Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 67–79

# A Minimal Solution to the Generalised 3-Point Pose Problem

Article

## Abstract

It is a well known classical result that given the image projections of three known world points it is possible to solve for the pose of a calibrated perspective camera to up to four pairs of solutions. We solve the Generalised problem where the camera is allowed to sample rays in some arbitrary but known fashion and is not assumed to perform a central perspective projection. That is, given three back-projected rays that emanate from a camera or multi-camera rig in an arbitrary but known fashion, we seek the possible poses of the camera such that the three rays meet three known world points. We show that the Generalised problem has up to eight solutions that can be found as the intersections between a circle and a ruled quartic surface. A minimal and efficient constructive numerical algorithm is given to find the solutions. The algorithm derives an octic polynomial whose roots correspond to the solutions. In the classical case, when the three rays are concurrent, the ruled quartic surface and the circle possess a reflection symmetry such that their intersections come in symmetric pairs. This manifests itself in that the odd order terms of the octic polynomial vanish. As a result, the up to four pairs of solutions can be found in closed form. The proposed algorithm can be used to solve for the pose of any type of calibrated camera or camera rig. The intended use for the algorithm is in a hypothesise-and-test architecture.

### Keywords

structure from motion camera pose algebraic geometry

## Preview

### References

1. 1.
E. Adelson and J. Bergen, “The plenoptic function and the elements of early vision,” in Computational Models of Visual Processing, MIT Press, 1991, ISBN 0-262-12155-7.Google Scholar
2. 2.
T. Alter, “3-D pose from 3 points using weak perspective,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 802–808, 1994.
3. 3.
P. Baker, R. Pless, C. Fermüller, and Y. Aloimonos, “Eyes from eyes,” SMILE 2001. LNCS 2018, 2001, pp. 204–217.Google Scholar
4. 4.
5. 5.
O. Faugeras, Three-Dimensional Computer Vision: A Geometric Viewpoint, MIT Press, 1993, ISBN 0-262-06158-9.Google Scholar
6. 6.
M. Fischler and R. Bolles, “Random sample consensus: A paradigm for model fitting with application to image analysis and automated cartography,” Commun. Assoc. Comp. Mach., Vol. 24, pp. 381–395, 1981.
7. 7.
M. Grossberg and S. Nayar, “A general imaging model and a method for finding its parameters,” IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Vol. 2, pp. 108–115, 2001.Google Scholar
8. 8.
A. Gruen and T.S. Huang, Calibration and Orientation of Cameras in Computer Vision, Springer Verlag, 2001. ISBN 3-540-65283-3.Google Scholar
9. 9.
J. Grunert, “Das Pothenotische Problem in erweiterter Gestalt nebst über seine Anwendungen in der Geodäsie,” Grunerts Archiv für Mathematik und Physik, Vol. 1, pp. 238–248, 1841.Google Scholar
10. 10.
R. Haralick, C. Lee, K. Ottenberg, and M. Nölle, “Review and analysis of solutions of the three point perspective pose estimation problem,” International Journal of Computer Vision, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 331–356, 1994.
11. 11.
R. Hartley and A. Zisserman, Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision, Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 0-521-62304-9.Google Scholar
12. 12.
D. Nistér, “An efficient solution to the five-point relative pose problem,” IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Vol. 2, pp. 195–202, 2003.Google Scholar
13. 13.
D. Nistér, “Preemptive RANSAC for Live Structure and Motion Estimation,” IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 199–206, 2003.Google Scholar
14. 14.
R. Pless, “Using many cameras as one,” IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Vol. 2, pp. 587–593.Google Scholar