International Journal of Computer Vision

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 171–187 | Cite as

Uncalibrated Motion Capture Exploiting Articulated Structure Constraints

  • David Liebowitz
  • Stefan Carlsson
Article

Abstract

We present an algorithm for 3D reconstruction of dynamic articulated structures, such as humans, from uncalibrated multiple views. The reconstruction exploits constraints associated with a dynamic articulated structure, specifically the conservation over time of length between rotational joints. These constraints admit reconstruction of metric structure from at least two different images in each of two uncalibrated parallel projection cameras. As a by product, the calibration of the cameras can also be computed. The algorithm is based on a stratified approach, starting with affine reconstruction from factorization, followed by rectification to metric structure using the articulated structure constraints. The exploitation of these specific constraints admits reconstruction and self-calibration with fewer feature points and views compared to standard self-calibration. The method is extended to pairs of cameras that are zooming, where calibration of the cameras allows compensation for the changing scale factor in a scaled orthographic camera. Results are presented in the form of stick figures and animated 3D reconstructions using pairs of sequences from broadcast television. The technique shows promise as a means of creating 3D animations of dynamic activities such as sports events.

motion capture calibration multiple views 3D reconstruction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bregler, C. and Malik, J. 1998. Tracking people with twists and exponential maps. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.Google Scholar
  2. Faugeras, O. 1992. What can be seen in three dimensions with an uncalibrated stereo rig? In Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision, LNCS, vol. 588, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 563– 578.Google Scholar
  3. Faugeras, O.D. 1995. Stratification of three-dimensional vision: Projective, affine, and metric representation. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 12:465–484.Google Scholar
  4. Faugeras, O.D. and Maybank, S.J. 1990. Motion from point matches: Multiplicity of solutions. International Journal of Computer Vision, 4:225–246.Google Scholar
  5. Hartley, R.I. 1992. Estimation of relative camera positions for uncalibrated cameras. In Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision, LNCS, vol. 588, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 579– 587.Google Scholar
  6. Hartley, R.I. and Zisserman, A. 2000. Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  7. Koenderink, J.J. and van Doorn, A.J. 1991. Affine structure from motion. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, 8(2):377–385.Google Scholar
  8. Kreysig, E. 1993. Advanced Engineering Mathematics. John Wiley and Sons: New York.Google Scholar
  9. Leventon, M.E. and Freeman, W.T. 1998. Bayesian estimation of 3-D human motion from an image sequence. Technical Report TR-98-06, MERL.Google Scholar
  10. Liebowitz, D. and Zisserman, A. 1998. Metric rectification for perspective images of planes. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 482–488.Google Scholar
  11. Liebowitz, D. and Zisserman, A. 1999. Combining scene and autocalibration constraints. In Proc. 7th International Conference on Computer Vision, Kerkyra, Greece.Google Scholar
  12. Maybank, S. and Faugeras, O.D. 1992. A theory of self-calibration of a moving camera. International Journal of Computer Vision, 8(2):123–151.Google Scholar
  13. Mundy, J. and Zisserman, A. 1992. Geometric Invariance in Computer Vision. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  14. Poelman, C. and Kanade, T. 1994. A paraperspective factorization method for shape and motion recovery. In Proc. 3rd European Conference on Computer Vision, Stockholm, vol. 2, pp. 97–108.Google Scholar
  15. Pollefeys, M., Van Gool, L., and Oosterlinck, A. 1996. The modulus constraint: A new constraint for self-calibration. In Proc. International Conference on Pattern Recognition, pp. 31–42.Google Scholar
  16. Quan, L. 1996. Self-calibration of an affine camera from multiple views. International Journal of Computer Vision, 19(1):93–105.Google Scholar
  17. Reid, I.D. and Murray, D.W. 1996. Active tracking of foveated feature clusters using affine structure. International Journal of Computer Vision, 18(1):41–60.Google Scholar
  18. Shapiro, L., Zisserman, A., and Brady, M. 1994. Motion from point matches using affine epipolar geometry. In Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision, LNCS, vol. 800/801, Springer-Verlag: Berlin.Google Scholar
  19. Shapiro, L.S., Zisserman, A., and Brady, M. 1995. 3D motion recovery via affine epipolar geometry. International Journal of Computer Vision, 16(2):147–182.Google Scholar
  20. Taylor, C.J. 2000. Reconstruction of articulated objects from point correspondences in a single uncalibrated image. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.Google Scholar
  21. Tomasi, C. and Kanade, T. 1992. Shape and motion from image streams under orthography: A factorization approach. International Journal of Computer Vision, 9(2):137–154.Google Scholar
  22. Webb, J.A. and Aggarwal, J.K. 1983. Structure from motion of rigid and jointed object. Artificial Intelligence, 19:107–130.Google Scholar
  23. Weinshall, D. and Tomasi, C. 1993. Linear and incremental acquisition of invariant shape models from image sequences. In Proc. 4th International Conference on Computer Vision, Berlin, IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 675–682.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Liebowitz
    • 1
  • Stefan Carlsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Computational Vision and Active Perception LaboratoryRoyal Institute of TechnologySweden

Personalised recommendations