Advertisement

International Journal of Computer Vision

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 203–231 | Cite as

A Level-Set Approach to 3D Reconstruction from Range Data

  • Ross T. Whitaker
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a method that uses the level sets of volumes to reconstruct the shapes of 3D objects from range data. The strategy is to formulate 3D reconstruction as a statistical problem: find that surface which is mostly likely, given the data and some prior knowledge about the application domain. The resulting optimization problem is solved by an incremental process of deformation. We represent a deformable surface as the level set of a discretely sampled scalar function of three dimensions, i.e., a volume. Such level-set models have been shown to mimic conventional deformable surface models by encoding surface movements as changes in the greyscale values of the volume. The result is a voxel-based modeling technology that offers several advantages over conventional parametric models, including flexible topology, no need for reparameterization, concise descriptions of differential structure, and a natural scale space for hierarchical representations. This paper builds on previous work in both 3D reconstruction and level-set modeling. It presents a fundamental result in surface estimation from range data: an analytical characterization of the surface that maximizes the posterior probability. It also presents a novel computational technique for level-set modeling, called the sparse-field algorithm, which combines the advantages of a level-set approach with the computational efficiency and accuracy of a parametric representation. The sparse-field algorithm is more efficient than other approaches, and because it assigns the level set to a specific set of grid points, it positions the level-set model more accurately than the grid itself. These properties, computational efficiency and subcell accuracy, are essential when trying to reconstruct the shapes of 3D objects. Results are shown for the reconstruction objects from sets of noisy and overlapping range maps.

surface reconstruction level sets deformable models range data Bayesian estimation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adalstein, D. and Sethian, J.A. 1995. A fast level set method for propogating interfaces. Journal of Computational Physics, 269- 277.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, L., Guichard, F., Lions, P.-L., and Morel, J.-M. 1992. Axioms and fundamental equations of image processing. Technical Report 9231, Ceremade, Universite Paris-Dauphine, Place de Lattre de Tassigny, 75775 Paris Cedex 16 France.Google Scholar
  3. Besl, P.J. and McKay, N.D. 1992. A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intelligence, 14:239- 256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruce, J. and Giblin, P. 1986. Growth, motion, and 1-parameter families of symmetry sets. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, 104A:179- 204.Google Scholar
  5. Caselles, V., Kimmel, R., and Sapiro, G. 1995. Geodesic active contours. In ICC95, pp. 694-699.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, Y. and Medioni, G. 1992. Object modeling by registration of multiple range images. Int. J. Image and Vision Computing, 10:145-155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, Y. and Médioni, G. 1994. Fitting a surface to 3D points using an inflating ballon model. In Second CAD-Based VisionWorkshop, A. Kak and K. Ikeuchi (Eds.), IEEE, Vol. 13, pp. 266-273.Google Scholar
  8. Chien, C.-H. and Aggarwal, J.K. 1989. Model construction and shape recognition from occluding contours. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 11(4):372-390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curless, B. and Levoy, M. 1995. Better optical triangulation through spacetime analysis. In ICC95, pp. 987-994.Google Scholar
  10. Curless, B. and Levoy, M. 1996. A volumetric method for building complex models from range images. Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH’96 Proceedings).Google Scholar
  11. DeCarlo, D. and Metaxas, D. 1995. Adaptive shape evolution using blending. In ICC95, pp. 834-839.Google Scholar
  12. Dickinson, S., Metaxas, D., and Pentland, A. 1997. The role of model-based segmentation in the recovery of volumetric parts from range data. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 19(3):259-267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elfes, A. 1989. Using occupancy grids for mobile robot perception and navigation. Computer, 22(6):46-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hilton, A., Stoddart, A.J., Illingworth, J., and Windeatt, T. 1996. Reliable surface reconstruction from multiple range images. In Proceedings from the Sixth European Conference on Compter Vision, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. ICC. 1995. In Fifth International Conference on Computer Vision. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jain, A. and Flynn, P. (Eds). 1993. Three-Dimensional Object Recognition Systems. Elsevier Science Publishers: The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  18. Jain, R. and Jain, A. (Eds). 1990. Analysis and Interpretation of Range Images. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, V.E. 1993. A framework for incorporating structural prior information into the estimation of medical images. In Information Processing in Medical Imaging (IPMI’93), H.H. Barrett and A.F. Gmitro (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 687, Springer-Verlag, pp. 307-321.Google Scholar
  20. Kass, M., Witkin, A., and Terzopoulos, D. 1987. Snakes: Active contour models. International Journal of ComputerVision, 1: 321- 323.Google Scholar
  21. Kimia, B.J., Tannenbaum, A.R., and Zucker, S.W. 1992. Shapes, shocks, and deformations I: The components of shape and the reaction-diffusion space. Technical Report LEMS-105, Division of Engineering, Brown University.Google Scholar
  22. Lorenson, W. and Cline, H. 1982. Marching cubes: A high resolution 3d surface construction algorithm. Computer Graphics, 21(4):163-169.Google Scholar
  23. MacDonald, D., Avis, D., and Evans, A. 1994. Volumetric deformable models: Active blobs. In Visualization in Biomedical Computing 1994, R.A. Robb (Ed.), SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, pp. 160-169.Google Scholar
  24. Malladi, R., Sethian, J.A., and Vemuri, B.C. 1995. Shape modeling with front propogation: A level set approach. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 17(2): 158-175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McInerny, T. and Terzopoulos, D. 1995. Toplogically adaptable snakes. In ICC95, pp. 840-845.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, J., Breen, D., Lorensen, W., O’Bara, R., and Wozny, M. 1991. Geometrically deformed models: A method for extracting closed geometric models from volume data. Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH’91 Proceedings), 25(4):217-226.Google Scholar
  27. Moravec, H.P. 1988. Sensor fusion in certainty grids for mobile robots. AI Magazine, 9(2):61-77.Google Scholar
  28. Muraki, S. 1991. Volumetric shape description of range data using “blobby model”. Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH’91 Proceedings), 25(4):227-235.Google Scholar
  29. Nielson, M. 1997. Graduated nonconvexity by functional focusing. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 19(5):521-525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Osher, S. and Sethian, J. 1988. Fronts propogating with curvaturedependent speed: Algorithms based on Hamilton-Jacobi formulations. Journal of Computational Physics, 79:12-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sethian, J.A. 1996. Level Set Methods: Evolving Interfaces in Gometry, Fluid Mechanics, Computer Vision, and Material Sciences. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Snyder, W., Han, Y.-S., Bilbro, G., Whitaker, R., and Pizer, S. 1995. Image relaxation: restoration and feature extraction. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 17(6):620- 624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Staib, L. and Duncan, J. 1992. Boundary finding with parametrically deformable models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14:1061-1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Szeliski, R., Tonnesen, D., and Terzopoulos, D. 1993. Modeling surfaces of arbitrary topology with dynamic particles. In Proceedings Fourth International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV’93), IEEE Computer Society Press: Berlin, Germany, pp. 82-87.Google Scholar
  35. Terzopoulos, D., Witkin, A., and Kass, M. 1988. Constraints on deformable models: Recovering 3D shape and nonrigid motion. Artificial Intellegence, 36(1):91-123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Turk, G. and Levoy, M. 1994. Zippered polygon meshes from range images. In SIGGRAPH’94 Proceedings, pp. 311-318.Google Scholar
  37. Whitaker, R.T. 1994. Volumetric deformable models: Active blobs. In Visualization in Biomedical Computing 1994, R.A. Robb (Ed.), SPIE: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, pp. 122-134.Google Scholar
  38. Whitaker, R.T. 1995. Algorithms for implicit deformable models. In ICC’95.Google Scholar
  39. Whitaker, R.T. and Chen, D.T. 1994. Embedded active surfaces for volume visualization. In SPIE Medical Imaging 1994, Newport Beach, California.Google Scholar
  40. Zhang, Z. 1994. Iterative point matching for registration of free-form curves and surfaces. Int. J. Computer Vision, 13:119-152.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ross T. Whitaker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville

Personalised recommendations