Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ambiguity in Structure from Motion: Sphere versus Plane

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Vision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

If 3D rigid motion can be correctly estimated from image sequences, the structure of the scene can be correctly derived using the equations for image formation. However, an error in the estimation of 3D motion will result in the computation of a distorted version of the scene structure. Of computational interest are these regions in space where the distortions are such that the depths become negative, because in order for the scene to be visible it has to lie in front of the image, and thus the corresponding depth estimates have to be positive. The stability analysis for the structure from motion problem presented in this paper investigates the optimal relationship between the errors in the estimated translational and rotational parameters of a rigid motion that results in the estimation of a minimum number of negative depth values. The input used is the value of the flow along some direction, which is more general than optic flow or correspondence. For a planar retina it is shown that the optimal configuration is achieved when the projections of the translational and rotational errors on the image plane are perpendicular. Furthermore, the projection of the actual and the estimated translation lie on a line through the center. For a spherical retina, given a rotational error, the optimal translation is the correct one; given a translational error, the optimal rotational negative deptherror depends both in direction and value on the actual and estimated translation as well as the scene in view. The proofs, besides illuminating the confounding of translation and rotation in structure from motion, have an important application to ecological optics. The same analysis provides a computational explanation of why it is easier to estimate self-motion in the case of a spherical retina and why shape can be estimated easily in the case of a planar retina, thus suggesting that nature's design of compound eyes (or panoramic vision) for flying systems and camera-type eyes for primates (and other systems that perform manipulation) is optimal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adiv, G. 1989. Inherent ambiguities in recovering 3-D motion and structure from a noisy flow field. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 11:477–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aloimonos, Y. and Duric, Z. 1994. Estimating the heading direction using normal flow. International Journal of Computer Vision, 13:33–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Åström, K. 1996. Invariancy Methods for Points, Curves and Surfaces in Computational Vision. PhD thesis, Department of Mathematics, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodsky, T., Fermüller, C. and Aloimonos, Y. 1998. Directions of motion fields are hardly ever ambiguous. International Journal of Computer Vision, 26:5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruss, A. and Horn, B.K.P. 1983. Passive navigation. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 21:3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheong, L., Fermüller, C. and Aloimonos, Y. 1998. Effects of errors in the viewing geometry on shape estimation. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, forthcoming. Earlier version available as Technical Report CAR-TR-773, June 1996.

  • Daniilidis, K. 1992. On the Error Sensitivity in the Recovery of Object Descriptions. PhD thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Karlsruhe, Germany. In German.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniilidis, K. and Spetsakis, M.E. 1997. Understanding noise sensitivity in structure from motion. In Y. Aloimonos, editor, Visual Navigation: From Biological Systems to Unmanned Ground Vehicles. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faugeras, O.D. 1992. Three-Dimensional Computer Vision. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faugeras, O.D. 1992. What can be seen in three dimensions with an uncalibrated stereo rig? In Proc. Second European Conference on Computer Vision, Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 563–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faugeras, O.D. and Mourrain, B. 1995. On the geometry and algebra of the point and line correspondences between n images. In Proc. 5th International Conference on Computer Vision, Cambridge, MA, pp. 951–956.

  • Fermüller, C. and Aloimonos, Y. 1995. Direct perception of threedimensional motion from patterns of visual motion. Science, 270:1973–1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fermüller, C. and Aloimonos, Y. 1995. Qualitative egomotion. International Journal of Computer Vision, 15:7–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fermüller, C. and Aloimonos, Y. 1997. On the geometry of visual correspondence. International Journal of Computer Vision, 21:223–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fermüller, C. and Aloimonos, Y. 1998. What is computed by structure from motion algorithms? In Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision, Freiburg, Germany.

  • Fermüller, C., Cheong, L. and Aloimonos, Y. 1997. Visual space distortion. Biological Cybernetics, 77:323–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, R.I. 1994. Projective reconstruction and invariants from multiple images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 16:1036–1041.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, W. 1953. Das problem der “gefährlichen Flächen” in Theorie and Praxis. Deutsche Geodätische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie derWissenschaften, Reihe C, Heft 3,München.

  • Horn, B.K.P. 1986. Robot Vision. McGraw Hill: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, B.K.P. 1987. Motion fields are hardly ever ambiguous. International Journal of Computer Vision, 1:259–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, B.K.P. 1990. Relative orientation. International Journal of Computer Vision, 4:59–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, B.K.P. and Weldon, Jr., E.J. 1988. Direct methods for recovering motion. International Journal of Computer Vision, 2:51–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jepson, A.D. and Heeger, D.J. 1990. Subspace methods for recovering rigid motion II: theory. Technical Report RBCV-TR-90-36, University of Toronto.

  • Koenderink, J.J. and van Doorn, A.J. 1991. Affine structure from motion. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 8:377–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenderink, J.J. and van Doorn, A.J. 1994. Two-plus-onedimensional differential geometry. Pattern Recognition Letters, 15:439–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenderink, J.J. and van Doorn, A.J. 1995. Relief: Pictorial and otherwise. Image and Vision Computing, 13:321–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longuet-Higgins, H.C. 1981. A computer algorithm for reconstructing a scene from two projections. Nature, 293:133–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longuet-Higgins, H.C. and Prazdny, K. 1980. The interpretation of a moving retinal image. Proc. Royal Society, London B, 208:385– 397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maybank, S.J. 1986. Algorithm for analysing optical flow based on the least-squares method. Image and Vision Computing, 4:38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maybank, S.J. 1987. A Theoretical Study of Optical Flow. PhD thesis, University of London, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maybank, S.J. 1993. Theory of Reconstruction from Image Motion. Springer: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Negahdaripour, S. 1986. Direct Passive Navigation. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R.C. and Aloimonos, J. 1988. Finding motion parameters from spherical flow fields (or the advantage of having eyes in the back of your head). Biological Cybernetics, 58:261–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poggio, T. and Reichardt, W. 1973. Considerations on models of movement detection. Kybernetik, 13:223–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichardt, W. 1961. Autocorrelation, a principle for evaluation of sensory information by the central nervous system. In W. A. Rosenblith, editor, Sensory Communication. M.I.T. Press: Cambridge, MA, pp. 303–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichardt, W. 1987. Evaluation of optical motion information by movement detectors. J. Comp. Physiol., 161:533–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, D., Blake, A. and Murray, D. 1994. Robust estimation of egomotion from normal flow. International Journal of Computer Vision, 13:57–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slama, C.C., Theurer, C. and Henriksen, S.W. 1980. Manual of Photogrammetry. American Society of Photogrammetry: Falls Church, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spetsakis, M.E. 1994. Models of statistical visual motion estimation. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 60:300–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spetsakis, M.E. and Aloimonos, J. 1988. Optimal computing of structure from motion using point correspondence. In Proc. Second International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 449–453.

  • Spetsakis, M.E. and Aloimonos, J. 1989. Optimal motion estimation. In Proc. IEEE Workshop on Visual Motion, pp. 229–237.

  • Spetsakis, M.E. and Aloimonos, J. 1990. Structure from motion using line correspondences. International Journal of Computer Vision, 4:171–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spetsakis, M.E. and Aloimonos, J. 1990. A unified theory of structure from motion. In Proc. DARPA Image Understanding Workshop, pp. 271–283.

  • Tsai, R.Y. and Huang, T.S. 1984. Uniqueness and estimation of three-dimensional motion parameters of rigid objects with curved surfaces. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 6:13–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullman. S. 1979. The Interpretation of Visual Motion. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Santen, J.P.H. and Sperling, G. 1984. Temporal covariance model of human motion perception. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 1:451–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waxman, A.M. and Wohn, K. 1985. Contour evolution, neighborhood deformation and global image flow: planar surfaces in motion. International Journal of Robotics Research, 4(3):95–108.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Vision Laboratory, Center for Automation Research, Institute for Advanced Computer Studies and Computer Science Department, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742-3275. E-mail

    Cornelia Fermüller & Yiannis Aloimonos

Authors
  1. Cornelia Fermüller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yiannis Aloimonos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fermüller, C., Aloimonos, Y. Ambiguity in Structure from Motion: Sphere versus Plane. International Journal of Computer Vision 28, 137–154 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008063000586

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008063000586

Search

Navigation