International Journal of Computer Vision

, Volume 69, Issue 3, pp 267–275

Reconstructing Open Surfaces from Image Data



In this paper a method for fitting open surfaces to data obtained from images is presented using a level set representation of the surface. This is done by tracking a curve, representing the boundary, on the implicitly defined surface. This curve is given as the intersection of the level set describing the surface and an auxiliary level set. These two level sets are propagated using the same motion vector field. Special care has to be taken in order for the surfaces not to intersect at other places than at the desired boundary. Methods for accomplishing this are presented and a fast scheme for finding initial values is proposed. This method gives a piecewise linear approximation of the initial surface boundary using a partition of the convex hull of the recovered 3D data. With the approach described in this paper, open surfaces can be fitted to e.g. point clouds obtained using structure from motion techniques. This paper solves an important practical problem since in many cases the surfaces in the scene are open or can only be viewed from certain directions. Experiments on several data sets support the method.


variational methods computer vision level set method multiple view stereo structure from motion 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bertalmio, M., Sapiro, G., and Randall, G. 1999.Region tracking on surfaces deforming via level-sets methods. In Scale-Space Theories in Computer Vision, Second International Conference, Scale-Space’99, Mads Nielsen, Peter Johansen, Ole Fogh Olsen, and Joachim Weickert, (Eds.), Corfu, Greece, volume 1682 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Burchard, P., Cheng, L.-T., Merriman, B., and Osher, S. 2001. Motion of curves in three spatial dimensions using a level set approach. J. Computational Physics, 166:720–741.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caselles, V., Kimmel, R., and Sapiro, G. 1997a. Geodesic active contours. Int. Journal of Computer Vision.Google Scholar
  4. Caselles, V., Kimmel, R., Sapiro, G., and Sbert, C. 1997b. Minimal surfaces based object segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 19(4):394–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng, L-T., Burchard, P., Merriman, B., and Osher, S. 2001. Motion of curves constrained on surfaces using a level set approach. Technical Report UCLA CAM Report 00-32, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  6. Dervieux, A. and Thomasset, F. 1979. A finite element method for the simulation of Rayleigh—Taylor instability. In Approximation Methods for Navier—Stokes Problems, R. Rautman (Ed.), volume 771 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer: Berlin, pp. 145–158.Google Scholar
  7. Faugeras, O. and Gomes, J. 2000. Dynamic shapes of arbitrary dimension: The vector distance functions. In Proceedings of the Ninth IMA Conference on Mathematics of Surfaces, Roberto Cipolla and Ralph Martin (Eds.), The Mathematics of Surfaces IX. Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Faugeras, O. and Keriven, R. 1998. Variational principles, surface evolution, PDEs, level set methods, and the stereo problem. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 7(3):336–344.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gravouil, A., Moës, N., and Belytschko, T. 2002. Non-planar 3d crack growth by the extended finite element and level sets. part II: level set update. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 53:2569–2586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hartley, R.I. and Zisserman, A. 2000. Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hoppe, H., DeRose, T., Duchamp, T., McDonald, J., and Stuetzle, W. 1992. Surface reconstruction from unorganized points. Computer Graphics, 26(2):71–78.Google Scholar
  12. Lhuillier, M. and Quan, L. 2003. Surface reconstruction by integrating 3d and 2d data of multiple views. In Int. Conf. Computer Vision, Nice, France, pp. 1313–1320.Google Scholar
  13. Lorensen, W.E. and Cline, H.E. 1987. Marching cubes: a high resolution 3d surface reconstruction algorithm. Computer Graphics (Siggraph’87), 21(4):163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morris, D. and Kanade, T. 2000. Image-consistent surface triangulation. In Proc. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 332–338.Google Scholar
  15. Osher, S. and Sethian, J.A. 1988. Fronts propagating with curvature-dependent speed: Algorithms based on Hamilton-Jacobi formulations. Journal of Computational Physics, 79:12–49.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Osher, S.J. and Fedkiw, R.P. 2002. Level Set Methods and Dynamic Implicit Surfaces. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Piegl, L. and Tiller, W. 1996. The NURBS Book. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Pons, J-P., Faugeras, O., and Keriven, R. 2005. Modelling dynamic scenes by registering multi-view image sequences. In International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Pons, J-P., Hermosillo, G., Keriven, R., and Faugeras, O. 2003. How to deal with point correspondences and tangential velocities in the level set framework. In Int. Conf. Computer Vision, Nice, France, pp. 894–899.Google Scholar
  20. Sethian, J.A. 1999. Level Set Methods and Fast Marching Methods Evolving Interfaces in Computational Geometry, Fluid Mechanics, Computer Vision, and Materials Science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Smereka, P. 2000. Spiral crystal growth. Physica D 138, pp. 282–301.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Solem, J.E. and Heyden, A. 2004. Reconstructing open surfaces from unorganized data points. In International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  23. Solem, J.E. and Kahl, F. 2004. Surface reconstruction from the projection of points, curves and contours. In 2nd Int. Symposium on 3D Data Processing, Visualization and Transmission, Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  24. Solem, J.E. and Kahl, F. 2005. Surface reconstruction using learned shape models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 17. Lawrence K. Saul, Yair Weiss, and Léon Bottou, (Eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  25. Solem, J.E. and Overgaard N.C. 2005. A geometric formulation of gradient descent for variational problems with moving surfaces. In The 5th International Conference on Scale Space and PDE methods in Computer Vision, Scale Space 2005, Hofgeismar, Germany, Springer. pp. 419–430.Google Scholar
  26. Solem, J.E., Aanæs, H., and Heyden, A. 2004. A variational analysis of shape from specularities using sparse data. In 2nd Int. Symposium on 3D Data Processing, Visualization and Transmission, Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  27. Zhao, H.K., Osher, S., Merriman, B., and Kang, M. 2000. Implicit and non-parametric shape reconstruction from unorganized points using a variational level set method. In Computer Vision and Image Understanding, pp. 295–319.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Technology and SocietyMalmö UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations