Direct Solutions for Computing Cylinders from Minimal Sets of 3D Points

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3951)


Efficient direct solutions for the determination of a cylinder from points are presented. The solutions range from the well known direct solution of a quadric to the minimal solution of a cylinder with five points. In contrast to the approach of G. Roth and M. D. Levine (1990), who used polynomial bases for representing the geometric entities, we use algebraic constraints on the quadric representing the cylinder. The solutions for six to eight points directly determine all the cylinder parameters in one step: (1) The eight-point-solution, similar to the estimation of the fundamental matrix, requires to solve for the roots of a 3rd-order-polynomial. (2) The seven-point-solution, similar to the six-point-solution for the relative orientation by J. Philip (1996), yields a linear equation system. (3) The six-point-solution, similar to the five-point-solution for the relative orientation by D. Nister (2003), yields a ten-by-ten eigenvalue problem. The new minimal five-point-solution first determines the direction and then the position and the radius of the cylinder. The search for the zeros of the resulting 6th order polynomials is efficiently realized using 2D-Bernstein polynomials. Also direct solutions for the special cases with the axes of the cylinder parallel to a coordinate plane or axis are given. The method is used to find cylinders in range data of an industrial site.


Point Cloud Range Data Cylinder Axis Direct Solution Bernstein Polynomial 
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.
    Bookstein, F.L.: Fitting conic sections to scattered data. CGIP 9(1), 56–71 (1979)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaperon, T., Goulette, F.: Extracting cylinders in full 3d data using a random sampling method and the gaussian image. In: Proceedings of the Vision Modeling and Visualization Conference, pp. 35–42 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faugeras, O.: Three-Dimensional Computer Vision: A Geometric Viewpoint. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fischler, M.A., Bolles, R.C.: Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Commun. ACM 24(6), 381–395 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fischler, M.A., Bolles, R.C.: A RANSAC-based approach to model fitting and its application to finding cylinders in range data. In: IJCAI 1981, pp. 637–643 (1981)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garloff, J., Smith, A.P.: Solution of systems of polynomial equations by using bernstein expansion. In: Alefeld, G., Rump, S., Rohn, J., Yamamoto, T. (eds.) Symbolic Algebraic Methods and Verification Methods, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hartley, R., Zisserman, A.: Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoppe, H., DeRose, T., Duchamp, T., Halstead, M., Jin, H., McDonald, J., Schweitzer, J., Stuetzle, W.: Piecewise smooth surface reconstruction. In: SIGGRAPH 1994: Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pp. 295–302. ACM Press, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin, R., Shou, H., Voiculescu, I., Bowyer, A., Wang, G.: Comparison of interval methods for plotting algebraic curves. Comput. Aided Geom. Des. 19(7), 553–587 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nistér, D.: An efficient solution to the five-point relative pose problem. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 26(6), 756–777 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peternell, M., Pottmann, H., Steiner, T.: Hough transform and Laguerre geometry for the recognition and reconstruction of special 3D shapes. Technical Report 100, Institute of Geometry (April 2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petitjean, S.: A survey of methods for recovering quadrics in triangle meshes. ACM Comput. Surv. 34(2), 211–262 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Philip, J.: A non-iterative algorithm for determining all essential matrices corresponding to five point pairs. Photogrammetric Record 15(88), 589–599 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roth, G., Levine, M.D.: Segmentation of geometric signals using robust fitting. In: Int. Conference on Pattern Recognition, pp. 826–831 (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stewenius, H., Engels, C., Nister, D.: Recent developments on direct relative orientation. ISPRS Journal (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tang, C.K., Medioni, G.: Curvature-augmented tensor voting for shape inference from noisy 3d data. PAMI 24(6), 858–864 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vosselman, G., Gorte, B.G.H., Sithole, G., Rabbani, T.: Recognising structure in laser scanner point clouds. In: International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. 46, pp. 33–38 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Werghi, N., Fisher, R.B., Robertson, C., Ashbrook, A.P.: Faithful recovering of quadric surfaces from 3d range data. In: Second International Conference on 3-D Imaging and Modeling3DIM99, pp. 280–289 (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Winkelbach, S., Westphal, R., Goesling, T.: Pose Estimation of Cylindrical Fragments for Semi-automatic Bone Fracture Reduction. In: Michaelis, B., Krell, G. (eds.) DAGM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2781, pp. 566–573. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for PhotogrammetryBonn UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations