Triangulation for Points on Lines

  • Adrien Bartoli
  • Jean-Thierry Lapresté
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3953)


Triangulation consists in finding a 3D point reprojecting the best as possible onto corresponding image points. It is classical to minimize the reprojection error, which, in the pinhole camera model case, is nonlinear in the 3D point coordinates. We study the triangulation of points lying on a 3D line, which is a typical problem for Structure-From-Motion in man-made environments. We show that the reprojection error can be minimized by finding the real roots of a polynomial in a single variable, which degree depends on the number of images. We use a set of transformations in 3D and in the images to make the degree of this polynomial as low as possible, and derive a practical reconstruction algorithm. Experimental comparisons with an algebraic approximation algorithm and minimization of the reprojection error using Gauss-Newton are reported for simulated and real data. Our algorithm finds the optimal solution with high accuracy in all cases, showing that the polynomial equation is very stable. It only computes the roots corresponding to feasible points, and can thus deal with a very large number of views – triangulation from hundreds of views is performed in a few seconds. Reconstruction accuracy is shown to be greatly improved compared to standard triangulation methods that do not take the line constraint into account.


  1. 1.
    Acton, F.S.: Numerical Methods That Work. Corrected edn. Mathematical Association of America, Washington (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartoli, A., Coquerelle, M., Sturm, P.: A framework for pencil-of-points structure-from-motion. In: European Conference on Computer Vision (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartoli, A., Sturm, P.: Multiple-view structure and motion from line correspondences. In: International Conference on Computer Vision (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chum, O., Pajdla, T., Sturm, P.: The geometric error for homographies. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 97(1), 86–102 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hartley, R., Schaffalitzky, F.: L∞ minimization in geometric reconstruction problems. In: Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartley, R., Sturm, P.: Triangulation. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 68(2), 146–157 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hartley, R.I., Zisserman, A.: Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luong, Q.T., Vieville, T.: Canonic representations for the geometries of multiple projective views. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 64(2), 193–229 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nistér, D.: Automatic Dense Reconstruction From Uncalibrated Video Sequences. PhD thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, KTH (March 2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oliensis, J.: Exact two-image structure from motion. Ieee Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 24(12), 1618–1633 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schaffalitzky, F., Zisserman, A.: Multi-view matching for unordered image sets. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmid, C., Zisserman, A.: The geometry and matching of lines and curves ove multiple views. International Journal of Computer Vision 40(3), 199–234 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stewénius, H., Schaffalitzky, F., Nistér, D.: How hard is 3-view triangulation really? In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrien Bartoli
    • 1
  • Jean-Thierry Lapresté
    • 1
  1. 1.LASMEA – CNRSUniversité Blaise PascalClermont-FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations