On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:34:33 -0700, markspace <-@.> wrote:
[snip]
>No, really it doesn't work this way. Note I'm not talking about >starting with the identity matrix. I'm talking about starting with an >object that's already been translated at least once. You have to add an
You do not have to.
>extra step to remove the translations back to the origin ("identity") or >successive multiplications aren't going to work the way you'd expect.
>And I don't think you can "pre-multiply" that out; you'll end up doing >four, or more, operations instead of three. In intensive graphics >applications, that's a no-no.
Well, you can. Since matrix multiplication is associative, you
can do so. Example with right-side transforms:
Let M be whatever matrix you wish to transform.
Let M' be the transformed matrix.
Let T1 be the transform for translation to origin.
Let T2 be the main transform.
Let T3 be the transform for translation from origin.
M' = M X T1 X T2 X T3
is equivalent to
M' = M X (T1 X T2 X T3)
Now, let Tall = T1 X T2 X T3. Obviously,
M' = M X Tall
You can apply Tall to however many matrices as you want, but you need
calculate it only once.
> Well, you can. Since matrix multiplication is associative, you
> can do so. Example with right-side transforms:
Since the translation part has to happen first and last, I don't think this helps. Association isn't the issue, it's commutation.
F = T1 x S x A x T2
A is constant, S (start) is your input, T1 translates back to the origin, and T2 translates back. F is the final output. T1 and T2 are "variable" in that they are related to S and will be different for each pass. I think T2 = the total translation on the S object, and T1 = 1/T2, but I haven't double checked/proved that mathematically.
If you try to combine A x T2, you don't save any work, because it still has to be done once per S rotated.
I've seen this formula a lot in many books, and if there were a way to simplify it, I'm sure someone would have by now. Plus, math.
Let me try to give a quick example. We have a shape which looks like the letter X, which we want to rotate 45 degrees counter clockwise about it's own center, so we are looking at an X that is slightly heeled over. The X is currently at position (1,2), so if we just applied a rotation, we'd actually rotate the (1,2) about the origin we don't want that.
^
|
|. . .X
| .
|------------->
To do this we must translate back to the origin, apply the transform, and then translation back to (1,2). Now imagine we have several hundred other shapes to rotate/scale the same way. I think that makes clear the operation I'm talking about. Many shapes all with a *local* transform which need to be applied, most not at the origin. I don't think you can reduce that formula in the general case.
> On 10/04/2012 05:38 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 10/4/2012 3:26 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>>> To me it seems rather the bob is conducting a poll or troll.
>> Why?
> I don't know. It is just the way it read to me.
>> Problems understanding that stuff is pretty common.
> Yep. The original post didn't seem a sincere request for
> enlightenment despite the final, "Any tips?".
You may be right.
But I am willing to give the guy the benefit of
doubt.
