Skip to main content

plotting - Smooth ParametricPlot3D with RegionFunction?


What's the preferred way to paint spots on a curved surface without getting raggedy edges? Using ParametricPlot3D with RegionFunction gets the shape I want but increasing PlotPoints slows things down considerably. Counterintuitively Reducing PlotPoints to 50 gives better looking results than 100:



With[{a = 0.8, b = 0.4, r = 5^0.5, l = 10, points = 50}, 
 ParametricPlot3D[{{x, -Sqrt[r^2 - x^2], z}, {x, Sqrt[r^2 - x^2], 
    z}}, {x, -r, r}, {z, -l/2, l/2}, 
  RegionFunction -> 
   Function[{x, y, z}, (x/a)^2 + (z/b)^2 < 1 && y > 0], Mesh -> None, 
  PerformanceGoal -> "Quality", PlotPoints -> points]]

First image has points =50, second image has points = 100.


enter image description here enter image description here



Answer





What's the preferred way to paint spots on a curved surface without getting raggedy edges?



I use MeshFunctions, MeshShading, and Mesh:


Show[
 (* Head *)
 ParametricPlot3D[
  (1 + 0.05 Cos[u]) {Sin[u] Cos[v], Sin[u] Sin[v], 0} + {0, 0, 1.05 Cos[u]},
  {u, 0, π}, {v, 0, 2 π},
  (* mouth *)

  MeshFunctions -> {Function[{x, y, z, u, v}, x + 0.5 (2 y^2 - 2 (z + 0.5))^2]},
  MeshShading -> {Black, Lighter@Red, Yellow},
  Mesh -> {{-0.85, -0.82}},
  (*****)
  AxesLabel -> {"x", "y", "z"}, PlotPoints -> 100],
 (* Eyes *)
 ParametricPlot3D[
  Sin[1.9 (u - 0.45)]^2 (0.36 + 0.8 (Sqrt[0.5 + 2 Abs[v]])) Cos[1.5 v] *
     {-Sin[u] Cos[v], -Sin[u] Sin[v], Cos[u]},
  {u, π/6, π/2}, {v, -π/6, π/6},

  (* pupil & iris *)
  MeshFunctions -> {Function[{x, y, z, u, v}, 
     Sin[1.9 (u - 0.49)]^2 (0.36 + 0.8 (Sqrt[0.5 + 2 Abs[v]])) Cos[1.5 v]]},
  MeshShading -> {White, Lighter@Blue, Black},
  Mesh -> {{1.06, 1.077}},
  (*****)
  AxesLabel -> {"x", "y", "z"}, PlotPoints -> 100],
 (* Tongue *)
 ParametricPlot3D[
  {-u, 0, -u^2/4 - 0.15} + 0.15 Sqrt[Sqrt[(1.2 - u)]] *

     (2 Cos[v] {0, 1, 0} + Sin[v] {-u/2, 0, 1 - 0.5 Sin[v]}/Sqrt[u^2 + 1]),
  {u, 0.5, 1.2}, {v, 0, 2 π}, PlotStyle -> Red, Mesh -> None],
 PlotRange -> All
 ]

Mathematica graphics


It has the advantage of having borders that meet each other exactly. (Pasting a surface patch on another surface usually requires a small gap between them, or rounding error in the GPU causes the image to shimmer.)


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more