do u know any techniques allowing to speed up 2d primitives such as lines and circles?
i develop application that allow to edit images containing such primitives. they can be moved and selected in the same way as windows desktop icons are (including group selection by rectangle). also objects that cursor is on are highlighted.
it seems that there are many display updated involved when mouse is used. so i need to do it smartly.
i know that:
changing GDI+ to D3D can speed up display greately
dirty rects allow to restrict updates to only those rectangles that changed. (major drawback is that rectangles containing lines can be as big as display area)
xor technique allow to clear primitive by drawing it second time. (drawback is that it seems to be useless with multicolor images and primitives with common points)
thanks for useful tips & links.
Take a look at Michael Abrash's Graphics Programming Black Book
Related
I want to render a custom display from an emulation. Think like a dot matrix display from pinball machines.
How would i effectively go about this? (Think about actually writing to a texture that size will probably run way too slow)
There has to be a good way to get this to render, but i have trouble finding a way that actually performs properly as well.
There are many options to do this but without further details (DMD screen resolution, number of colors, animated or not, etc) it's not easy to help. Here are a bunch of options popped into my mind, hope the one you are looking for is somewhere here :)
1) There was a similar question, you can find it along with the answer here
2) If you want to display text only, there's a wide range of sites offering DMD fonts for free, e.g. here
3) You can also edit/extend the font set you download and display 'special characters' as graphics, or just use the standard ASCII table for the purpose if that's enough for your needs. e.g. ▓ █ ╔ ═ ╗ and similar "drawing characters"
You can find inspiration and ASCII art (including animated ones) e.g. here
4) Might be slow (again, "depends") but you can go for bitmap and .SetPixels with a Texture2D and DrawTexture
5) A bit "hacky", but you can save your anim phases into either bitmap data/array (readonly/constant variables for example, or read from disc in a managed way, or draw with the help of a free asset from the store, like this one here, etc) and do Graphics.DrawTexture
6) If the thing you want to display is 100% static (i.e. it's not actual data like score, but "hardcoded" animations like "TILT" text or such), you can create a Sprite Animation
7) You can mix the above and e.g. go for a font (#2) to display dynamic data on a canvas, and play the static animation around it making it look like the whole thing is dynamic
Hm. That's all right off the top of my head :)
Hope this helps!
I am writing a geoscience visualization application that uses wpf 3d. The user needs to be able to zoom deep into detail and out quick with minimum resources taken. I've decided to divide my slice (ModelVisual3D) into subrectangles (GeometryModel3D), so that each has it's own texture that changes when the camera zooms in (similar to Google maps).
The problem is that "cracks" are appearing between subrectangles, even though they actually have no empty space between them.
How to hide these? or is there any other way to assign multiple materials with different sizes to one ModelVisual3D?
PS I've tried making the background gray, light-gray, silver and white-smoke. It helps a little, but it's not acceptable. I've also tried overlapping the subrectangles, with no result.
Instead of your current setup you might want to make several textures at different resolutions and switch between these depending on the zoom level. (Mipmaps)
When getting really close you might replace the entire object and switch it for a much smaller one) and use a highly detailed texture.
It will require a bit more pre-processing but you will be able to use a single geometry.
Seems like changing ImageBrush's stretch to Stretch.None and using textures larger than the subsquare helps. Although now I need more precise control over texture coordinates for the surface.
I have an image that is a depth heatmap that I've filtered out anything further away than the first 25% of the image.
It looks something like this:
There are two blobs of color in the image, one is my hand (with part of my face behind it), and the other is the desk in the lower left corner. How can I search the image to find these blobs? I would like to be able to draw a rectangle around them if possible.
I can also do this (ignore shades, and filter to black or white):
Pick a random pixel as a seed pixel. This becomes area A. Repeatedly expand A until A doesn't get any bigger. That's your area.
The way to expand A is by looking for neighbor pixels to A, such that they have similar color to at least one neighboring pixel in A.
What "similar color" means to you is somewhat variable. If you can make exactly two colors, as you say in another answer, then "similar" is "equal". Otherwise, "similar" would mean colors that have RGB values or whatnot where each component of the two colors is within a small amount of each other (i.e. 255, 128, 128 is similar to 252, 125, 130).
You can also limit the selected pixels so they must be similar to the seed pixel, but that works better when a human is picking the seed. (I believe this is what is done in Photoshop, for example.)
This can be better than edge detection because you can deal with gradients without filtering them out of existence, and you don't need to process the resulting detected edges into a coherent area. It has the disadvantage that a gradient can go all the way from black to white and it'll register as the same area, but that may be what you want. Also, you have to be careful with the implementation or else it will be too slow.
