Develop Reference

Sort 4 3D coordinates in a winding order in any given direction

I need to sort a selection of 3D coordinates in a winding order as seen in the image below. The bottom-right vertex should be the first element of the array and the bottom-left vertex should be the last element of the array. This needs to work given any direction that the camera is facing the points and at any orientation of those points. Since "top-left","bottom-right", etc is relative, I assume I can use the camera as a reference point? We can also assume all 4 points will be coplanar.
I am using the Blender API (writing a Blender plugin) and have access to the camera's view matrix if that is even necessary. Mathematically speaking is this even possible if so how? Maybe I am overcomplicating things?
Since the Blender API is in Python I tagged this as Python, but I am fine with pseudo-code or no code at all. I'm mainly concerned with how to approach this mathematically as I have no idea where to start.

Since you assume the four points are coplanar, all you need to do is find the centroid, calculate the vector from the centroid to each point, and sort the points by the angle of the vector.
import numpy as np
def sort_points(pts):
centroid = np.sum(pts, axis=0) / pts.shape[0]
vector_from_centroid = pts - centroid
vector_angle = np.arctan2(vector_from_centroid[:, 1], vector_from_centroid[:, 0])
sort_order = np.argsort(vector_angle) # Find the indices that give a sorted vector_angle array
# Apply sort_order to original pts array.
# Also returning centroid and angles so I can plot it for illustration.
return (pts[sort_order, :], centroid, vector_angle[sort_order])
This function calculates the angle assuming that the points are two-dimensional, but if you have coplanar points then it should be easy enough to find the coordinates in the common plane and eliminate the third coordinate.
Let's write a quick plot function to plot our points:
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
def plot_points(pts, centroid=None, angles=None, fignum=None):
fig = plt.figure(fignum)
plt.plot(pts[:, 0], pts[:, 1], 'or')
if centroid is not None:
plt.plot(centroid[0], centroid[1], 'ok')
for i in range(pts.shape[0]):
lstr = f"pt{i}"
if angles is not None:
lstr += f" ang: {angles[i]:.3f}"
plt.text(pts[i, 0], pts[i, 1], lstr)
return fig
And now let's test this:
With random points:
pts = np.random.random((4, 2))
spts, centroid, angles = sort_points(pts)
plot_points(spts, centroid, angles)
With points in a rectangle:
pts = np.array([[0, 0], # pt0
[10, 5], # pt2
[10, 0], # pt1
[0, 5]]) # pt3
spts, centroid, angles = sort_points(pts)
plot_points(spts, centroid, angles)
It's easy enough to find the normal vector of the plane containing our points, it's simply the (normalized) cross product of the vectors joining two pairs of points:
plane_normal = np.cross(pts[1, :] - pts[0, :], pts[2, :] - pts[0, :])
plane_normal = plane_normal / np.linalg.norm(plane_normal)
Now, to find the projections of all points in this plane, we need to know the "origin" and basis of the new coordinate system in this plane. Let's assume that the first point is the origin, the x axis joins the first point to the second, and since we know the z axis (plane normal) and x axis, we can calculate the y axis.
new_origin = pts[0, :]
new_x = pts[1, :] - pts[0, :]
new_x = new_x / np.linalg.norm(new_x)
new_y = np.cross(plane_normal, new_x)
Now, the projections of the points onto the new plane are given by this answer:
proj_x = np.dot(pts - new_origin, new_x)
proj_y = np.dot(pts - new_origin, new_y)
Now you have two-dimensional points. Run the code above to sort them.

After many hours, I finally found a solution. #Pranav Hosangadi's solution worked for the 2D side of things. However, I was having trouble projecting the 3D coordinates to 2D coordinates using the second part of his solution. I also tried projecting the coordinates as described in this answer, but it did not work as intended. I then discovered an API function called location_3d_to_region_2d() (see docs) which, as the name implies, gets the 2D screen coordinates in pixels of the given 3D coordinate. I didn't need to necessarily "project" anything into 2D in the first place, getting the screen coordinates worked perfectly fine and is much more simple. From that point, I could sort the coordinates using Pranav's function with some slight adjustments to get it in the order illustrated in the screenshot of my first post and I wanted it returned as a list instead of a NumPy array.
import bpy
from bpy_extras.view3d_utils import location_3d_to_region_2d
import numpy
def sort_points(pts):
"""Sort 4 points in a winding order"""
pts = numpy.array(pts)
centroid = numpy.sum(pts, axis=0) / pts.shape[0]
vector_from_centroid = pts - centroid
vector_angle = numpy.arctan2(
vector_from_centroid[:, 1], vector_from_centroid[:, 0])
# Find the indices that give a sorted vector_angle array
sort_order = numpy.argsort(-vector_angle)
# Apply sort_order to original pts array.
return list(sort_order)
# Get 2D screen coords of selected vertices
region = bpy.context.region
region_3d = bpy.context.space_data.region_3d
corners2d = []
for corner in selected_verts:
corners2d.append(location_3d_to_region_2d(
region, region_3d, corner))
# Sort the 2d points in a winding order
sort_order = sort_points(corners2d)
sorted_corners = [selected_verts[i] for i in sort_order]
Thanks, Pranav for your time and patience in helping me solve this problem!

There is a simpler and faster solution for the Blender case:
1.) The following code sorts 4 planar points in 2D (vertices of the plane object in Blender) very efficiently:
def sort_clockwise(pts):
rect = np.zeros((4, 2), dtype="float32")
s = pts.sum(axis=1)
rect[0] = pts[np.argmin(s)]
rect[2] = pts[np.argmax(s)]
diff = np.diff(pts, axis=1)
rect[1] = pts[np.argmin(diff)]
rect[3] = pts[np.argmax(diff)]
return rect
2.) Blender keeps vertices related data, such as the translation, rotation and scale in the world matrix. If you query for vertices.co(ordinates) only, you just get the original coordinates, without translation, rotation and scaling. But that does not affect the order of vertices. That simplifies the problem because what you get is actually a 2D (with z's = 0) mesh data. If you sort that 2D data (excluding z's) you will get the information, the sort indices for the 3D sorted data. You can modify the code above to get the indices from that 2D array. For the plane object of Blender, for some reason the order is always [0,1,3,2], not [0,1,2,3]. The following modified code gives the sorted indices for the vertices data in 2D.
def sorted_ix_clockwise(pts):
#rect = zeros((4, 2), dtype="float32")
ix = array([0,0,0,0])
s = pts.sum(axis=1)
#rect[0] = pts[argmin(s)]
#rect[2] = pts[argmax(s)]
ix[0] = argmin(s)
ix[2] = argmax(s)
dif = diff(pts, axis=1)
#rect[1] = pts[argmin(dif)]
#rect[3] = pts[argmax(dif)]
ix[1] = argmin(dif)
ix[3] = argmax(dif)
return ix
You can use these indices to get the actual 3D sorted data, which you can obtain by multiplying vertices coordinates with the world matrix to include any translation, rotation and scaling.

Rearrange data in two-dimensional array according to transformation from polar to Cartesian coordinates

