Advertisement

International Journal of Computer Vision

, Volume 88, Issue 1, pp 85–110 | Cite as

Generalized Thin-Plate Spline Warps

  • Adrien BartoliEmail author
  • Mathieu Perriollat
  • Sylvie Chambon
Article

Abstract

The Thin-Plate Spline warp has been shown to be a very effective parameterized model of the optic flow field between images of various types of deformable surfaces, such as a paper sheet being bent. Recent work has also used such warps for images of a smooth and rigid surface. Standard Thin-Plate Spline warps are however not rigid, in the sense that they do not comply with the epipolar geometry. They are also intrinsically affine, in the sense of the affine camera model, since they are not able to simply model the effect of perspective projection.

We propose three types of warps based on the Thin-Plate Spline. The first one is a rigid flexible warp. It describes the optic flow field induced by a smooth and rigid surface, and satisfies the affine epipolar geometry constraint. The second and third proposed warps extend the standard Thin-Plate Spline warp and the proposed rigid flexible warp to the perspective camera model. The properties of these warps are studied in details and a hierarchy is defined. Experimental results on simulated and real data are reported.

Keywords

Thin-plate spline Deformable surface Image warp Perspective projection Rigidity Fundamental matrix 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bartoli, A. (2008). Maximizing the predictivity of smooth deformable image warps through cross-validation. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 31(2–3), 133–145. CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartoli, A. (2009). On computing the prediction sum of squares statistic in linear least squares problems with multiple parameter or measurement sets. International Journal of Computer Vision, 85(2), 133–142. CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartoli, A., & Zisserman, A. (2004). Direct estimation of non-rigid registrations. In British machine vision conference. Google Scholar
  4. Blanz, V., & Vetter, T. (2003). Face recognition based on fitting a 3D morphable model. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 25(9). Google Scholar
  5. Bookstein, F. L. (1989). Principal warps: Thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 11(6), 567–585. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bregler, C., Hertzmann, A., & Biermann, H. (2000). Recovering non-rigid 3D shape from image streams. In International conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. Google Scholar
  7. Brunet, F., Bartoli, A., Malgouyres, R., & Navab, N. (2009). NURBS warps. In British machine vision conference. Google Scholar
  8. Chojnacki, W., Brooks, M. J., van den Hengel, A., & Gawley, D. (2003). Revisiting Hartley’s normalised eight-point algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 25(9), 1172–1177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chui, H., & Rangarajan, A. (2003). A new point matching algorithm for non-rigid registration. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 89(2), 114–141. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cootes, T. F., Marsland, S., Twining, C. J., Smith, K., & Taylor, C. J. (2004). Groupwise diffeomorphic non-rigid registration for automatic model building. In European conference on computer vision. Google Scholar
  11. Donato, G., & Belongie, S. (2002). Approximate thin-plate spline mappings. In European conference on computer vision. Google Scholar
  12. Duchon, J. (1976). Interpolation des fonctions de deux variables suivant le principe de la flexion des plaques minces. RAIRO Analyse Numérique, 10, 5–12. MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Gay-Bellile, V., Bartoli, A., & Sayd, P. (2009). Direct estimation of non-rigid registrations with image-based self-occlusion reasoning. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. To appear. Google Scholar
  14. Hartley, R. I., & Zisserman, A. (2003). Multiple view geometry in computer vision (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  15. Irani, M., Anandan, P., & Cohen, M. (1999). Direct recovery of planar-parallax from multiple frames. In Proceedings of the international workshop on vision algorithms: theory and practice. Google Scholar
  16. Lee, S. Y., Chwa, K. Y., Hahn, J., & Shin, S. Y. (1996). Image morphing using deformation techniques. Journal of Visualization and Computer Animation, 7, 3–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lim, J., & Yang, M.-H. (2005). A direct method for non-rigid motion with thin-plate spline. In International conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. Google Scholar
  18. Luong, Q.-T., & Vieville, T. (1996). Canonic representations for the geometries of multiple projective views. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 64(2), 193–229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Masson, L., Dhome, M., & Jurie, F. (2005). Tracking 3D objects using flexible models. In British machine vision conference. Google Scholar
  20. Moreno, A., Delso, G., Camara, O., & Bloch, I. (2006). Non-linear registration between 3D images including rigid objects: Application to CT and PET lung images with tumors. In Workshop on image registration in deformable environments (DEFORM) at BMVC. Google Scholar
  21. Perriollat, M., & Bartoli, A. (2006). A single directrix quasi-minimal model for paper-like surfaces. In Workshop on image registration in deformable environments (DEFORM) at BMVC. Google Scholar
  22. Pilet, J., Lepetit, V., & Fua, P. (2008). Fast non-rigid surface detection, registration and realistic augmentation. International Journal of Computer Vision, 76(2), 109–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prasad, M., Zisserman, A., & Fitzgibbon, A. (2006). Single view reconstruction of curved surfaces. In International conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. Google Scholar
  24. Salzmann, M., Pilet, J., Ilic, S., & Fua, P. (2007). Surface deformation models for nonrigid 3D shape recovery. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 29(8), 1–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schaefer, S., McPhail, T., & Warren, J. (2006). Image deformation using moving least squares. In SIGGRAPH. Google Scholar
  26. Sederberg, T. W., & Parry, S. R. (1986). Free-form deformation of solid geometric models. In SIGGRAPH. Google Scholar
  27. Terzopoulos, D. (1983). Multilevel computational processes for visual surface reconstruction. Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing, 24, 52–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wills, J., & Belongie, S. (2004). A feature-based approach for determining dense long range correspondences. In European conference on computer vision. Google Scholar
  29. Yang, A. Y., Rao, S., Wagner, A., & Ma, Y. (2005). Segmentation of a piece-wise planar scene from perspective images. In International conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrien Bartoli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mathieu Perriollat
    • 2
  • Sylvie Chambon
    • 3
  1. 1.Université d’AuvergneClermont-FerrandFrance
  2. 2.VI-TechnologyGrenobleFrance
  3. 3.LCPCNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations