International Journal of Computer Vision

, Volume 97, Issue 1, pp 71–90 | Cite as

On Camera Calibration with Linear Programming and Loop Constraint Linearization

  • Jérôme CourchayEmail author
  • Arnak S. Dalalyan
  • Renaud Keriven
  • Peter Sturm


A technique for calibrating a network of perspective cameras based on their graph of trifocal tensors is presented. After estimating a set of reliable epipolar geometries, a parameterization of the graph of trifocal tensors is proposed in which each trifocal tensor is linearly encoded by a 4-vector. The strength of this parameterization is that the homographies relating two adjacent trifocal tensors, as well as the projection matrices depend linearly on the parameters. Two methods for estimating these parameters in a global way taking into account loops in the graph are developed. Both methods are based on sequential linear programming: the first relies on a locally linear approximation of the polynomials involved in the loop constraints whereas the second uses alternating minimization. Both methods have the advantage of being non-incremental and of uniformly distributing the error across all the cameras. Experiments carried out on several real data sets demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed approach and its efficiency in distributing errors over the whole set of cameras.


Structure from motion Camera calibration Sequential linear programming 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agarwal, S., Snavely, N., Simon, I., Seitz, S. M., & Szeliski, R. (2009). Building Rome in a day. In ICCV. Google Scholar
  2. Avidan, S., & Shashua, A. (2001). Threading fundamental matrices. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 23, 73–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertsekas, D. (1999). Nonlinear programming (2nd edn.). Belmont: Athena Scientific. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bujnak, M., Kukelova, Z., & Pajdla, T. (2009). 3D reconstruction from image collections with a single known focal length. In ICCV (pp. 351–358). Google Scholar
  5. Chum, O., & Matas, J. (2005). Matching with PROSAC: progressive sample consensus. In CVPR (I: pp. 220–226). Google Scholar
  6. Chum, O., Werner, T., & Matas, J. (2005). Two-view geometry estimation unaffected by a dominant plane. In CVPR I: pp. 772–779. Google Scholar
  7. Cornelis, N., Cornelis, K., & Van Gool, L. (2006). Fast compact city modeling for navigation pre-visualization. In CVPR. Google Scholar
  8. Courchay, J., Dalalyan, A. S., Keriven, R., & Sturm, P. (2010). Exploiting loops in the graph of trifocal tensors for calibrating a network of cameras. In ECCV. Google Scholar
  9. Estrada, C., Neira, J., & Tardós, J. D. (2005). Hierarchical SLAM: real-time accurate mapping of large environments. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 21, 588–596. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Faugeras, O., Luong, Q. T., & Papadopoulou, T. (2001). The geometry of multiple images: the laws that govern the formation of images of a scene and some of their applications. Cambridge: MIT Press. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitzgibbon, A. W., & Zisserman, A. (1998). Automatic camera recovery for closed or open image sequences. In ECCV (pp. 311–326). Google Scholar
  12. Furukawa, Y., & Ponce, J. (2009). Accurate camera calibration from multi-view stereo and bundle adjustment. International Journal of Computer Vision, 84, 257–268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gherardi, R., Farenzena, M., & Fusiello, A. (2010). Improving the efficiency of hierarchical structure-and-motion. In CVPR (pp. 1594–1600). Google Scholar
  14. Golub, G. H., & Van Loan, C. F. (1996). Matrix computations. 3rd edn. Johns Hopkins studies in the mathematical sciences. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Govindu, M. (2006). Robustness in motion averaging. In ACCV (pp. 457–466). Google Scholar
  16. Hartley, R., & Zisserman, A. (2003). Multiple view geometry in computer vision (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  17. Havlena, M., Torii, A., Knopp, J., & Pajdla, T. (2009). Randomized structure from motion based on atomic 3d models from camera triplets. In CVPR. Google Scholar
  18. Jacobs, D. (1997). Linear fitting with missing data: applications to structure-from-motion and to characterizing intensity images. In CVPR (p. 206). Google Scholar
  19. Klopschitz, M., Zach, C., Irschara, A., & Schmalstieg, D. (2008). Generalized detection and merging of loop closures for video sequences. In 3DPVT. Google Scholar