I have a two-dimensional array that represents function values at positions in a polar coordinate system. For example:
import numpy as np
radius = np.linspace(0, 1, 50)
angle = np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, radius.size)
r_grid, a_grid = np.meshgrid(radius, angle)
data = np.sqrt((r_grid/radius.max())**2
+ (a_grid/angle.max())**2)
Here the data is arranged in a rectangular grid corresponding to the polar coordinates. I want to rearrange the data in the array such that the axes represent the corresponding Cartesian coordinate system. The old versus new layout can be visualized as follows:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
fig, (ax1, ax2) = plt.subplots(ncols=2, figsize=plt.figaspect(0.5))
ax1.set(title='Polar coordinates', xlabel='Radius', ylabel='Angle')
ax1.pcolormesh(r_grid, a_grid, data)
ax2.set(title='Cartesian coordinates', xlabel='X', ylabel='Y')
x_grid = r_grid * np.cos(a_grid)
y_grid = r_grid * np.sin(a_grid)
ax2.pcolormesh(x_grid, y_grid, data)
Here the coordinates are explicitly given and the plot is adjusted accordingly. I want the data to be rearranged in the data array itself instead. It should contain all values, optionally filling with zeros to fit the shape (similar to scipy.ndimage.rotate(..., reshape=True)).
If I manually loop over the polar arrays to compute the Cartesian coordinates, the result contains empty regions which ideally should be filled as well:
new = np.zeros_like(data)
visits = np.zeros_like(new)
for r, a, d in np.nditer((r_grid, a_grid, data)):
i = 0.5 * (1 + r * np.sin(a)) * new.shape[0]
j = 0.5 * (1 + r * np.cos(a)) * new.shape[1]
i = min(int(i), new.shape[0] - 1)
j = min(int(j), new.shape[1] - 1)
new[i, j] += d
visits[i, j] += 1
new /= np.maximum(visits, 1)
ax2.imshow(new, origin='lower')
Is there a way to achieve the transformation while avoiding empty regions in the resulting data array?

tl;dr: No, not without changing some conditions of your problem.
The artefact you are seeing is a property of the transformation.
It is not due to the fixed resolution in angle for all radii.
Hence, it is not due to a wrong or bad implementation of the transformation.
The Cartesian grid simply implies a higher special resolution at these areas as there are resolved points from the polar map.
The only "clean" way (that I can think of right now) to handle this is to have an adjustable resolution in the polar coordinates to account for the 1/r scaling. (If you input data allows it)
A somewhat cheating way of visualizing this without the gaps would to randomly distribute them over the gaps. The argument here is, that you do not have the resolution to decide in which bin they were to begin with. So you could just randomly throw them in one which might have been a possible origin and not throw them all in same one (as you are doing right now).
However, I would like discourage this stronlgy. It just gives you a prettier plot.
Note, that this is somewhat equivalent to the behaviour of the upper right plot in your question.

This doesn't really give the expected result, but maybe will help you in achieving a solution after some needed correction...
import numpy as np
radius = np.linspace(0, 1, 50)
angle = np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, radius.size)
r_grid, a_grid = np.meshgrid(radius, angle)
data = np.sqrt((r_grid/radius.max())**2
+ (a_grid/angle.max())**2)
def polar_to_cartesian(data):
new = np.zeros_like(data) * np.nan
x = np.linspace(-1, 1, new.shape[1])
y = np.linspace(-1, 1, new.shape[0])
for i in range(new.shape[0]):
for j in range(new.shape[1]):
x0, y0 = x[j], y[i]
r, a = np.sqrt(x0**2 + y0**2), np.arctan2(y0, x0)
data_i = np.argmin(np.abs(a_grid[:, 0] - a))
data_j = np.argmin(np.abs(r_grid[0, :] - r))
val = data[data_i, data_j]
if r <= 1:
new[i, j] = val
return new
new = polar_to_cartesian(data)
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
ax.imshow(new, origin='lower')
EDIT:
Modified using np.arctan2 according to the suggestions of OP.

You could loop over the Cartesian array, transforming each grid point to polar coordinates and approximating the function value by interpolation from your polar grid data. You may still want to leave the corner regions blank though, for lack of close enough data.
I don't think there is a better way, unless of course you have access to the original function.

How to generate a random sample of points from a 3-D ellipsoid using Python?

I am trying to sample around 1000 points from a 3-D ellipsoid, uniformly. Is there some way to code it such that we can get points starting from the equation of the ellipsoid?
I want points on the surface of the ellipsoid.

Theory
Using this excellent answer to the MSE question How to generate points uniformly distributed on the surface of an ellipsoid? we can
generate a point uniformly on the sphere, apply the mapping f :
(x,y,z) -> (x'=ax,y'=by,z'=cz) and then correct the distortion
created by the map by discarding the point randomly with some
probability p(x,y,z).
Assuming that the 3 axes of the ellipsoid are named such that
0 < a < b < c
We discard a generated point with
p(x,y,z) = 1 - mu(x,y,y)/mu_max
probability, ie we keep it with mu(x,y,y)/mu_max probability where
mu(x,y,z) = ((acy)^2 + (abz)^2 + (bcx)^2)^0.5
and
mu_max = bc
Implementation
import numpy as np
np.random.seed(42)
# Function to generate a random point on a uniform sphere
# (relying on https://stackoverflow.com/a/33977530/8565438)
def randompoint(ndim=3):
vec = np.random.randn(ndim,1)
vec /= np.linalg.norm(vec, axis=0)
return vec
# Give the length of each axis (example values):
a, b, c = 1, 2, 4
# Function to scale up generated points using the function `f` mentioned above:
f = lambda x,y,z : np.multiply(np.array([a,b,c]),np.array([x,y,z]))
# Keep the point with probability `mu(x,y,z)/mu_max`, ie
def keep(x, y, z, a=a, b=b, c=c):
mu_xyz = ((a * c * y) ** 2 + (a * b * z) ** 2 + (b * c * x) ** 2) ** 0.5
return mu_xyz / (b * c) > np.random.uniform(low=0.0, high=1.0)
# Generate points until we have, let's say, 1000 points:
n = 1000
points = []
while len(points) < n:
[x], [y], [z] = randompoint()
if keep(x, y, z):
points.append(f(x, y, z))
Checks
Check if all points generated satisfy the ellipsoid condition (ie that x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 + z^2/c^2 = 1):
for p in points:
pscaled = np.multiply(p,np.array([1/a,1/b,1/c]))
assert np.allclose(np.sum(np.dot(pscaled,pscaled)),1)
Runs without raising any errors. Visualize the points:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(projection="3d")
points = np.array(points)
ax.scatter(points[:, 0], points[:, 1], points[:, 2])
# set aspect ratio for the axes using https://stackoverflow.com/a/64453375/8565438
ax.set_box_aspect((np.ptp(points[:, 0]), np.ptp(points[:, 1]), np.ptp(points[:, 2])))
plt.show()
These points seem evenly distributed.
Problem with currently accepted answer
Generating a point on a sphere and then just reprojecting it without any further corrections to an ellipse will result in a distorted distribution. This is essentially the same as setting this posts's p(x,y,z) to 0. Imagine an ellipsoid where one axis is orders of magnitude bigger than another. This way, it is easy to see, that naive reprojection is not going to work.

Consider using Monte-Carlo simulation: generate a random 3D point; check if the point is inside the ellipsoid; if it is, keep it. Repeat until you get 1,000 points.
P.S. Since the OP changed their question, this answer is no longer valid.

J.F. Williamson, "Random selection of points distributed on curved surfaces", Physics in Medicine & Biology 32(10), 1987, describes a general method of choosing a uniformly random point on a parametric surface. It is an acceptance/rejection method that accepts or rejects each candidate point depending on its stretch factor (norm-of-gradient). To use this method for a parametric surface, several things have to be known about the surface, namely—
x(u, v), y(u, v) and z(u, v), which are functions that generate 3-dimensional coordinates from two dimensional coordinates u and v,
The ranges of u and v,
g(point), the norm of the gradient ("stretch factor") at each point on the surface, and
gmax, the maximum value of g for the entire surface.
The algorithm is then:
Generate a point on the surface, xyz.
If g(xyz) >= RNDU01()*gmax, where RNDU01() is a uniform random variate in [0, 1), accept the point. Otherwise, repeat this process.
Chen and Glotzer (2007) apply the method to the surface of a prolate spheroid (one form of ellipsoid) in "Simulation studies of a phenomenological model for elongated virus capsid formation", Physical Review E 75(5), 051504 (preprint).

Here is a generic function to pick a random point on a surface of a sphere, spheroid or any triaxial ellipsoid with a, b and c parameters. Note that generating angles directly will not provide uniform distribution and will cause excessive population of points along z direction. Instead, phi is obtained as an inverse of randomly generated cos(phi).
import numpy as np
def random_point_ellipsoid(a,b,c):
u = np.random.rand()
v = np.random.rand()
theta = u * 2.0 * np.pi
phi = np.arccos(2.0 * v - 1.0)
sinTheta = np.sin(theta);
cosTheta = np.cos(theta);
sinPhi = np.sin(phi);
cosPhi = np.cos(phi);
rx = a * sinPhi * cosTheta;
ry = b * sinPhi * sinTheta;
rz = c * cosPhi;
return rx, ry, rz
This function is adopted from this post: https://karthikkaranth.me/blog/generating-random-points-in-a-sphere/

One way of doing this whch generalises for any shape or surface is to convert the surface to a voxel representation at arbitrarily high resolution (the higher the resolution the better but also the slower). Then you can easily select the voxels randomly however you want, and then you can select a point on the surface within the voxel using the parametric equation. The voxel selection should be completely unbiased, and the selection of the point within the voxel will suffer the same biases that come from using the parametric equation but if there are enough voxels then the size of these biases will be very small.
You need a high quality cube intersection code but with something like an elipsoid that can optimised quite easily. I'd suggest stepping through the bounding box subdivided into voxels. A quick distance check will eliminate most cubes and you can do a proper intersection check for the ones where an intersection is possible. For the point within the cube I'd be tempted to do something simple like a random XYZ distance from the centre and then cast a ray from the centre of the elipsoid and the selected point is where the ray intersects the surface. As I said above, it will be biased but with small voxels, the bias will probably be small enough.
There are libraries that do convex shape intersection very efficiently and cube/elipsoid will be one of the options. They will be highly optimised but I think the distance culling would probably be worth doing by hand whatever. And you will need a library that differentiates between a surface intersection and one object being totally inside the other.
And if you know your elipsoid is aligned to an axis then you can do the voxel/edge intersection very easily as a stack of 2D square intersection elipse problems with the set of squares to be tested defined as those that are adjacent to those in the layer above. That might be quicker.
One of the things that makes this approach more managable is that you do not need to write all the code for edge cases (it is a lot of work to get around issues with floating point inaccuracies that can lead to missing or doubled voxels at the intersection). That's because these will be very rare so they won't affect your sampling.
It might even be quicker to simply find all the voxels inside the elipse and then throw away all the voxels with 6 neighbours... Lots of options. It all depends how important performance is. This will be much slower than the opther suggestions but if you want ~1000 points then ~100,000 voxels feels about the minimum for the surface, so you probably need ~1,000,000 voxels in your bounding box. However even testing 1,000,000 intersections is pretty fast on modern computers.

Depending on what "uniformly" refers to, different methods are applicable. In any case, we can use the parametric equations using spherical coordinates (from Wikipedia):
where s = 1 refers to the ellipsoid given by the semi-axes a > b > c. From these equations we can derive the relevant volume/area element and generate points such that their probability of being generated is proportional to that volume/area element. This will provide constant volume/area density across the surface of the ellipsoid.
1. Constant volume density
This method generates points on the surface of an ellipsoid such that their volume density across the surface of the ellipsoid is constant. A consequence of this is that the one-dimensional projections (i.e. the x, y, z coordinates) are uniformly distributed; for details see the plot below.
The volume element for a triaxial ellipsoid is given by (see here):
and is thus proportional to sin(theta) (for 0 <= theta <= pi). We can use this as the basis for a probability distribution that indicates "how many" points should be generated for a given value of theta: where the area density is low/high, the probability for generating a corresponding value of theta should be low/high, too.
Hence, we can use the function f(theta) = sin(theta)/2 as our probability distribution on the interval [0, pi]. The corresponding cumulative distribution function is F(theta) = (1 - cos(theta))/2. Now we can use Inverse transform sampling to generate values of theta according to f(theta) from a uniform random distribution. The values of phi can be obtained directly from a uniform distribution on [0, 2*pi].
Example code:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from numpy import sin, cos, pi
rng = np.random.default_rng(seed=0)
a, b, c = 10, 3, 1
N = 5000
phi = rng.uniform(0, 2*pi, size=N)
theta = np.arccos(1 - 2*rng.random(size=N))
x = a*sin(theta)*cos(phi)
y = b*sin(theta)*sin(phi)
z = c*cos(theta)
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(projection='3d')
ax.scatter(x, y, z, s=2)
plt.show()
which produces the following plot:
The following plot shows the one-dimensional projections (i.e. density plots of x, y, z):
import seaborn as sns
sns.kdeplot(data=dict(x=x, y=y, z=z))
plt.show()
2. Constant area density
This method generates points on the surface of an ellipsoid such that their area density is constant across the surface of the ellipsoid.
Again, we start by calculating the corresponding area element. For simplicity we can use SymPy:
from sympy import cos, sin, symbols, Matrix
a, b, c, t, p = symbols('a b c t p')
x = a*sin(t)*cos(p)
y = b*sin(t)*sin(p)
z = c*cos(t)
J = Matrix([
[x.diff(t), x.diff(p)],
[y.diff(t), y.diff(p)],
[z.diff(t), z.diff(p)],
])
print((J.T # J).det().simplify())
This yields
-a**2*b**2*sin(t)**4 + a**2*b**2*sin(t)**2 + a**2*c**2*sin(p)**2*sin(t)**4 - b**2*c**2*sin(p)**2*sin(t)**4 + b**2*c**2*sin(t)**4
and further simplifies to (dividing by (a*b)**2 and taking the sqrt):
sin(t)*np.sqrt(1 + ((c/b)**2*sin(p)**2 + (c/a)**2*cos(p)**2 - 1)*sin(t)**2)
Since for this case the area element is more complex, we can use rejection sampling:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from numpy import cos, sin
def f_redo(t, p):
return (
sin(t)*np.sqrt(1 + ((c/b)**2*sin(p)**2 + (c/a)**2*cos(p)**2 - 1)*sin(t)**2)
< rng.random(size=t.size)
)
rng = np.random.default_rng(seed=0)
N = 5000
a, b, c = 10, 3, 1
t = rng.uniform(0, np.pi, size=N)
p = rng.uniform(0, 2*np.pi, size=N)
redo = f_redo(t, p)
while redo.any():
t[redo] = rng.uniform(0, np.pi, size=redo.sum())
p[redo] = rng.uniform(0, 2*np.pi, size=redo.sum())
redo[redo] = f_redo(t[redo], p[redo])
x = a*np.sin(t)*np.cos(p)
y = b*np.sin(t)*np.sin(p)
z = c*np.cos(t)
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(projection='3d')
ax.scatter(x, y, z, s=2)
plt.show()
which yields the following distribution:
The following plot shows the corresponding one-dimensional projections (x, y, z):

Python/SciPy: Issues converting DataFrame from polar to Cartesian grid

I have measurements (PPI arc scans) taken with a doppler wind lidar. The data is stored in a pandas dataframe where rows represent azimuth angle and columns represent radial distance (input shape = 30x197). Link to example scan, (csv). I want to transform this to a cartesian coordinate system, and output a 2d array which is re-gridded into x,y coordinates instead of polar with the values stored in the appropriate grid cell. Interpolation (nearest neighbor) is ok and so is zero or NaN padding of areas where no data exists.
Ideally the X and Y grid should correspond to the actual distances between points, but right now I'm just trying to get this working. This shouldn’t be terribly difficult, but I’m having trouble obtaining the result I want.
So far, I have working code which plots on a polar axis beautifully (example image) but this won't work for the next steps of my analysis.
I have tried many different approaches with scipy.interpolate.griddata, scipy.ndimage.geometric_transform, and scipy.ndimage.map_coordinates but haven't gotten the correct output. Here is an example of my recent attempt (df_polar is the csv file linked):
# Generate polar and cartesian meshgrids
r = df_polar.columns
theta = df_polar.index
theta = np.deg2rad(theta)
# Polar meshgrid
rad_c, theta_c = np.meshgrid(r,theta)
# Cartesian meshgrid
X = rad_c * np.cos(theta_c)
Y = rad_c * np.sin(theta_c)
x,y = np.meshgrid(X,Y)
# Interpolate from polar to cartesian grid
new_grid = scipy.interpolate.griddata(
(rad_c.flatten(), theta_c.flatten()),
np.array(df_polar).flatten(), (x,y), method='nearest')
The result is not correct at all, and from reading the documentation and examples I don't understand why. I would greatly appreciate any tips on where I have gone wrong. Thanks a lot!!

I think you might be feeding griddata the wrong points. It wants cartesian points and if you want the values interpolated over a regular x/y grid you need to create one and provide that too.
Try this and let me know if it produces the expected result. It's hard for me to tell if this is what it should produce:
from scipy.interpolate import griddata
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
df_polar = pd.read_csv('onescan.txt', index_col=0)
# Generate polar and cartesian meshgrids
r = pd.to_numeric(df_polar.columns)
theta = np.deg2rad(df_polar.index)
# Polar meshgrid
rad_c, theta_c = np.meshgrid(r, theta)
# Cartesian equivalents of polar co-ordinates
X = rad_c*np.cos(theta_c)
Y = rad_c*np.sin(theta_c)
# Cartesian (x/y) meshgrid
grid_spacing = 100.0 # You can change this
nx = (X.max() - X.min())/grid_spacing
ny = (Y.max() - Y.min())/grid_spacing
x = np.arange(X.min(), X.max() + grid_spacing, grid_spacing)
y = np.arange(Y.min(), Y.max() + grid_spacing, grid_spacing)
grid_x, grid_y = np.meshgrid(x, y)
# Interpolate from polar to cartesian grid
new_grid = griddata(
(X.flatten(), Y.flatten()),
df_polar.values.flatten(),
(grid_x, grid_y),
method='nearest'
)
The resulting values look something like this (with grid_spacing = 10 and flipping x and y):
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
plt.imshow(new_grid.T, cmap='hot')
Clearly interpolate "nearest" needs taming...

Mapping from one plane on the other plane despite of masking regions

I have a set of data given here where in the first and second columns there are the sky coordinates (ra,dec), respectively and in the third and forth, the coordinates in a Cartesian system (x,y).
I need to make a two-dimensional interpolation surface using coordinates x and y and another using Ra and Dec. The problem is the existence of masked regions, as shown in the figure above. I can illustrate the missing data just by plotting them (There is non NaN value in the catalogue). That is what I so far tried and didn't give the right answer:
from scipy.interpolate import griddata
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
data = np.loadtxt('test.asc')
ra = data[:,0]
dec = data[:,1]
Xpos = data[:,2]
Ypos = data[:,3]
xi = np.linspace(Xpos.min(), Xpos.max(), 1000)
yi = np.linspace(Ypos.min(), Ypos.max(), 1000)
xi, yi = np.meshgrid(xi, yi, copy=False)
ra_int = griddata(data[:,2:4], ra, (xi.flatten(), yi.flatten()),
method='cubic')
dec_int = griddata(data[:,2:4], dec, (xi.flatten(), yi.flatten()),
method='cubic')
Using griddata fails and return just NaN values. Is there any way to do this interpolation in order to estimate the values of Ra and Dec from a given x and y coordinates even in the masked regions (map from x and y to ra and dec)?

If I get it right then it is like this:
just shift the Cartesian coordinate system to middle of the CCD and also the Equatoreal coordinates to middle of CCD. Then compute x,y separately. The only thing you need is to compute focus length f separately for x and y !!!
pos is the cartesian coordinate (x or y)
ang is the equatoreal coordinate (RA or Dec)
get edge point from the database
shift the angles to middle of CCD
compute focus (fx,fy) from it
f = pos/tan(ang)
now you can compute the projection for any entry in dataset
shift the angles to middle of CCD then compute x,y by
pos=f*tan(ang)
shift back from CCD middle to original Cartesian coordinates. You should check few points if is this approach correct
[notes]
x axis is mirrored in your output so just use x=-x at the end before shifting back to original Cartesian coordinates or leave focus f negative.
if your CCD is not axis aligned to equator then you need to compute the rotation (angle between X axis and equator) and apply rotation around Z axis after conversion before shifting back...