Advertisement

Reconstruction from Projections Using Grassmann Tensors

  • Richard I. Hartley
  • Fred Schaffalitzky
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3021)

Abstract

In this paper a general method is given for reconstruction of a set of feature points in an arbitrary dimensional projective space from their projections into lower dimensional spaces. The method extends the methods applied in the well-studied problem of reconstruction of a set of scene points in \(\mathcal {P}^3\) given their projections in a set of images. In this case, the bifocal, trifocal and quadrifocal tensors are used to carry out this computation. It is shown that similar methods will apply in a much more general context, and hence may be applied to projections from \(\mathcal {P}^n\) to \(\mathcal {P}^m\), which have been used in the analysis of dynamic scenes. For sufficiently many generic projections, reconstruction of the scene is shown to be unique up to projectivity, except in the case of projections onto one-dimensional image spaces (lines).

Keywords

Projective Space Linear Subspace Image Space Diagonal Block Generic Projection 
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.
Download to read the full conference paper text

References

  1. 1.
    Faugeras, O.D., Quan, L., Sturm, P.: Self-calibration of a 1D projective camera and its application to the self-calibration of a 2D projective camera. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 22(10), 1179–1185 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hartley, R.I.: Computation of the quadrifocal tensor. In: Burkhardt, H.-J., Neumann, B. (eds.) ECCV 1998. LNCS, vol. 1406, pp. 20–35. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hartley, R.I., Zisserman, A.: Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heyden, A.: Reduced multilinear constraints: Theory and experiments. International Journal of Computer Vision 30(1), 5–26 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heyden, A.: Tensorial properties of multilinear constraints. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences 23, 169–202 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quan, L.: Two-way ambiguity in 2d projective reconstruction from three uncalibrated 1d images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 23(2), 212–216 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Quan, L., Kanade, T.: Affine structure from line correspondences with uncalibrated affine cameras. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 19(8), 834–845 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Semple, J.G., Kneebone, G.T.: Algebraic Projective Geometry. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1979)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Triggs, W.: The geometry of projective reconstruction i: Matching constraints and the joint image. Unpublished: Available on Bill Triggs’s web-site (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Triggs, W.: Matching constraints and the joint image. In: Grimson, E. (ed.) Proc. 5th International Conference on Computer Vision, Boston, Cambridge, MA, June 1995, pp. 338–343 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wolf, L., Shashua, A.: On projection matrices Pk → P2, k = 3,., 6, and their applications in computer vision. International Journal of Computer Vision 48(1), 53–67 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard I. Hartley
    • 1
  • Fred Schaffalitzky
    • 2
  1. 1.Australian National University and National ICT AustraliaCanberra
  2. 2.Australian National UniversityCanberra

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper