Advertisement

On the Reprojection of 3D and 2D Scenes without Explicit Model Selection

  • Amnon Shashua
  • Shai Avidan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1842)

Abstract

It is known that recovering projection matrices from planar configurations is ambiguous, thus, posing the problem of model selection — is the scene planar (2D) or non-planar (3D)? For a 2D scene one would recover a homography matrix, whereas for a 3D scene one would recover the fundamental matrix or trifocal tensor. The task of model selection is especially problematic when the scene is neither 2D nor 3D — for example a “thin” volume in space.

In this paper we show that for certain tasks, such as reprojection, there is no need to select a model. The ambiguity that arises from a 2D scene is orthogonal to the reprojection process, thus if one desires to use multilinear matching constraints for transferring points along a sequence of views it is possible to do so under any situation of 2D, 3D or “thin” volumes.

Keywords

Null Space Fundamental Matrix Estimation Matrix Projection Matrice Reprojection Error 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Birchfield An Implementation of the Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi Feature Tracker. Download from: http://vision.stanford.edu/ birch/klt
  2. 2.
    R. Courant and D. Hilbert. Methods of mathematical physics. Interscience Publishers Inc., 1953.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O.D. Faugeras and B. Mourrain. On the geometry and algebra of the point and line correspondences between N images. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision, Cambridge, MA, June 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R.I. Hartley. Lines and points in three views and the trifocal tensor. International Journal of Computer Vision, 22(2):125–140, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Heyden. A common framework for multiple view tensors. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3–19, Freiburg, Germany, June 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Irani, P. Anandan, and D. Weinshall. From reference frames to reference planes: Multiview parallax geometry and applications. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, Frieburg, Germany, 1998. Springer, LNCS 1407.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Meer, D. Mintz, D. Kim, and A. Rosenfeld. Robust regression methods for computer vision: A review. International Journal of Computer Vision, 6(1):59–70, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Pritchett and A. Zisserman. Matching and Reconstruction from Widely Separated Views. In 3D Structure from Multiple Images of Large-Scale Environments, LNCS 1506, Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Shashua. Algebraic functions for recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 17(8):779–789, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Shashua. Trilinear tensor: The fundamental construct of multiple-view geometry and its applications. In G. Sommer and J.J. Koenderink, editors, Algebraic Frames For The Perception Action Cycle, number 1315 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 1997. Proceedings of the workshop held in Kiel, Germany, Sep. 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Shashua and M. Werman. Trilinearity of three perspective views and its associated tensor. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision, June 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.E. Spetsakis and J. Aloimonos. Structure from motion using line correspondences. International Journal of Computer Vision, 4(3):171–183, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Stein and A. Shashua. On degeneracy of linear reconstruction from three views: Linear line complex and applications. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 21(3):244–251, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    P.H.S Torr and A. Zisserman Concerning bayesian motion segmentation, model averaging, matching and the trifocal tensor. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P.H.S. Torr and A. Zisserman. Robust parameterization and computation of the trifocal tensor. Image and Vision Computing, 15:591–607, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Triggs. Matching constraints and the joint image. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 338–343, Cambridge, MA, June 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amnon Shashua
    • 1
  • Shai Avidan
    • 2
  1. 1.School of CS and EngineeringJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Microsoft ResearchRedmondUSA

Personalised recommendations