Advertisement

Omnidirectional Camera Model and Epipolar Geometry Estimation by RANSAC with Bucketing?

  • Branislav Mičušík
  • Tomáš Pajdla
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2749)

Abstract

We present a robust method of image points sampling used in RANSAC for a class of omnidirectional cameras (view angle above 180°) possessing central projection to obtain simultaneous estimation of a camera model and epipolar geometry. We focus on problem arising in RANSAC based estimation technique for omnidirectional images when the most of correspondences are established near the center of view field. Such correspondences satisfy the camera model for almost any degree of an image formation non-linearity. They are often selected in RANSAC as inliers, estimation stops prematurely, the most informative points near the border of the view field are not used, and incorrect camera model is estimated. We show that a remedy to this problem is achieved by not using points near the center of the view field circle for camera model estimation and controlling the points sampling in RANSAC. The camera model estimation is done from image correspondences only, without any calibration objects or any assumption about the scene except for rigidity. We demonstrate our method in real experiments with high quality but cheap and widely available Nikon FC-E8 fish-eye lens.

Keywords

Angular Error View Angle Camera Model Lens Distortion 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.

References

  1. 1.
    2d3 Ltd. Boujou. 2000. http://www.2d3.com.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Z. Bai, J. Demmel, J. Dongarra, A. Ruhe, and H. van der Vorst, editors. Templates for the Solution of Algebraic Eigenvalue Problems: A Practical Guide. SIAM, Philadelphia, 2000.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Bakstein and T. Pajdla. Panoramic mosaicing with a 180° field of view lens. In Proc. of the IEEE Workshop on Omnidirectional Vision, pages 60–67, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Bräuer-Burchardt and K. Voss. A new algorithm to correct fish-eye-and strong wide-angle-lens-distortion from single images. In Proc. ICIP, pages 225–228, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Devernay and O. Faugeras. Automatic calibration and removal of distortion from scenes of structured environments, July 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Fitzgibbon. Simultaneous linear estimation of multiple view geometry and lens distortion. In Proc. CVPR, volume 1, pages 125–132, 2001.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Hartley and A. Zisserman. Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Kumler and M. Bauer. Fisheye lens designs and their relative performance. http://www.coastalopt.com/fisheyep.pdf.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Matas, O. Chum, M. Urban, and T. Pajdla. Robust wide baseline stereo from maximally stable extremal regions. In Proc. of the British Machine Vision Conference, volume 1, pages 384–393, UK, