International Journal of Computer Vision

, Volume 49, Issue 2–3, pp 117–141

Linear Multi View Reconstruction and Camera Recovery Using a Reference Plane

  • Carsten Rother
  • Stefan Carlsson
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a linear algorithm for simultaneous computation of 3D points and camera positions from multiple perspective views based on having a reference plane visible in all views. The reconstruction and camera recovery is achieved in a single step by finding the null-space of a matrix built from image data using Singular Value Decomposition. Contrary to factorization algorithms this approach does not need to have all points visible in all views. This paper investigates two reference plane configurations: Finite reference planes defined by four coplanar points and infinite reference planes defined by vanishing points. A further contribution of this paper is the study of critical configurations for configurations with four coplanar points. By simultaneously reconstructing points and views we can exploit the numerical stabilizing effect of having wide spread cameras with large mutual baselines. This is demonstrated by reconstructing the outsideand inside (courtyard) of a building on the basis of 35 views in one single Singular Value Decomposition.

structure from motion projective reconstruction multiple views missing data duality critical configurations reference plane planar parallax 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Caprile, B. and Torre, V. 1990. Using vanishing points for camera calibration. Int. J. Computer Vision, 4:127–139.Google Scholar
  2. Carlsson, S. 1995. Duality of reconstruction and positioning from projective views. In IEEE Workshop on Representation of Visual Scenes, P. Anandan (Ed.), Boston, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Carlsson, S. and Weinshall, D. 1998. Dual computation of projective shape and camera positions from multiple images. Int. J. Computer Vision, 27(3):227–241.Google Scholar
  4. Criminisi, A., Reid, I., and Zisserman, A. 1998. Duality, rigidity and planar parallax. In European Conf. Computer Vision, Springer-Verlag, Freiburg, Germany, pp. 846–861.Google Scholar
  5. Cross, G., Fitzgibbon, A.W., and Zisserman, A. 1999. Parallax geometry of smooth surfaces in multiple views. In Int. Conf. Computer Vision, Kerkyra, Greece, pp. 323–329.Google Scholar
  6. Faugeras, O.D. 1992. What can be seen in three dimensions with an uncalibrated stereo rig? In European Conf. Computer Vision, D. Sandini (Ed.), Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy, Springer-Verlag, pp. 563–578.Google Scholar
  7. Faugeras, O.D. and Luong, Q.-T. 2001. The Geometry of Multiple Images. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Fitzgibbon, A.W. and Zisserman, A. 1998. Automatic camera recovery for closed or open image sequences. In European Conf. Computer Vision, Freiburg, Germany, pp. 311–326.Google Scholar
  9. Hartley, R. 1997. In defence of the 8-point algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 19(6):580–593.Google Scholar
  10. Hartley, R. 2000. Ambiguous configurations for 3-view projective reconstruction. In European Conf. Computer Vision, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 922–935.Google Scholar
  11. Hartley, R. and Debunne, G. 1998. Dualizing scene reconstruction algorithms. In Workshop on 3D Structure from Multiple Images of Large-scale Environments (SMILE-98), R. Koch and L. Van Gool, (Eds.), LNCS, vol. 1506, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 14–31.Google Scholar
  12. Hartley, R. and Zisserman, A. 2000. Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Hartley, R., Dano, N., and Kaucic, R. 2001. Plane-based projective reconstruction. In Int. Conf. Computer Vision, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 420–427.Google Scholar
  14. Heyden, A. 1998. Reduced multilinear constraints-theory and experiments. Int. J. Computer Vision, 30(1):5–26.Google Scholar
  15. Heyden, A. and Åström, K. 1995. A canonical framework for sequences of images. In IEEE Workshop on Representation of Visual Scenes, P. Anandan (Ed.), Boston, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Heyden, A. and Åström, K. 1997. Simplifications of multilinear forms for sequences of images. Image and Vision Computing, 15(10):749–757.Google Scholar
  17. Heyden, A., Berthilsson, R., and Sparr, G. 1999. An iterative factorization method for projective structure and motion from image sequences. Image and Vision Computing, 17(13):981–991.Google Scholar
  18. Irani, M. and Anandan, P. 1996. Parallax geometry of pairs of points for 3d scene analysis. In European Conf. Computer Vision, Cambridge, UK, Springer-Verlag, pp. 17–30.Google Scholar
  19. Irani, M., Anandan, P., and Weinshall, D. 1998. From reference frames to reference planes: Multi-view parallax geometry and applications. In European Conf. Computer Vision, Freiburg, Germany, Springer-Verlag, pp. 829–845.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobs, D. 1997. Linear fitting with missing data for structure-from-motion. In IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, San Juan, Puerto Rico, pp. 206–212.Google Scholar
  21. Koch, R., Pollefeys, M., and VanGool, L. 1998. Multi viewpoint stereo from uncalibrated video sequences. In European Conf. Computer Vision, Freiburg, Germany, Springer-Verlag, pp. 55–65.Google Scholar
  22. Krames, J. 1942. Über die bei der Hauptaufgabe der Luftphotogram-metrie auftretenden “gefährlichen” Flächen. Bildmessung und Luftbildwesen, 17, Heft 1/2:1–18.Google Scholar
  23. Kumar, R., Anandan, P., and Hanna, K. 1994. Direct recovery of shape from multiple views: A parallax based approach. In Int. Conf. Pattern Recognition, Jerusalem, Israel, pp. 685–688.Google Scholar
  24. Liebowitz, D. and Zisserman, A. 1999. Combining scene and auto-calibration constraints. In Int. Conf. Computer Vision, Kerkyra, Greece, pp. 293–300.Google Scholar
  25. Maybank, S.J. 1992. Theory of Reconstruction from Image Motion. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.Google Scholar
  26. Oliensis, J. 1995. Multiframe structure from motion in perspective. In Workshop on Representations of Visual Scenes, Boston, USA, pp. 77–84.Google Scholar
  27. Oliensis, J. 1999. A multi-frame structure-from-motion algorithm under perspective projection. Int. J. Computer Vision, 34(2/3):163–192.Google Scholar
  28. Oliensis J. and Genc, Y. 1999. Fast algorithms for projective multi-frame structure from motion. In Int. Conf. Comp. Vision, Kerkyra, Greece, pp. 536–542.Google Scholar
  29. Qian, C. and Medioni, G. 1999. Efficient iterative solution to M-view projective reconstruction problem. In IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Fort Collins, Colorado, pp. 55–61.Google Scholar
  30. Quan, L. 1994. Invariants of 6 points from 3 uncalibrated images. In European Conf. Computer Vision, Stockholm, Sweden, Springer-Verlag, pp. 459–470.Google Scholar
  31. Quan, L., Heyden A., and Kahl, F. 1999. Minimal projective reconstruction with missing data. In IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Fort Collins, Colorado, pp. 210–216.Google Scholar
  32. Rother, C. 2000. A new approach for vanishing point detection in architectural environments. In 11th British Machine Vision Conference, Bristol, UK, pp. 382–391.Google Scholar
  33. Rother, C. and Carlsson, S. 2001. Linear multi view reconstruction and camera recovery. In Int. Conf. Computer Vision, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 42–51.Google Scholar
  34. Schaffalitzky, F., Zisserman, A., Hartley, R.I., and Torr, P.H.S. 2000. A six point solution for structure and motion. In European Conf. Computer Vision, Dublin, Ireland, Springer-Verlag, pp. 632–648.Google Scholar
  35. Sparr, G. 1996. Simultaneous reconstruction of scene structure and camera locations from uncalibrated image sequences. In IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Vienna, Austria, pp. 328–333.Google Scholar
  36. Sturm, P. and Triggs, B. 1996. A factorization based algorithm for multi-image projective structure and motion. In European Conf. Computer Vision, Cambridge, UK, Springer-Verlag, pp. 709–719.Google Scholar
  37. Svedberg, D. and Carlsson, S. 1999. Calibration, pose and novel views from single images of constrained scenes. In Scandanavian Conf. Image Analysis, Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, pp. 111–118.Google Scholar
  38. Tomasi, C. and Kanade, T. 1992. Shape and motion from image streams under orthography: A factorization method. Int. J. Computer Vision, 9(2):137–154.Google Scholar
  39. Triggs, B. 2000. Plane + parallax, tensors and factorization. In European Conf. Computer Vision, Dublin, Ireland, Springer-Verlag, pp. 522–538.Google Scholar
  40. Triggs, B., McLauchlan, P., Hartley, R., and Fitzgibbon, A. 1999. Bundle adjustment-A modern synthesis. In IEEE Workshop on Vision Algorithms, Kerkyra, Greece, pp. 298–376.Google Scholar
  41. Weinshall, D., Anandan, P., and Irani, M. 1998. From ordinal to euclidean reconstruction with partial scene calibration. In Workshop on 3D Structure from Multiple Images of Large-scale Environments (SMILE-98), R. Koch and L. Van Gool (Eds.), LNCS, vol. 1506, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 208–223.Google Scholar
  42. Weinshall, D., Werman, M., and Shashua, A. 1995. Shape tensors for efficient and learnable indexing. In IEEE Workshop on Representation of Visual Scenes, pp. 58–65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carsten Rother
    • 1
  • Stefan Carlsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Numerical Analysis and Computer Science, KTHComputational Vision and Active Perception Laboratory (CVAP)StockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations