4912

3
+7  Q:

## 3d to 2d Projection Matrix

I have 3 points in 3d space. I know the exact locations of them. Suppose they are (x0,y0,z0) (x1,y1,z1) (x2,y2,z2)

Also i have a camera that are looking at these 3 points and i know the 2d locations of those three points on camera view plane. So for example (x0,y0,z0) will be (x0',y0') and (x1,y1,z1) will be (x1',y1') and (x2,y2,z2) will be (x2',y2') from the camera point of view.

What is the easiest way to find the projection matrix that will project those 3d points into 2d points on camera view plane. We don't know anything about the camera location.

+4  A:

This gives you two sets, each of three equations in 3 variables:

``````a*x0+b*y0+c*z0 = x0'
a*x1+b*y1+c*z1 = x1'
a*x2+b*y2+c*z2 = x2'

d*x0+e*y0+f*z0 = y0'
d*x1+e*y1+f*z1 = y1'
d*x2+e*y2+f*z2 = y2'
``````

Just use whatever method of solving simultaneous equations is easiest in your situation (it isn't even hard to solve these "by hand"). Then your transformation matrix is just ((a,b,c)(d,e,f)).

...

Actually, that is over-simplified and assumes a camera pointed at the origin of your 3D coordinate system and no perspective.

For perspective, the transformation matrix works more like:

``````               ( a, b, c, d )   ( xt )
( x, y, z, 1 ) ( e, f, g, h ) = ( yt )
( i, j, k, l )   ( zt )

( xv, yv ) = ( xc+s*xt/zt, yc+s*yt/zt ) if md < zt;
``````

but the 4x3 matrix is more constrained than 12 degrees of freedom since we should have

``````a*a+b*b+c*c = e*e+f*f+g*g = i*i+j*j+k*k = 1
a*a+e*e+i*i = b*b+f*f+j*j = c*c+g*g+k*k = 1
``````

So you should probably have 4 points to get 8 equations to cover the 6 variables for camera position and angle and 1 more for scaling of the 2-D view points since we'll be able to eliminate the "center" coordinates (xc,yc).

So if you have 4 points and transform your 2-D view points to be relative to the center of your display, then you can get 14 simultaneous equations in 13 variables and solve.

Unfortunately, six of the equations are not linear equations. Fortunately, all of the variables in those equations are restricted to the values between -1 and 1 so it is still probably feasible to solve the equations.

Your solution was probably the best answer i found to my problem. Please describe a little more about the second part of the solution. what is xv and yv also md and zt and xt yt zt.Thanks a lot
A:

I don't think there is enough information to find a definitive solution. Without knowing your camera location and without knowing your view plane, there is an infinite number of matrices that can solve this problem.

No, he means that there's an infinite number of matrices that do what you ask for a given set of points. You either need more points, or less freedom (eg. fix the camera's FOV) to fix this.
how many points do i need?
If you know the camera view plane (the Z distance from the camera), using the points, you could figure out the camera's position since it's just the intersection of the 3 lines. From there, I think the axes of the matrix might be possible to calculate.
+3  A:

Your camera has (at least) 7 degrees of freedom - 3 for position, 3 for orientation and 1 for FOV. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like 3 points are enough for a full solution.

For a generalised solution to this problem, look up 'View Correlation' in Graphics Gems II.

7 is usually correct, though some systems allow two parameters for FOV: vertical and horizontal. Usually they are proportional to eachother(i.e. a 4:3 screen = 4:3 FOV ratio) but in some cases this can be skewed if the user wishes.