It might be overkill for what you need, but there's a great wrapper for C# for the OpenCV libraries.
I have successfully used OpenCV in C++ for blob detection, so you might find it useful for what you're trying to do.
http://www.emgu.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
and the wiki page on OpenCV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCV
Edited to add: Here is a blobs detection library for Emgu in C#. There is even some nice features of ordering the blobs by descending area (useful for filtering out noise).
http://www.emgu.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=205
Edit Again:
If Emgu is too heavyweight, Aforge.NET also includes some blob detection methods
http://www.aforgenet.com/framework/
If the image really is only two or more distinct colours (very little blur between colours), it is an easy case for an edge detection algorithm.
You can use something like the code sample from this question : find a color in an image in c#
It will help you find the x/y of specific colors in your image. Then you could use the min x/max x and the min y/max y to draw your rectangles.
Detect object from image based on object color by C#.
To detect a object based on its color, there is an easy algorithm for that. you have to choose a filtering method. Steps normally are:
Take the image
Apply ur filtering
Apply greyscalling
Subtract background and get your objects
Find position of all objects
Mark the objects
First you have to choose a filtering method, there are many filtering method provided for C#. Mainly I prefer AForge filters, for this purpose they have few filter:
ColorFiltering
ChannelFiltering
HSLFiltering
YCbCrFiltering
EuclideanColorFiltering
My favorite is EuclideanColorFiltering. It is easy and simple. For information about other filters you can visit link below. You have to download AForge dll for apply these in your code.
More information about the exact steps can be found here: Link
I have written a chart that displays financial data. Performance was good while I was drawing less than 10.000 points displayed as a connected line using PathGeometry together with PathFigure and LineSegments. But now I need to display up to 100.000 points at the same time (without scrolling) and it's already very slow with 50.000 points. I was thinking of StreamGeometry, but I am not sure since it's basically the same as a PathGeometry stroring the information as byte stream. Does any one have an idea to make this much more performant or maybe someone has even done something similar already?
EDIT: These data points do not change once drawn so if there is potential optimizing it, please let me know (line segments are frozen right now).
EDIT: I tried StreamGeometry. Creating the graphic took even longer for some reason, but this is not the issue. Drawing on the chart after drawing all the points is still as slow as the previous method. I think it's just too many data points for WPF to deal with.
EDIT: I've experimented a bit and I noticed that performance improved a bit by converting the coordinates which were previously in double to int to prevent WPF anti-aliasing sub-pixel lines.
EDIT: Thanks for all the responses suggesting to reduce the number of line segments. I have reduced them to at most twice the horizontal resolution for stepped lines and at most the horizontal resolution for simple lines and the performance is pretty good now.
I'd consider downsampling the number of points you are trying to render. You may have 50,000 points of data but you're unlikely to be able to fit them all on the screen; even if you charted every single point in one display you'd need 100,000 pixels of horizontal resolution to draw them all! Even in D3D that's a lot to draw.
Since you are more likely to have something like 2,048 pixels, you may as well reduce the points you are graphing and draw an approximate curve that fits onto the screen and has only a couple thousand verts. If for example the user graphs a time frame including 10000 points, then downsample those 10000 points to 1000 before graphing. There are numerous techniques you could try, from simple averaging to median-neighbor to Gaussian convolution to (my suggestion) bicubic interpolation. Drawing any number of points greater than 1/2 the screen resolution will simply be a waste.
As the user zooms in on a part of a graph, you can resample to get higher resolutions and more accurate curve fitting.
When you start dealing with hundreds of thousands of distinct vertices and vectors in your geometry, you should probably consider migrating your graphics code to use a graphics framework instead of depending on WPF (which, while built on top of Direct3D and therefore capable of remarkably efficient vector graphics rendering, has a lot of extra overhead going on that hampers its efficiency). It's possible to host both Direct3D and OpenGL graphics rendering windows within WPF -- I'd suggest moving that direction instead of continuing to work solely within WPF.
(EDIT: changed "DirectX" in original answer to "Direct3D")
Just ran into this question, but as I mentioned in this thread, the most performant approach might be to program against WPF's Visual layer.
Everything Visual in WPF eventually goes against this layer ... and so it is the most lightweight approach of them all.
See this and this for more info. Chapter 14 of Matthew MacDonald's Pro WPF in C# 2008 book also has a good section on it.
As another reference ... see Chapter 2 of Pavan Podila's book WPF Control Development Unleashed. On page 13, he discusses how DrawingVisuals would be an excellent choice for a charting component.
Finally, I just noticed that Charles Petzold wrote an MSDN Magazine article where the best overall (performant anyway) solution (to a scatter plot) was a DrawingVisual approach.
Another idea would be to use the Image control with the Source property set to a DrawingImage that you've dynamically created.
According to Pavan Podila in WPF Control Development Unleashed, this approach can be very helpful when you have thousands and thousands of visuals that don't need any interactivity. Check out page 25 of his book for more info.
This is an old thread, but I thought it was worth mentioning that you could attain interactivity with the above method by using the MouseUp() event. You know the size of the image's viewport, the resolution of the image, and the mouse's position. For example, you could maintain the collection actualScreenPoints through a timer attached to your UserControl_SizeChanged event:
double xworth = viewport.ActualWidth / (XEnd - XStart);
double xworth = viewport.ActualHeight / (YEnd - YStart);
List<Point> actualScreenPoints = new List<Point>();
for (var i = 0; i < points.Count; i++)
{
double posX = points[i].X * xworth;
double posY = points[i].Y * yworth;
actualScreenPoints.Add(posX, posY);
}
And then when your MouseUp() event fires, check if any of the points in the collection are within +-2px. There's your MouseUp on a given point.
I don't know how well it scales, but I've had some success using ZedGraph in WPF (WinForms control inside a WindowsFormsPresenter). I'm surprised no one mentioned it yet. It's worth taking a look at, even if you're not planning on using it for your current project.
ZedGraph
Good luck!
I believe the only method that might be faster while remaining in the WPF framework would be to override OnRender in a custom control. You can then render your geometry directly to the persisted scene, culling anything out of view. If the user can only see a small part of the data set at a time, culling could be enough on its own.
With this many data points, it's unlikely that the user can see full detail when the entire dataset is in view. So it might also be worthwhile to consider simplifying the dataset for full view and then showing a more detailed view if and when they zoom in.
Edit: Also, give StreamGeometry a shot. Its whole reason for existing is performance, and you never know until you try.
This is a very good question, and at it's heart begs the question "Can any user make practical use of, or business descisions from, a screen containing 100,000 discrete points?".
Following best practice in GUI design philosphy, the answer should be No, which would lead me to question whether there isn't a different way to meet the requirement for the application.
If there really is a bona-fide case for displaying 100,000 points on screen, with no scrolling, then using an off-screen buffer is the way to go. Composite your image to a bitmap, than whack that bitmap onto your Window / Page as needed. This way the heavy lifting is only done once, after which the hardware acceleration can be used every time the window needs to be drawn.
Hope this helps.
I haven't worked with WPF (disclaimer), but I suspect that your performance problem is because your code is trying to fit a smooth curved line through all of your data, and the time required increases geometrically (or worse) with the number of data points.
I don't know if this would be acceptable appearance-wise, but try graphing your data by connecting each point to the last with a straight line. This should make the time-to-graph proportional to the number of data points, and with as many points as you have the graph may end up looking exactly the same anyway.
Another idea would be to use the Image control with the Source property set to a DrawingImage that you've dynamically created.
According to Pavan Podila in WPF Control Development Unleashed, this approach can be very helpful when you have thousands and thousands of visuals that don't need any interactivity. Check out page 25 of his book for more info.
I have a bitmap with black background and some random objects in white. How can I identify these separate objects and extract them from the bitmap?
It should be pretty simple to find the connected white pixel coordinates in the image if the pixels are either black or white. Start scanning pixels row by row until you find a white pixel. Keep track of where you found it, create a new data structure to hold its connected object. Do a recursive search from that pixel to its surrounding pixels, add each connected white pixel's coordinates to the data structure. When your search can't find any more connected white pixels "end" that object. Go back to where you started and continue scanning pixels. Each time you find a white pixel see if it is in one of your existing "objects". If not, create a new object and repeat your search, adding connected white pixels as you go. When you are done, you should have a set of data structures representing collections of connected white pixels. These are your objects. If you need to identify what they are or simplify them into shapes, you'll need to do some googling -- I can't help you there. It's been too long since I took that computer vision course.
Feature extraction is a really complex topic and your question didn't expose the issues you face and the nature of the objects you want to extract.
Usually morphological operators help a lot for such problems (reduce noise, fill gaps, ...) I hope you already discovered AForge. Before you reinvent the wheel have a look at it. Shape recognition or blob analysis are buzz works you can have a look at in google to get some ideas for solutions to your problem.
There are several articles on CodeProject that deals with these kinds of image filters. Unfortunately, I have no idea how they work (and if I did, the answer would probably be too long for here ;P ).
1) Morphological operations to make the objects appear "better"
2) Segmentation
3) Classification
Each topic is a big one. There are simple approches but your description is not too detailed...