  20. Lowe, D. G. (2004). Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. IJCV, 60, 91–110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martinec, D., & Pajdla, T. (2005). 3D reconstruction by fitting low-rank matrices with missing data. In CVPR (pp. 198–205). Google Scholar
  22. Martinec, D., & Pajdla, T. (2007). Robust rotation and translation estimation in multiview reconstruction. In CVPR. Google Scholar
  23. Maybank, S. J., & Shashua, A. (1998). Ambiguity in reconstruction from images of six points. In ICCV (pp. 703–708). Google Scholar
  24. Mouragnon, E., Lhuillier, M., Dhome, M., Dekeyser, F., & Sayd, P. (2009). Generic and real-time sfm using local bundle adjustment. Image and Vision Computing, 27, 1178–1193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pollefeys, M., Van Gool, L., Vergauwen, M., Verbiest, F., Cornelis, K., Tops, J., & Koch, R. (2004). Visual modeling with a hand-held camera. International Journal of Computer Vision, 59, 207–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ponce, J., McHenry, K., Papadopoulo, T., Teillaud, M., & Triggs, B. (2005). On the absolute quadratic complex and its application to autocalibration. In CVPR (pp. 780–787). . Google Scholar
  27. Quan, L. (1995). Invariants of six points and projective reconstruction from three uncalibrated images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 17, 34–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sattler, T., Leibe, B., & Kobbelt, L. (2009). Scramsac: improving ransac‘s efficiency with a spatial consistency filter. In ICCV. Google Scholar
  29. Scaramuzza, D., Fraundorfer, F., & Pollefeys, M. (2010). Closing the loop in appearance-guided omnidirectional visual odometry by using vocabulary trees. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 58, 820–827. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schaffalitzky, F., Zisserman, A., Hartley, R. I., & Torr, P. H. S. (2000). A six point solution for structure and motion. In ECCV, London, UK (pp. 632–648). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  31. Sinha, S. N., Pollefeys, M., & McMillan, L. (2004). Camera network calibration from dynamic silhouettes. In CVPR. Google Scholar
  32. Snavely, N., Seitz, S. M., & Szeliski, R. (2006). Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3D. New York: ACM Press. Google Scholar
  33. Snavely, N., Seitz, S. M., & Szeliski, R. (2008). Modeling the world from Internet photo collections. International Journal of Computer Vision, 80, 189–210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Snavely, N., Seitz, S., & Szeliski, R. (2008). Skeletal sets for efficient structure from motion. In CVPR (pp. 1–8). Google Scholar
  35. Strecha, C., von Hansen, W., Van Gool, L., Fua, P., & Thoennessen, U. (2008). On benchmarking camera calibration and multi-view stereo for high resolution imagery. In CVPR. Google Scholar
  36. Sturm, P., & Triggs, B. (1996). A factorization based algorithm for multi-image projective structure and motion. In ECCV (pp. 709–720). Google Scholar
  37. Tardif, J., Pavlidis, Y., & Daniilidis, K. (2008). Monocular visual odometry in urban environments using an omnidirectional camera. In IROS (pp. 2531–2538). Google Scholar
  38. Tomasi, C., & Kanade, T. (1992). Shape and motion from image streams under orthography: a factorization method. International Journal of Computer Vision, 9, 137–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Torii, A., Havlena, M., & Pajdla, T. (2009). From Google street view to 3d city models. In OMNIVIS. Google Scholar
  40. Torr, P. H. S. (1997). An assessment of information criteria for motion model selection. In CVPR (pp. 47–53). Google Scholar
  41. Triggs, B., McLauchlan, P., Hartley, R., & Fitzgibbon, A. (1999). Bundle adjustment—a modern synthesis. In Workshop on vision algorithms (pp. 298–372). Google Scholar
  42. Vu, H., Keriven, R., Labatut, P., & Pons, J. P. (2009). Towards high-resolution large-scale multi-view stereo. In CVPR. Google Scholar
  43. Zach, C., Klopschitz, M., & Pollefeys, M. (2010). Disambiguating visual relations using loop constraints. In CVPR (pp. 1426–1433). Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérôme Courchay
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arnak S. Dalalyan
    • 1
  • Renaud Keriven
    • 1
  • Peter Sturm
    • 2
  1. 1.IMAGINE, LIGMUniversité Paris-EstParisFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire Jean Kuntzmann, INRIA GrenobleRhône-AlpesFrance

Personalised recommendations