Advertisement

Multimedia Systems

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 195–210 | Cite as

Calibrating and optimizing poses of visual sensors in distributed platforms

  • Eva HörsterEmail author
  • Rainer Lienhart
Regular paper

Abstract

Many novel multimedia, home entertainment, visual surveillance and health applications use multiple audio-visual sensors. We present a novel approach for position and pose calibration of visual sensors, i.e., cameras, in a distributed network of general purpose computing devices (GPCs). It complements our work on position calibration of audio sensors and actuators in a distributed computing platform (Raykar et al. in proceedings of ACM Multimedia ‘03, pp. 572–581, 2003). The approach is suitable for a wide range of possible – even mobile – setups since (a) synchronization is not required, (b) it works automatically, (c) only weak restrictions are imposed on the positions of the cameras, and (d) no upper limit on the number of cameras under calibration is imposed. Corresponding points across different camera images are established automatically. Cameras do not have to share one common view. Only a reasonable overlap between camera subgroups is necessary. The method has been sucessfully tested in numerous multi-camera environments with a varying number of cameras and has proven itself to work extremely accurate. Once all distributed visual sensors are calibrated, we focus on post-optimizing their poses to increase coverage of the space observed. A linear programming approach is derived that determines jointly for each camera the pan and tilt angle that maximizes the coverage of the space at a given sampling frequency. Experimental results clearly demonstrate the gain in visual coverage.

Keywords

Multi-camera calibration Sensor networks Position calibration Pose optimization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berkelaar, P.N.M., Eikland, K. lpsolve: Open souce (mixed- integer) linear programming system. Eindhoven U. of Technology. http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lp_solve/ files/Version5.5/Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouguet, J.-Y. Camera Calibration Toolbox for Matlab. http://www.vision.caltech.edu/bouguet/calib_doc/Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chakrabarty H.Q.K., Iyengar S.S., Cho E. (2002) Grid coverage for surveillance and target location in distributed sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Comput. 51(12): 1448–1453MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, X., Davis, J., Slusallek, P. Wide area camera calibration using virtual calibration objects. In: Proceedings of CVPR ’00, pp. 2520–2527 2000Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erdem, U., Sclaroff, S. Optimal placement of cameras in floorplans to satisfy task requirements and cost constraints. In: OMNIVIS Workshop, 2004Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fitzgibbon, A., Zissermann, A. Automatic camera recovery for closed or open image sequences. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 311–326 1998Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forsyth, D.A., Ponce, J. Computer Vision: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, 2002Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris, C., Stephens, M. A combined corner and edge detector. In: Proceedings of the 4th Alvey Vision Conference, pp. 147–152, 1988Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hartley, R. An algorithm for self-calibration from several views. In: Proceedings of CVPR ’94, pp. 908–912, Seattle, USA, 1994Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hartley R., Zisserman A. (2003) Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge University. Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heikkilä, J., Silven, O. A four-step camera calibration procedure with implicit image correction. In: Proceedings of CVPR ’97, pp. 1106–1112, 1997Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hörster, E., Lienhart, R. Approximating optimal visual sensor placement. In: Proceedings of ICME ’06, 2006Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Intel corporation. OpenCV Computer Vision Library. http://www.intel.com/research/mrl/research/opencv/Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lienhart, R., Kozintsev, I., Wehr, S., Yeung, M. On the importance of exact synchronization for distributed audio processing. In: Proceedings of ICASSP ’03, pp. 840–843, 2003Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lowe D.G. (2004) Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int. J. Comput. Vis 60(2): 91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mikolajczyk, K., Schmid, C. A performance evaluation of local descriptors. In: Proceedings of CVPR ’03, vol. 2, pp. 257–263, 2003Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mikolajczyk, K., Schmid, C. An affine invariant interest point detector. In: ECCV (1), pp. 128–142, 2002Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mittal, A., Davis, L. Visibility analysis and sensor planning in dynamic environments, vol. I, pp. 175–189, 2004Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pollefeys M. (1999) Self-Calibration and Metric 3D Reconstruction from Uncalibrated Image Sequences. PhD thesis, K. U. Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rahimi A., Dunagan B., Darrell T. (2004) Simultaneous calibration and tracking with a network of non-overlapping sensors. CVPR 01:187–194Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raykar, V., Kozintsev, I., Lienhart R. Position calibration of audio sensors and actuators in a distributed computing platform. In: Proceedings ACM Multimedia ’03, pp. 572–581, 2003Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sahni S., Xu X. (2005) Algorithms for wireless sensor networks. Int. J. Distrib. Sensor Netw. 1(1): 35–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shi, J., Tomasi, C. Good features to track. In: Proceedings of CVPR ’94, pp. 593 – 600, 1994Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sinha, S.N., Pollefeys, M. Calibrating a network of cameras from live or archived video. In: Proceedings of CVPR ’04, 2004Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sturm, P., Triggs, W. A factorization based algorithm for multiple-image projective structure and motion. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 709–720, 1996Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Svoboda T., Martinec D., Pajdla T. (2005) A convenient multi-camera self-calibration for virtual environments. PRESENCE Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 14(4): 407–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tsai R. (1987) A versatile camera calibration technique for high-accuracy 3d machine vision metrology using off-the-shelf tv cameras and lense. IEEE J. Rob. Autom. RA-3, 323–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang J., Zhong N. (2006) Efficient point coverage in wireless sensor networks. J. Comb. Optim. 11(3): 291–304MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Williams H. (1985) Model Building in Mathematical Programming. 2nd edn, Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang, Z. A flexible new technique for camera calibration. Technical Report MSR-TR-98-71, Microsoft Research, Redmond, USA, 1998Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zou Y., Chakrabarty K. (2004) Sensor deployment and target localization in distributed sensor networks. Trans. Embed Comput Syst. 3(1): 61–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Multimedia Computing LabUniversity of AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations