Advertisement

Building Architectural Models from Many Views Using Map Constraints

  • D. P. Robertson
  • R. Cipolla
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2351)

Abstract

This paper describes an interactive system for creating geometric models from many uncalibrated images of architectural scenes. In this context, we must solve the structure from motion problem given only few and noisy feature correspondences in non-sequential views. By exploiting the strong constraints obtained by modelling a map as a single affine view of the scene, we are able to compute all 3D points and camera positions simultaneously as the solution of a set of linear equations. Reconstruction is achieved without making restrictive assumptions about the scene (such as that reference points or planes are visible in all views). We have implemented a practical interactive system, which has been used to make large-scale models of a variety of architectural scenes. We present quantitative and qualitative results obtained by this system.

Keywords

Projection Matrix Camera Calibration Camera Parameter Camera Position Projection Matrice 
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.
    P. Beardsley, P. Torr, and A. Zisserman. “3D Model Acquisition from Extended Image Sequences.” In Proc. 4th European Conference on Computer Vision, Cambridge (April 1996); LNCS 1065, volume II, pages 683–695, Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Beardsley, A. Zisserman, and D. Murray. “Sequential Updating of Projective and Affine Structure from Motion.” International Journal of Computer Vision (23), No. 3, Jun–Jul 1997, pages 235–259.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Bondyfalat, T. Papadopoulo, B. Mourrain. “Using Scene Constraints during the Calibration Procedure.” In Proc. ICCV’01, volume II, pages 124–130.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Caprile and V. Torre. “Using vanishing points for camera calibration.” International Journal of Computer Vision, 4(2):127–140, March 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Cipolla, T. Drummond and D. Robertson. “Camera calibration from vanishing points in images of architectural scenes.” In Proc. British Machine Vision Conf., volume II, pages 382–392, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. E. Debevec, C.J. Taylor, and J. Malik. “Modelling and Rendering Architecture from Photographs: A Hybrid Geometry-and Image-Based Approach.” In A CM Computer Graphics (Proceedings SIGGRAPH), pages 11–20, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Dick, P. Torr, S. Ruffle, R. Cipolla. “Combining Single View Recognition and Multiple View Stereo for Architectural Scenes.” In /em Proc. 8th IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV’01), pages 268–274, July 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. W. Fitzgibbon and A. Zisserman. “Automatic Camera Recovery for Closed or Open Image Sequences.” In Proc. ECCV, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. I. Hartley. “Euclidean reconstruction from uncalibrated views.” In J.L. Mundy, A. Zisserman, and D. Forsythe, editors, Applications of Invariance in Computer Vision, volume 825 of Lecture notes in Computer Science, pages 237–256, Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. I. Hartley and P. Sturm. “Triangulation.” In American Image Understanding Workshop, pages 957–966, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. I. Hartley. “In defence of the 8-point algorithm.” In Proc. International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1064–1070, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Liebowitz and A. Zisserman. “Combining Scene and Auto-calibration Constraints.” In Proc. ICCV, volume I, pages 293–300, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Navab, Y. Genc, and M. Appel. “Lines in one orthographic and two perspective views.” In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’00), Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, Vol. 2, 607–616, June 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Pollefeys, R. Koch, and L. Van Gool. “Self-calibration and metric reconstruction in spite of varying and unknown internal camera parameters.” In Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Computer Vision, Mumbai, India, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. N. Kutulakos and S.M. Seitz. “A theory of shape by space carving.” In Seventh International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV’99), Greece, September 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Rother and S. Carlsson: “Linear Multi View Reconstruction and Camera Recovery.” In Proc. 8th International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV’01), July 2001, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 42–49Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H-Y. Shum, M. Han, and R. Szeliski. “Interactive Construction of 3D Models from Panoramic Mosaics.” In Proc. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 427–433, Santa Barbara, (June) 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Slama. “Manual of Photogrammetry.” American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, VA, USA, 4th edition, 1980.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. F. Sturm and S. J. Maybank. “A Method for Interactive 3D Reconstruction of Piecewise Planar Objects from Single Images.” In Proc. British Machine Vision Conference, volume I, pages 265–274, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    I. E. Sutherland. “Three dimensional data input by tablet.” Proc. IEEE, Vol 62, No. 4:453–461, April 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Antone and S. Teller. “Automatic Recovery of Relative Camera Rotations for Urban Scenes.” Proc. CVPR 2000, Volume II, June 2000, pp. 282–289.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Z. Zhang, P. Anandan, and H.-Y. Shum. “What can be determined from a full and a weak perspective image?” International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV’99), Corfu, Greece, pages 680–687, September 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. P. Robertson
    • 1
  • R. Cipolla
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations