Advertisement

A Domain Reduction Algorithm for Incremental Projective Reconstruction

  • Rafael Lemuz-López
  • Miguel Arias-Estrada
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4292)

Abstract

In this paper we address the problem of recovering the three-dimensional shape of an object and the motion of the camera based on multiple feature correspondences from an image sequence. We present a new incremental projective factorization algorithm using a perspective camera model. The original projective factorization method produces robust results. However, the method can not be applied to real-time applications since it is based on a batch processing pipeline and the size of the data matrix grows with each additional frame. The proposed algorithm obtains an estimate of shape and motion for each additional frame adding a dimension reduction step. A subset of frames is selected analyzing the contribution of frames to the reconstruction quality. The main advantage of the novel algorithm is the reduction of the computational cost while keeping the robustness of the original method. Experiments with synthetic and real images illustrate the accuracy and performance of the new algorithm.

Keywords

Singular Value Decomposition Factorization Method Measurement Matrix Bundle Adjustment Epipolar Geometry 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mahamud, S., Hebert, M., Omori, Y., Ponce, J.: Provably-convergent iterative methods for projective structure from motion. CVPR 1, 1018–1025 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sturm, P., Triggs, B.: A factorization based algorithm for multi-image projective structure and motion. In: Buxton, B.F., Cipolla, R. (eds.) ECCV 1996. LNCS, vol. 1065, pp. 709–720. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Repko, J., Marc, P.: 3d models from extended uncalibrated video sequences: Addressing key-frame selection and projective drift. 3DIM, 150–157 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martinec, D., Pajdla, T.: 3d reconstruction by fitting low-rank matrices with missing data. CVPR 1, 198–205 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hartley, R., Zisserman, A.: Multiple View Geometry in computer Vision, 1st edn., Cambiridge (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grossman, E., Santos-Victor, J.: Algebraic aspects of reconstruction of structured scenes from one or more views. In: Proceedings of the BMVC, vol. 2, pp. 633–642 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broida, T.J., Chandrashekhar, S.: Recursive estimation of 3d motion from a monocular image sequence. IEEE Transactions on Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 26, 639–656 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Soatto, S., Frezza, R.: Motion estimation via dynamic vision. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 41, 393–413 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tomasi, C., Kanade, T.: Shape and motion from image streams - a factorization method. Int’l J. of Computer Vision 9, 137–154 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morita, T.: A sequential factorization method for recovering shape and motion from image streams. In: Proceedings of ARPA Image Understanding Workshop, vol. 2, pp. 1177–1188 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Triggs, B., McLauchlan, P.F., Hartley, R.I., Fitzgibbon, A.W.: Bundle adjustment – A modern synthesis. In: Triggs, B., Zisserman, A., Szeliski, R. (eds.) ICCV-WS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1883, pp. 298–372. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tomasi, C., Kanade, T.: Detection and tracking of point features. CMU Technical Report, CMU–CS–91–132 (1991)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pollefeys, M., Reinhard, K., Gool, L.: Self-calibration and metric reconstruction of varying and unknown intrinsic camera parameters. Int’l J. Computer Vision 1, 7–25 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Torr, P., Fitzgibbon, A.: Maintaining multiple motion model hypotheses through many views to recover matching and structure. ICCV 1, 485–491 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nistér, D.: Preemptive ransac for live structure and motion estimation. ICCV, 199–206 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pollefeys, M., Van Gool, L., Vergauwen, M., Cornelis, K., Verbiest, F., Tops, J.: Video-to-3d. In: Proceedings of Photogrammetric Computer Vision 2002 (ISPRS Commission III Symposium), International Archive of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, pp. 247–252 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gibson, S., Cook, J., Howard, T., Hybbold, R., Oram, D.: Accurate camera calibration for off-line, video-based augmented reality. In: ISMAR, pp. 37–46 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafael Lemuz-López
    • 1
  • Miguel Arias-Estrada
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto Nacional de Astrofísica Óptica y ElectrónicaTonantzintlaMéxico

Personalised recommendations