrected endpoints.

Or you could only allow them to select 3 endpoints and fill in the fourth endpoint for them, and allow the user to adjust the corners until he's happy.

azimut
  • 22,696
  • 4
    A Möbius transformation is a projective transformation of $\mathbb C\mathrm P^1$, not $\mathbb R\mathrm P^2$. Or in other words, Möbius transformations may map lines to circles and vice versa, whereas projective transformations of the real plane will preserve lines as lines, but may map circles to other conics. – MvG Mar 23 '13 at 22:19