Question regarding quaternion conventions; particularly with respect to point vs frame rotations

I've been using the quaternion class from the sensor fusion toolbox and I just want to be sure that I haven't made a misunderstanding with the conventions.

At first glance, I guessed that this is following the Hamilton convention for quaternions: in that the scalar part comes first, and so on. But I am slightly in doubt when it comes to the "point" vs "frame" rotation terminology. I am assuming point corresponds to passive and frame corresponds to active due to the results of this

q = quaternion([0.42718, 0.24083, 0.59322, 0.63844]);
v = [1,0,0];
vQuat = quaternion([0,v]);

q * vQuat * conj(q)
rotatepoint(q, v)

conj(q) * vQuat * q
rotateframe(q, v)

the result of which is

ans = 

  quaternion


           0 - 0.51903i + 0.83119j - 0.19931k


ans =

   -0.5190    0.8312   -0.1993


ans = 

  quaternion


           0 - 0.51903i - 0.25973j + 0.81433k


ans =

   -0.5190   -0.2597    0.8143

which suggests that rotatepoint corresonds to where ⊗ quaternion multiplication.

"Realistic" Example for body to local frame rotation

If we a consider a "real-life" example instead, say the quaternion q represents the orientation of a body frame in a local frame (like e.g. if I want to construct the rotation matrix from body -> local then my guess is that would be rotmat(quat, 'point'). My implementation of this "real-life" example is here

drawArrow = @(p,varargin) quiver( 0,0,p(1),p(2),0,varargin{:} );  

% original point
p1 = [1; 0; 0];

% axis-angle rotation, 45 degrees around positive x axis
theta = deg2rad(45);
a = [0, 0, 1];
q = quaternion([cos(theta/2), sin(theta/2)*a]);

% i think rotation corresponds to
p2 = rotatepoint(q, p1'); % body to local frame
p3 = rotateframe(q, p1'); % local frame to body

figure(1)
clf
hold on
drawArrow(p1);
drawArrow(p2);
drawArrow(p3);
grid on
xlabel('x')
ylabel('y')
xlim([-0.5,2])
ylim([-1,1])
legend({'orignal','b->l','l->b'})

where the resulting plot is attached. My understanding here is that blue is the original vector in body frame, red is the same vector in the local frame when the rotation from body to local is given by the specific axis-angle rotation.

Answer 1

[Yiping Liu]

Your understanding seems to be correct.

If the quaternion q reprsents a 3D rotation that rotates frame Local into frame Body, then the rotation matrix acquired through R = q.rotmat('frame') represents the same 3D rotation, but keep in mind that the same R can also be interpreted as "the rotation that re-expresses a point in body frame into local frame".

To express a point that is originally given in local frame into the body frame, you need R', which is equivalent to q.rotmat('point')

>> q.rotmat('frame') * q.rotmat('point')

ans =

    1.0000         0         0
         0    1.0000         0
         0         0    1.0000

[Morten Nissov]

And I suppose the same is true for the quaternion which represents the orientation of the body frame with respect to the local?

Like for example, a body which sits at with some heading (yaw) ψ corresponds to the quaternion by the axis-angle to quaternion conversion. The rotation from {b} to {l} is then

which in this case would be given by rotmat(q, 'point').

I think I get it.

Answer 2

[James Tursa]

See this post for comments regarding "point" vs "frame" convention:

https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/524471-what-is-the-convention-of-the-new-quaternion-class-introduced-in-r2018b?s_tid=srchtitle

And also this post for a graphic example:

https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/465053-rotation-order-of-quatrotate?s_tid=srchtitle

[Morten Nissov]

I have seen these posts, but they leave me with some questions: What quaternion convention does the sensor fusion/navigation toolbox follow, because for me it seems as though it's a combination.

It's clear enough to see quaternion()for me follows the aerospace order, i.e. qw + i*qx + j*qy + k*qz, I see the rotation a mentioned previously as being a frame rotation, as I am rotating the perspective from which I view the vector. This would lead me to believe the 'frame' rotation is appropriate, but this infact produces the incorrect rotation matrix if compared with the known yaw rotation from body to a local frame.

Note: When I said "local" in the original I was attempting to stay general, I think I should've perhaps said "tangent frame" or "ned" instead as this is what I was actually thinking of.

[James Tursa]

I don't have the Sensor Fusion Toolbox, so can't investigate this directly. But just reading the doc it appears you may be correct that it can support both passive and active conventions. I write this because I see the rotateframe( ) and rotatepoint( ) functions in this toolbox. So it seems you can choose functions to support either of these conventions.

[Morten Nissov]

The confusing part is it seems as if rotatepoint is the "passive" rotation:

% describing {b} orientation in {l} as 45 deg about z axis
theta = deg2rad(45);
a = [0, 0, 1];
q = quaternion([cos(theta/2), sin(theta/2)*a]); % axis-angle conversion

rotmat(q, 'point')
ans =

    0.7071   -0.7071         0
    0.7071    0.7071         0
         0         0    1.0000

which is the rotation matrix I would expect for R_{b}^{l} following the previous comment.

So is point here really the passive rotation?

Edit: In addition, considering the quat to rotation matrix conversion as desribed by Solas, link,

function [ R ] = rot( q )
    q = compact(q);
    w = q(1);	x = q(2);	y = q(3);	z = q(4);
    
    R = [
    	w^2+x^2-y^2-z^2,	2*(x*y-w*z),		2*(x*z+w*y);
    	2*(x*y+w*z),		w^2-x^2+y^2-z^2,	2*(y*z-w*x);
    	2*(x*z-w*y),		2*(y*z+w*x),		w^2-x^2-y^2+z^2
    ];
end

also results in the same as the point rotmat

[James Tursa]

I am not seeing the confusion here. If you look at your explicit rotation matrix

0.7071 -0.7071 0

0.7071 0.7071 0

0 0 1.0000

this sure looks like an active rotation of 45 degrees to me. E.g., take a vector along the x-axis [1;0;0] and multiply it by that matrix and you will get the first column. This is what you would expect by actively rotating a [1;0;0] vector by 45 degrees within the same coordinate frame. It should end up halfway between the x-axis and the y-axis, and that is what we got. And take a y-axis vector [0;1;0] and do the same multiplication and you get the 2nd column, which is a vector halfway between the y-axis and the negative x-axis. Again, this is what I would expect from an active rotation of 45 degrees within the same coordinate frame.

As for the quaternion to direction cosine matrix conversion formula, this does look like a Scalar-Vector order Left Chain Active Hamilton convention.

Answer 3

[Brian Fanous]

The quaternion class does follow the Hamilton convention – the scalar part is first.

Point rotations are active rotations and correspond to q * v * conj(q).

Frame rotations are passive rotations and corresponds to conj(q) * v * q

See this example for a fuller explanation https://www.mathworks.com/help/fusion/ug/rotations-orientation-and-quaternions.html

[Morten Nissov]

All of this up til passive vs active makes sense to me. Actually applying these functions to generate rotation matrices in comparison to a known rotation around an axis is where the active/passive distinction seems backwards to me.

As in an earlier comment suppose there is a quantity, e.g. velocity, given in body frame as well as the orientation of the body frame with respect to NED frame. Suppose also that the orientation of the body is given by rotation 45 deg about [0,0,1] (x,y,z). The rotation of velocity in {b} to velocity in {n} is thus given by

where I would expect

Repeating this with quaternions results in the "point" rotmat being the same and the "frame" rotmat being the transposed. This is what seems off to me.

Code for quaternion caluclation

% describing {b} orientation in {n} as 45 deg about z axis
theta = deg2rad(45);
a = [0, 0, 1];
q = quaternion([cos(theta/2), sin(theta/2)*a]); % axis-angle conversion

rotmat(q, 'point')
ans =

    0.7071   -0.7071         0
    0.7071    0.7071         0
         0         0    1.0000

[Brian Fanous]

We might be using the same definition of orientation, but just to be sure, our orientation definition is :

“Orientation is defined as the frame rotation that takes the parent frame to the child frame.”

This is in the doc on this page: https://www.mathworks.com/help/fusion/gs/spatial-representation-coordinate-systems-and-conventions.html

The equation you’ve written with the rotation matrix takes the body (child) frame to the parent (navigation) frame. Your rotation matrix is what we’d call a point rotation matrix. Really it’s the transpose of what we call orientation in the toolboxes. But that’s why it works in your equation – you are going body to nav so using the transpose is correct.

The quaternion you’ve built is the same one you’d get if you did this:

quaternion([45 0 0], 'eulerd', 'ZYX', 'point')  

which is to say, “make a quaternion q such that q * v * conj(q) will rotate a point 45 degrees around the Z axis.”

That’s why you get the same answer as the matrix you’ve defined above which rotates a point around the Z axis. The transpose of that matrix rotates the frame of reference.