International Journal of Computer Vision

, Volume 66, Issue 3, pp 211–229 | Cite as

Non-Single Viewpoint Catadioptric Cameras: Geometry and Analysis

  • Rahul Swaminathan
  • Michael D. Grossberg
  • Shree K. Nayar
Article

Abstract.

Conventional vision systems and algorithms assume the imaging system to have a single viewpoint. However, these imaging systems need not always maintain a single viewpoint. For instance, an incorrectly aligned catadioptric system could cause non-single viewpoints. Moreover, a lot of flexibility in imaging system design can be achieved by relaxing the need for imaging systems to have a single viewpoint. Thus, imaging systems with non-single viewpoints can be designed for specific imaging tasks, or image characteristics such as field of view and resolution. The viewpoint locus of such imaging systems is called a caustic.

In this paper, we present an in-depth analysis of caustics of catadioptric cameras with conic reflectors. We use a simple parametric model for both, the reflector and the imaging system, to derive an analytic solution for the caustic surface. This model completely describes the imaging system and provides a map from pixels in the image to their corresponding viewpoints and viewing direction. We use the model to analyze the imaging system's properties such as field of view, resolution and other geometric properties of the caustic itself. In addition, we present a simple technique to calibrate the class of conic catadioptric cameras and estimate their caustics from known camera motion. The analysis and results we present in this paper are general and can be applied to any catadioptric imaging system whose reflector has a parametric form.

Keywords:

catadoptric system conic section non-single viewpoint caustics viewpoint surface self-calibration sensor resolution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold, V. 1978. Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, S. and Nayar, S.K. 1998. A theory of catadioptric image formation. In Proc. ICCV, pp. 35–42.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, S. and Nayar, S.K. 1999. A theory of single-viewpoint catadioptric image formation. IJCV, 35(2):1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogner, S. 1995. Introduction to panoramic imaging. In IEEE SMC Conference, vol. 54, pp. 3100–3106.Google Scholar
  5. Bolles, R.C., Konolige, K.G., and Fischler, M.A. 1997. Extra set of eyes. In DARPA-IUW, pp. 41–44.Google Scholar
  6. Born, M. and Wolf, E. 1965, Principles of Optics. Permagon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bruce, J.W., Giblin, P.J., and Gibson, C.G. 1981. On caustics of plane curves. American Mathematical Monthly, 88:651–667.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Burkhard, D.G. and Shealy, D.L. 1973. Flux density for ray propoagation in gemoetrical optics. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 63(3):299–304.Google Scholar
  9. Chahl, J. and Srinivasan, M. 1997. Reflective surfaces for panoramic imaging. Applied Optics, 36(31):8275–8285.Google Scholar
  10. Charles, J., Reeves, R., and Schur, C. 1987. How to build and use an all-sky camera. Astronomy Magazine.Google Scholar
  11. Derrien, S. and Konolige, K. 2000. Aproximating a single viewpoint in panoramic imaging devices. In International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3932–3939.Google Scholar
  12. Gachter, S., Pajdla, T., and Micusik, B. 2001. Mirror design for an omnidirectional camera with space variant imager. In Overviews of the Workshops on Omnidirectional Vision, pp. 99–105.Google Scholar
  13. Gaspar, J., Decco, C., Okamoto, J. Jr., and Santos-Victor, J. 2002. Constant resolution omnidirectional cameras. In Proc. OMNIVIS, p. 27.Google Scholar
  14. Geyer, C. and Daniilidis, K. 1999. Catadioptric camera calibration. In Proc. ICCV, pp. 398–404.Google Scholar
  15. Gluckman, J. and Nayar, S.K. 1999. Planar catadioptric stereo: Geometry and calibration. In Proc. CVPR, pp. I:22–28.Google Scholar
  16. Grossberg, M. and Nayar, S. 2001. A general imaging model and a method for finding its parameters. In Proc. ICCV, pp. 108–115.Google Scholar
  17. Hamilton, W.R. 1828. Theory of systems of rays. Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, 15:69–174.Google Scholar
  18. Hicks, A. 2002. Differential methods in catadioptric sensor design with applications to panoramic imaging. Technical report, Drexel University, Computer Science.Google Scholar
  19. Hicks, R. and Bajcsy, R. 2000. Catadioptric sensors that approximate wide-angle perspective projections. In Proc. CVPR, pp. I:545–551.Google Scholar
  20. Hicks, R. and Perline, R. 2002. Equi-areal catadioptric sensors. In Proc. OMNIVIS, p. 13.Google Scholar
  21. Hong, J.W., Tan, X., Pinette, B., Weiss, R., and Riseman, E.M. 1990. Image-based navigation using 360 views. In DARPA-IUW, pp. 782–791.Google Scholar
  22. Kang, S.B. 2000. Catadioptric self-calibration. In Proc. CVPR, pp. I:201–207.Google Scholar
  23. Murphy, J. 1997. Application of panoramic imaging to a teleoperated lunar rover. In IEEE SMC Conference, vol. 36, pp. 3117–3121.Google Scholar
  24. Nalwa, V. 1996. A true omnidirectional viewer. Technical report, Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ 07733, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  25. Nayar, S.K. 1997. Catadioptric omnidirectional cameras. In Proc. CVPR, pp. 482–488.Google Scholar
  26. Nayar, S.K. and Karmarkar, A.D. 2000. 360 × 360 Mosaics. In Proc. CVPR, pp. I:388–395.Google Scholar
  27. Pajdla, T. 2001. Epipolar geometry of some non-classical cameras. In Computer Vision Winter Workshop, pp. 223–233.Google Scholar
  28. Pajdla, T. 2002. Stereo with oblique cameras. Trans. IJCV, 47(1–3):161–170.MATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Peleg, S., Pritch, Y., and Ben-Ezraet, M. 2000. Cameras for stereo panoramic imaging. In Proc. CVPR, pp. I:208–214.Google Scholar
  30. Peri, V.N. and Nayar, S.K. 1997. Generation of perspective and panoramic video from omnidirectional video. DARPA-IUW, pp. I:243–245.Google Scholar
  31. Rees, D. 1970. Panoramic television viewing system. United States Patent No.3,505,465.Google Scholar
  32. Seitz, S. 2001. The space of all stereo images. In Proc. ICCV, pp. I:26–33.Google Scholar
  33. Srinivasan, M. 2003. New class of mirrors for wide-angle imaging. In Proc. OMNIVIS.Google Scholar
  34. Swaminathan, R., Grossberg, M., and Nayar, S. 2003. A perspective on distortions. In Proc. CVPR, pp. II: 594–601.Google Scholar
  35. Swaminathan, R., Grossberg, M.D., and Nayar, S.K. 2001. Caustics of catadioptric cameras. In Proc. ICCV, pp. II:2–9.Google Scholar
  36. Swaminathan, R., Grossberg, M.D., and Nayar, S.K. 2001. Non-single viewpoint catadioptric cameras: Geometry and analysis. Technical Report CUCS-004-01, Dept. of Computer Science, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  37. Weinshall, D., Lee, M., Brodsky, T., Trajkovic, M., and Feldman, D. 2002. New view generation with a bi-centric camera. In Proc. ECCV (1), pp. 614–628.Google Scholar
  38. Yagi, Y., Kawato, S., and Tsuji, S. 1994. Real-time omnidirectional image sensor (copis) for vision-guided navigation. Robotics and Automation, 10(1):11–22.Google Scholar
  39. Yagi, Y. and Yachida, M. 1991. Real-time generation of environmental map and obstacle avoidance using omnidirectional image sensor with conic mirror. In Proc. CVPR, pp. 160–165.Google Scholar
  40. Yamazawa, K., Yagi, Y., and Yachida, M. 1993, Omnidirectional imaging with hyperboloidal projection. In Proc. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1029–1034.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rahul Swaminathan
    • 1
  • Michael D. Grossberg
    • 1
  • Shree K. Nayar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations