Characterizing Depth Distortion Due to Calibration Uncertainty

  • Loong-Fah Cheong
  • Chin-Hwee Peh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1842)


There have been relatively little works to shed light on the effects of errors in the intrinsic parameters on motion estimation and scene reconstruction. Given that the estimation of the extrinsic and intrinsic parameters from uncalibrated motion apts to be imprecise, it is important to study the resulting distortion on the recovered structure. By making use of the iso-distortion framework, we explicitly characterize the geometry of the distorted space recovered from 3-D motion with freely varying focal length. This characterization allows us: 1) to investigate the effectiveness of the visibility constraint in disambiguating uncalibrated motion by studying the negative distortion regions, and 2) to make explicit those ambiguous error situations under which the visibility constraint is not effective. An important finding is that under these ambiguous situations, the direction of heading can nevertheless be accurately recovered and the structure recovered experienced a well-behaved distortion. The distortion is given by a relief transformation which preserves ordinal depth relations. Thus in the case where the only unknown intrinsic parameter is the focal length, structure information in the form of depth relief can be obtained. Experiments were presented to support the use of the visibility constraint in obtaining such partial motion and structure solutions.


Structure from motion Depth distortion Space perception Uncalibrated motion analysis 


  1. 1.
    M. Armstrong, A. Zissermann, and P. Beardsley, “Euclidean structure from uncalibrated images,” In Edwin Hancock, pp. 508–518, BMVA PressHancock, York, UK, September 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Bougnoux, “From Projective to Euclidean Space under any practical situation, a criticism of self-calibration,” ICCV’98, pp. 790–796, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.J. Brooks and W. Chojnacki, “Determining the egomotion of an uncalibrated camera from instantaneous optical flow,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14(10), pp. 2670–2677, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    L.F. Cheong, C. Fermüller and Y. Aloimonos, “Effects of errors in the viewing geometry on shape estimation,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding 71(3), pp. 356–372, Sep 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Dron, “Dynamic camera self-calibration from controlled motion sequences”, In Proc. IEEE Conf. on CVPR, pp. 501–506, New York, NY, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O. Faugeras, “Stratification of three-dimensional vision: projective, affine, and metric representations,” J. Opt. Soc. of Am. A 12(3), pp. 465–484, Mar 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Fermüller, “Passive Navigation as a Pattern Recognition Problem,” Int’l Journal of Computer Vision 14, pp. 147–158, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Florou and R. Mohr, “What accuracy for 3D measurement with cameras?”, In ICPR, pp. 354–358, Los Alamitos, CA, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Gårding, J. Porrill, J.E.W. Mayhew and J.P. Frisby, “Stereopsis, vertical disparity and relief transformations,” Vision Research 35(5), pp. 703–722, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.I. Hartley, “Calibration of cameras using the essential matrix”, In Proc. ARPA Image Understanding Workshop, pp. 911–915, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.I. Hartley, “Self-calibration from multiple views with a rotating camera”, In Proc. European Conf. on Computer Vision 1, pp. 471–479, Stockholm, Sweden, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Heyden and K. Aström, “Euclidean reconstruction from image sequences with varying and unknown focal length and principal points”, In Proc. IEEE Conf. on CVPR, pp. 438–443, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B.K.P. Horn and E.J. Weldon Jr., “Direct method for recovering motion,” Int’l Journal of Computer Vision 2, pp. 51–76, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.J. Koenderink and A.J. van Doorn, “Relief: Pictorial and Otherwise,” Image and Vision Computing 13(5), pp. 321–334, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Pollefeys, L. Van Gool, and A. Oosterlinck, “Euclidean reconstruction from image sequences with variable focal length”, In B. Buxton and R. Cipolla, editors, ECCV’96, volume 1064 of Lecture notes in Computer Science, pp. 31–44, Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G.P. Stein, “Accurate internal camera calibration using rotation with analysis of sources of error”, In Proc. ICCV’95, pp. 230–236, Boston, MA, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Sturm, “Self-calibration of a moving zoom lens camera by pre-calibration”, In BMVC, pp. 675–684, Edinburgh, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Svoboda and P. Sturm “A badly calibrated camera in ego-motion estimation—propagation of uncertainty”, In Proc. Int’l Conf. on Computer Analysis of Images and Patterns, pp. 183–190, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Triggs, “Autocalibration and the absolute quadric”, In Proc. IEEE Conf. on CVPR, pp. 609–614, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Viéville and O. Faugera, “The first order expansion of motion equations in the uncalibrated case,” CVGIP: Image Understanding 64(1), pp. 128–146, July 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Loong-Fah Cheong
    • 1
  • Chin-Hwee Peh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringNational University of SingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations