From: malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com   
      
   On Tuesday, 6 December 2022 at 13:04:13 UTC, Paul N wrote:   
   > On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 10:52:35 AM UTC, Malcolm McLean wrote:    
   > > I'm working on a problem where a user enters a degraded, wiggly curve   
   (it's actually created by tracing software from what might have been once a   
   rectangle, for example, but has been physically printed, then scanned, and so   
   on, so that there are    
   plenty of stray pixels picked up by the tracing software).    
   > >    
   > > So basically what I want to do is sample the curve at a fairly low   
   resolution, then re-fit it, to get rid of the noise. However I want to retain   
   the genuine sharp corners. So in the rectangle case, the desired output   
   wouldn't be a mathematical    
   rectangle, but it would be four clean almost straight curves, connected by   
   four corners of almost ninety degreees.    
   > >    
   > > The curve tends to go back on itself. It's like a coastline. It's easy to   
   pick out the real curve from the noise by eye, but harder to do it   
   automatically.   
   > Would it help to assume that if the "curve" is close enough to a straight   
   line, then it is meant to be one, and choose the best straight line that fits?   
   >   
   That's part of the idea. However the underlying shapes might not have straight   
   lines.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)