Motion from point matches using affine epipolar geometry

  • Larry S. Shapiro
  • Andrew Zisserman
  • Michael Brady
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 801)


Algorithms to perform point-based motion estimation under orthographic and scaled orthographic projection abound in the literature. A key limitation of many existing algorithms is that they rely on the selection of a minimal point set to define a “local coordinate frame”. This approach is extremely sensitive to errors and noise, and forfeits the advantages of using the full data set. Furthermore, attention is seldom paid to the statistical performance of the algorithms. We present a new framework that caters for errors and noise, and allows all available features to be used, without the need to select a frame explicitly. This theory is derived in the context of the affine camera, which generalises the orthographic, scaled orthographic and para-perspective models. We define the affine epipolar geometry for two such cameras, giving the fundamental matrix in this case and discussing its noise resistant computation. The two-view rigid motion parameters (the scale factor between views, projection of the 3D axis of rotation and cyclotorsion angle) are then determined directly from the epipolar geometry. Optimal estimates are obtained over time by means of a linear Kalman filter, and results are presented on real data.


Kalman Filter Fundamental Matrix Perpendicular Distance Image Distance Epipolar Line 
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.


  1. 1.
    J.Y. Aloimonos, “Perspective approximations”, Image and Vision Computing, Vol. 8, No. 3, August 1990, pp. 179–192.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. Bar-Shalom and T.E. Fortmann, Tracking and data association, Academic Press Inc., USA, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B.M. Bennett, D.D. Hoffman, J.E. Nicola and C. Prakash, “Structure from two orthographic views of rigid motion”, Journal of Optical Society of America, Vol. 6, No. 7, July 1989, pp. 1052–1069.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Charnley, C. Harris, M. Pike, E. Sparks and M. Stephens, “The DROID 3D vision system: algorithms for geometric integration”, Plessey Research, Roke Manor, Technical Note 72/88/N488U, Dec. 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Cipolla, Y. Okamoto and Y. Kuno, “Robust structure from motion using motion parallax”, International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV'4), Berlin, May 1993, pp. 374–382.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O.D. Faugeras, “What can be seen in three dimensions with an uncalibrated stereo rig?” in G. Sandini (ed.), Proceedings European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV-92), 1992, pp. 563–578.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Harris, “Structure-from-motion under orthographic projection”, First European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV-90), 1990, pp. 118–123.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    X. Hu and N. Ahuja, “Motion estimation under orthographic projection”, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 848–853, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T.S. Huang and C.H. Lee, “Motion and structure from orthographic projections”, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell., Vol. PAMI-11, No. 5, pp. 536–40, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.J. Koenderink and A.J. van Doom, “Affine structure from motion”, Journal of Optical Society of America, Vol. 8, No. 2, Feb 1991, pp. 377–385.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Lee and T. Huang, “Finding point correspondences and determining motion of a rigid object from two weak perspective views”, Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing, Vol. 52, 1990, pp. 309–327.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H.C. Longuet-Higgins, “A computer algorithm for reconstructing a scene from two projections”, Nature, Vol. 293, 1981, pp. 133–135.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Q-T. Luong, R. Deriche, O. Faugeras and T. Papadopoulo, “On determining the fundamental matrix: analysis of different methods and experimental results”, Tech. Report 1894, INRIA (Sophia Antipolis), April 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.L. Mundy and A. Zisserman (eds), Geometric Invariance in Computer Vision, MIT Press, USA, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. Quan and R. Mohr, “Towards structure from motion for linear features through reference points”, IEEE Workshop on Visual Motion, New Jersey, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    I.D. Reid, “The SVD minimizes image distance”, Oxford University Robotics Research Group Internal Memo, Sept. 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L.S. Shapiro and J.M. Brady, “Rejecting outliers and estimating errors in an orthogonal regression framework”, to appear in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L.S. Shapiro, Affine Analysis of Image Sequences, PhD thesis, Dept. Engineering Science, Oxford University, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    L.S. Shapiro, A. Zisserman and M. Brady, “Motion from point matches using affine epipolar geometry”, to appear in International Journal of Computer Vision.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D.W. Thompson and J.L. Mundy, “Three dimensional model matching from an unconstrained viewpoint” in IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, Raleigh, NC, 1987, pp. 208–220.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. Tomasi and T. Kanade, “Shape and motion from image streams under orthography: a factorization method”, International Journal of Computer Vision, Vol. 9, No. 2, Nov 1992, pp. 137–154.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Ullman, The Interpretation of Visual Motion, MIT Press, USA, 1979.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Xu, E. Nishimura and S. Tsuji, “Image correspondence and segmentation by epipolar lines: Theory, Algorithm and Applications”, Technical Report, Dept. Systems Engineering, Osaka University, July 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Zisserman, Notes on geometric invariance in vision: BMVC'92 tutorial, Leeds, Sept 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larry S. Shapiro
    • 1
  • Andrew Zisserman
    • 1
  • Michael Brady
    • 1
  1. 1.Robotics Research Group, Department of Engineering ScienceOxford UniversityOxford

Personalised recommendations