Timeline for Smoothing 3D contours as post processing
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30 at 22:07 | comment | added | Henrik Schumacher | Hi @Greg, of course I do not mind. I think that is an accelent idea. =) And the code is in the public domain anyways, so how could I object? | |
| May 30 at 21:28 | comment | added | Greg Hurst | @HenrikSchumacher Do you mind if I integrate some of this functionality into my UTCG library? Giving credit of course :) | |
| Jan 25, 2021 at 8:20 | comment | added | Henrik Schumacher | It works fine when I insert "Multicells" -> True back into the code where it belongs... | |
| Jan 25, 2021 at 6:33 | comment | added | ap21 | Dear @HenrikSchumacher, I tried using your GraphDiffusionFlow code to perform Laplacian smoothing on a mesh of mine, and it gave me a long string of errors I couldn't comprehend. Could you possibly take a look? It's at the bottom of the file: file.io/mWGiV4CZ5ejh | |
| Mar 28, 2020 at 19:56 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 4 characters in body |
| Dec 7, 2019 at 7:34 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 570 characters in body |
| Mar 26, 2019 at 19:39 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 46 characters in body |
| Jan 28, 2019 at 23:25 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 4 characters in body |
| Jan 28, 2019 at 23:19 | comment | added | Henrik Schumacher | Thanks, @ChipHurst, indeed the code did not make sense. I fixed that and some performance degradation caused by Position. Hopefully, I did not introduce any new bugs. It is always good to hear that my code is useful! | |
| Jan 28, 2019 at 23:16 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 17 characters in body |
| Jan 28, 2019 at 23:11 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 17 characters in body |
| Jan 28, 2019 at 23:02 | comment | added | Greg Hurst | @HenrikSchumacher I wish I could upvote this twice. I believe there is a typo in GraphDiffusionFlow. If[Length[belist] > 0, belist = blah; ...] should be belist = blah; If[Length[belist] > 0, ...], right? | |
| Sep 7, 2018 at 21:46 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 293 characters in body |
| May 20, 2018 at 22:22 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 258 characters in body |
| May 6, 2018 at 9:58 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | Fixed some issues in GraphDiffusionFlow. |
| May 6, 2018 at 9:35 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 1028 characters in body |
| May 6, 2018 at 9:05 | comment | added | Henrik Schumacher | Yes, these things may happen. ^^ I added paragraph "Usage Notes" a explains a bit why and how to deal with it. | |
| May 6, 2018 at 8:59 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 1792 characters in body |
| May 6, 2018 at 8:54 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 1792 characters in body |
| May 5, 2018 at 19:00 | comment | added | Henrik Schumacher | Fixed a $\LaTeX$ typo. Thanks for the hint! | |
| May 5, 2018 at 18:58 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 3 characters in body |
| May 5, 2018 at 13:51 | vote | accept | chris | ||
| May 5, 2018 at 12:01 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 1742 characters in body |
| May 5, 2018 at 11:33 | comment | added | Henrik Schumacher | I am not exactly sure what you mean? Mean curvature flow can contract triangles to points or lines, so there might always occur numerical problems. I tried to make the code more robust by introducing several Checks. I would expect that the flow smoothes the boundaries a bit better than the generic averaging procedure. | |
| May 5, 2018 at 10:25 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 434 characters in body |
| May 5, 2018 at 10:14 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 434 characters in body |
| May 5, 2018 at 10:02 | comment | added | Henrik Schumacher | The second fundamental form at point $x$ is in general a bilinear map $I\!I_x \colon T_x\varSigma \times T_x\varSigma \to \mathbb{R}^m$. Usually, it gets contracted with the surface normal $\nu(x)$ in order to get a biliear form $ \colon T_x\varSigma \times T_x\varSigma \to \mathbb{R}$. Note that $\Delta_f f$ is also vector valued for $f$ is vector valued. So the PDE governing mean curvature flow is actually a nonlinear system of PDEs. | |
| May 5, 2018 at 10:01 | comment | added | Henrik Schumacher | Well, that's a question of nomenclatur. Scalar mean curvature only exists for oriented surfaces of codimension 1 (a $n$-dimensional surface in $m=n+1$-dimensional Euclidean space - or any other oriented Riemannian manifold of dimension $n+1$; that means, only when the surface normal is well-defined), while the mean curvature vector is defined for arbitrary codimension and orientability as the trace of the second fundamental form $I\!I$ (usually divided by $n$). | |
| May 5, 2018 at 9:54 | comment | added | chris | Out of curiosity why is the mean curvature called a vector. It seems to be a scalar? | |
| May 5, 2018 at 9:51 | comment | added | Henrik Schumacher | Thank you, chris! | |
| May 5, 2018 at 9:23 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 19 characters in body |
| May 5, 2018 at 8:56 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 644 characters in body |
| May 5, 2018 at 8:26 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 105 characters in body |
| May 5, 2018 at 7:34 | history | edited | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 2468 characters in body |
| May 4, 2018 at 21:18 | history | answered | Henrik Schumacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 |