International Journal of Computer Vision

, Volume 67, Issue 2, pp 211–231

# Four Points in Two or Three Calibrated Views: Theory and Practice

Article

## Abstract

Suppose two perspective views of four world points are given and that the intrinsic parameters are known but the camera poses and the world point positions are not. We prove that the epipole in each view is then constrained to lie on a curve of degree ten. We derive the equation for the curve and establish many of the curve’s properties. For example, we show that the curve has four branches through each of the image points and that it has four additional points on each conic of the pencil of conics through the four image points. We show how to compute the four curve points on each conic in closed form. We show that orientation constraints allow only parts of the curve and find that there are impossible configurations of four corresponding point pairs. We give a novel algorithm that solves for the essential matrix given three corresponding points and one of the epipoles. We then use the theory to create the most efficient solution yet to the notoriously difficult problem of solving for the pose of three views given four corresponding points. The solution is a search over a one-dimensional parameter domain, where each point in the search can be evaluated in closed form. The intended use for the solution is in a hypothesise-and-test architecture to solve for structure and motion.

### Keywords

structure-from-motion multi-view geometry minimal methods RANSAC Kruppa constraint algebraic curves

## Preview

### References

1. Faugeras, O. D. 1993. Three-Dimensional Computer Vision: A Geometric Viewpoint. MIT Press.Google Scholar
2. Fischler, M.A. and Bolles, R.C. 1981. Random sample consensus: A paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Comm. Assoc. Comp. Mach. 24(6), 381–395.
3. Haralick, R.M., Lee, C., Ottenberg, K., and Nölle, M. 1994. Review and analysis of solutions of the three point perspective pose estimation problem. Int. J. of Computer Vision. 13(3), 331–356.
4. Hartley, R.I. and Zisserman, A. 2000. Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
5. Holt, R. and Netravali, A. 1995. Uniqueness of solutions to three perspective views of four points. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 17(3).Google Scholar
6. Kirwan, F. 1995. Complex Algebraic Curves. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
7. Maybank, S.J. 1993. Theory of Reconstruction from Image Motion. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
8. Nistér, D. 2003a. An efficient solution to the five-point relative pose problem. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Madison, Wisconsin, Vol. 2. pp. 195–202.Google Scholar
9. Nistér D. 2003b. Preemptive RANSAC for live structure and motion estimation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 199–206.Google Scholar
10. Nistér, D. 2004. An Efficient solution to the five-point relative pose problem. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 26(6), 756–770. To appear.
11. Quan, L., Triggs, B., and Mourrain, B. 2003a. Some results on minimal euclidean reconstruction from four points. J. of Math. Imag. and Vision. To appear.Google Scholar
12. Quan, L., Triggs, B., Mourrain, B. and Ameller, A. 2003b. Uniqueness of minimal euclidean reconstruction from 4 points. Unpublished article.Google Scholar
13. Schaffalitzky, F., Zisserman, A., Hartley, R.I., and Torr, P.H.S. 2000. A six point solution for structure and motion. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 632–648, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
14. Semple, J.G. and Kneebone, G.T. 1952. Algebraic Projective Geometry. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
15. Werner, T. 2003. Constraints on five points in two images. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Madison, Wisconsin, vol. 2. pp. 203–208.Google Scholar