mdpkh

a. k. a. Vid the Kid

Autistic • asexual • nonbinary • nudist • roadgeek • computer programmer • EGA/VGA enthusiast • main fronter of Indigoville (plural system). 🟩English | 🟢Español | 🔶日本語 | 🔸العربية


mdpkh
@mdpkh

I want to design a family of conformal map projections where the perimeter of the rectangular map has nearly constant scale (thus optimizing the overall scale distortion in the interior of the rectangle) at a range of extents and aspect ratios. I think this can probably be accomplished with a 5th-order or 7th-order (or maybe even 9th-order) complex maybe-rational polynomial transformation of a stereographic azimuthal map. The tricky part will be developing a general procedure to optimize the the polynomial for a given rectangle size. The hard part will be finding a general formula for the optimal polynomial (or a good approximation thereof) in terms of the desired map extents.


mdpkh
@mdpkh

In another rechost-addendum, I determined that a rational polynomial will not fit my needs. Furthermore, I can derive some constraints on the polynomial coefficients rather easily based on some simple desired properties:

The polynomial maps real numbers to real numbers

All polynomial coefficients are real.

The polynomial maps pure-imaginary numbers to pure-imaginary numbers

All even-degree polynomial coefficients are zero.

The neighborhood about the origin is not scaled or rotated by the polynomial transformation

The first-degree coefficient is 1.

Swapping the extent parameters (a, b) has the effect of applying the transformation in a 90°-rotated view

f(b, a, z) = i·f(a, b, −i·z)

The third-degree coefficient, seventh-degree coefficient, and so on, are negated if a and b are swapped, and zero if a equals b. The fifth-degree coefficient, ninth-degree coefficient, and so on, are unchanged if a and b are swapped.


You must log in to comment.