International Journal of Computer Vision

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 25–59 | Cite as

Moment and Hypergeometric Filters for High Precision Computation of Focus, Stereo and Optical Flow

  • Yalin Xiong
  • Steven A. Shafer
Article

Abstract

Many low level visual computation problems such as focus, stereo, optical flow, etc., can be formulated as problems of extracting one or more parameters of a non-stationary transformation between two images. Finite-width windows are widely used in various algorithms to extract spatially local information from images. While the choice of window width has a very profound impact on the quality of algorithmic results, there has been no quantitative way to measure or eliminate the negative effects of finite-width windows. To address this problem and the foreshortening problem caused by non-stationarity, we introduce two novel sets of filters: “moment” filters and “hypergeometric” filters. The recursive properties of these filters allow the effects of finite-width windows and foreshortening to be explicitly analyzed and eliminated.

We apply the moment filter approach to the focus and stereo problems, in which one parameter is extracted at every pixel location. We apply the hypergeometric approach to the optical flow problem, in which two parameters are extracted. We demonstrate that algorithms based on moment filters and hypergeometric filters achieve much higher precision than other state-of-art techniques.

focus stereo optical flow image matching window effects foreshortening Gabor filter moment filter hypergeometric filter computer vision 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I.A. 1972. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Adelson, E.H. and Bergen, J.R. 1984. Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion. Journal of Optical Society of America, A, 284–299.Google Scholar
  3. Barron, J.L., Fleet, D.J., and Beauchemin, S.S. 1994. System and experiment: Performance of optical flow techniques. International Journal of Computer Vision, 12(1):43–77.Google Scholar
  4. Bove, V.M. Jr., 1989. Discrete fourier transform based depth-from-focus. In Proceedings OSA Topical Meeting on Image Understanding and Machine Vision.Google Scholar
  5. Bovik, A.C., Clark, M., and Geisler, W.S. 1990. Multichannel texture analysis using localized spatial filters. IEEE Trans. Patt. Recog. Machine Intell., 12(1):55–73.Google Scholar
  6. Fleet, D.J. and Jepson, A.D. 1989. Computation of normal velocity from local phase information. In Proc. Comput. Vision Patt. Recog., pp. 379–386.Google Scholar
  7. Fleet, D.J. and Jepson, A.D. 1991. Stability of phase information. In Proc. of IEEE Workshop on Visual Motion, Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 52–60.Google Scholar
  8. Fleet, D.J., Jepson, A.D., and Jenkin, M. 1991. Phase-based disparity measurement. CVGIP: Image Understanding, 53(2):198–210.Google Scholar
  9. Gabor, D. 1946. Theory of communication. Journal of the IEE, 93:429–457.Google Scholar
  10. Heeger, D.J. 1988. Optical flow using spatiotemporal filters. International Journal of Computer Vision, 279–302.Google Scholar
  11. Jain, A.K. and Farrokhnia, F. 1991. Unsupervised texture segmentation using Gabor filters. Pattern Recognition, 24(12):1167– 1186.Google Scholar
  12. Jones, D.G. and Malik, J. 1992. A computational framework for determining stereo correspondence from a set of linear spatial filters. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 395–410Google Scholar
  13. Kanade, T. and Okutomi, M. 1990. Astereo matching algorithm with an adaptive window: Theory and experiment. In DARPA Image Understanding Workshop, pp. 383–398.Google Scholar
  14. Krumm, J. and Shafer, S.A. 1992. Shape from periodic texture using the spectrogram. In Proc. Computer Vision Patt. Recog., pp. 284– 289.Google Scholar
  15. Krumm, J. and Shafer, S.A. 1993. Segmenting textureed 3D surfaces using the space/frequency representation. Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-93-14, The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  16. Langley, K., Atherton, T.J., Wilson, R.G., and Larcombe, M.H.E. 1990. Vertical and horizontal disparities from phase. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 315–325.Google Scholar
  17. Malik, J. and Rosenholtz, R. 1993. A differential method for computing local shape-from-texture for planar and curved surfaces. In Proc. Computer Vision Patt. Recog., pp. 267–273.Google Scholar
  18. Nardin, M., Perger, W.F., and Bhalla, A. 1992a. Algorithm 707 CONHYP: A numerical evaluator of the confluent hypergeometric function for complex arguments of large magnitudes. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 18(3):345–349.Google Scholar
  19. Nardin, M., Perger, W.F., and Bhalla, A. 1992b. Numerical evaluation of the confluent hypergeometric function for complex arguments of large magnitudes. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 39:193–200.Google Scholar
  20. Nikiforov, A.F. and Uvarov, V.B. 1988. Special Functions of Mathematical Physics. Birkhauser Verlag Basel.Google Scholar
  21. Pentland, A.P. 1987. A new sense for depth of field. IEEE Transactions on PAMI, 9(4):523–531.Google Scholar
  22. Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky, S.A., and Vetterling, W.T. 1988. Numerical Recipes in C. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sanger, T.D. 1988. Stereo disparity computation using Gabor filters. Biological Cybernetics, 59:405–418.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, R.C. and Cheeseman, P. 1986. On the representation and estimation of spatial uncertainty. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 5(4).Google Scholar
  25. Spanier, J. and Oldham, K.B. 1987. An Atlas of Functions. Washington: Hemisphere Pub. Corp.Google Scholar
  26. Subbarao, M. 1988. Parallel depth recovery by changing camera parameters. In 2nd International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 149–155.Google Scholar
  27. Weng, J. 1990. A theory of image matching. In International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 200–209.Google Scholar
  28. Willson, R.G. and Shafer, S.A. 1992. Precision imaging and control for machine vision research at carnegie mellon university. Technical Report CMU-CS-92-118, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  29. Xiong, Y. and Shafer, S.A. 1993. Depth from focusing and defocusing. In Proc. Computer Vision Patt. Recog., pp. 68–73.Google Scholar
  30. Xiong, Y. and Shafer, S.A. 1994. Moment and hypergeometric filters for high precision computation of focus, stereo, and optical flow. Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-94-28, The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  31. Xiong, Y. and Shafer, S.A. 1994. Variable window Gabor filters and their use in focus and correspondence. In Proc. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 668–671.Google Scholar
  32. Xiong, Y. and Shafer, S.A. 1995. Hypergeometric filters for optical flow and affine matching. In International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 771–776.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yalin Xiong
    • 1
  • Steven A. Shafer
    • 1
  1. 1.The Robotics InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations