In the catmull_rom method, how is the max_parameter() defined?

[xarthurx]

I'm testing the newly added interpolation function catmull_rom where I'm a little confused by the max_parameter() of a spline.

For a simple case that to interpolate 11 points Vector2d(x, x) where x = 0 - 10.
Then I tested the intepolated catmull_rom crv:

    for (size_t i = 0; i <= 11; i++) {
      cout << "input: " << i << " output: " << cr(i).transpose() << endl;
    }
    cout << "max pram: " << cr.max_parameter() << endl;

the output is:

input: 0 output: 0 0
input: 1 output: 0.81961 0.81961
input: 2 output: 1.68179 1.68179
input: 3 output: 2.52269 2.52269
input: 4 output: 3.36359 3.36359
input: 5 output: 4.20448 4.20448
input: 6 output: 5.04538 5.04538
input: 7 output: 5.88627 5.88627
input: 8 output: 6.72717 6.72717
input: 9 output: 7.56807 7.56807
input: 10 output: 8.40896 8.40896
input: 11 output: 9.29669 9.29669
max pram: 11.8921

The result is quite strange to me...

Is the parameter param of cr(param) supposed to be the length on the spline?
If will it be possible to add a normalised function so that the parameter range is [0, 1]?

Currently, I don't understand how to get the value of an interpolated point on the spline.

[NAThompson]

Is the parameter param of cr(param) supposed to be the length on the spline?

No. Let's start off with the chordal parametrization: Then parameter at p0 is zero, and the parameter at p1 is |p1 - p0|. But of course this isn't the length of the curve, as |p1-p0| is the straight line distance between p0 and p1, and we know that Catmull-Rom splines are cubic curves within segments. The interpretation gets even more difficult when we use the centripedal parametrization, because then s1 = |p1-p0|^{1/2}.

This is why the method parameter_at_point is provided. Say you want to interpolate between points three and four on your curve.

You would write something like:

double s3 = cr.parameter_at_point(3);
double s4 = cr.parameter_at_point(4);
for (double s = s3; s < s3; s += 0.01) {
    auto P = cr(s);
}

If will it be possible to add a normalised function so that the parameter range is [0, 1]?

Sadly, no. If this was done the length of the tangent vectors would be totally wrong for the chordal parametrization.

It may help to read:

Cem Yuksel, Scott Schaefer, and John Keyser, Parameterization and applications of Catmull–Rom curves, Computer-Aided Design 43 (2011) 747–755.

[xarthurx]

@NAThompson
Thanks for the reply. It makes more sense to me now.

Would it be possible to provide a parameterization of [0, 1] for only the centripedal option?

I need sth like that for a 3d spline, and the other two interpolation method that boost provide doesn't support 3d.
If the above is not possible, do you have any suggestions on a library for that?

[NAThompson]

@xarthurx : Doing a linear change of variables to t in [0,1] is trivial:

double s_max = cr.max_parameter();
auto point = cr(s_max*t);

[NAThompson]

Incidentally, the expression cr(s_max*t) makes it clear why we [0,1] parametrization is a bad idea if we are interested in tangent vectors to the curve: We can change their magnitude by simply adding points!

[oleg-alexandrov]

The documentation at https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/master/libs/math/doc/html/math_toolkit/catmull_rom.html should document the parameter_at_point() function.

I understand that cr(t) is motivated by the arc logic, but the interface this class provides is terrible. The user should not have to understand the implementation and the role of max_parameter(), and whatever power is used internally (that alpha between 0 and 1).

Instead of this:

double s3 = cr.parameter_at_point(3);
double s4 = cr.parameter_at_point(4);
for (double s = s3; s < s3; s += 0.01) {
auto P = cr(s);
}

the operator cr(i) should simply return the i-th value, and fit appropriately in between.

[oleg-alexandrov]

At the very least, this class should provide (and document) a function which does cr.value_at(t) which for t = i would return the i-th element and fit in between according to the spline logic.

[NAThompson]

the operator cr(i) should simply return the i-th value, and fit appropriately in between.

So each segment should have a different velocity?

[oleg-alexandrov]

I do understand that this class has its own intricacies. Hence my suggestion in the second post, to add a new function, cr.value_at(t), which should be documented (the current documentation is poor), and which would return i-th value for t = i, for users who don't care about velocity.

I am not fully sure how velocity is handled to start with, even on a single interval. The example above says:

double s3 = cr.parameter_at_point(3);
double s4 = cr.parameter_at_point(4);
for (double s = s3; s < s3; s += 0.01) {
auto P = cr(s);
}

Is it true that as a variable u varies at constant speed between 0 and 1 then cr( (1-u)*s3 + u *s4 ) will end up having constant velocity between points 3 and 4?

My apologizes for the initial terse version of this post. I appreciate your helpful and prompt response above.

[NAThompson]

Is it true that as a variable u varies at constant speed between 0 and 1 then cr( (1-u)*s3 + u *s4 ) will end up having constant velocity between points 3 and 4?

You'll forgive my initial question; it contained a typo: It should've read "So the velocity should be discontinuous at interpolation points?" The velocity will certainly not be constant unless special pointsets selected.

My mental model which induced the question was of the arclength parametrization with points chosen on a line. If p0 is a nanometer from p1, and p1 a meter from p2, then doing integer indexing will cause the velocity to change discontinuously across segments.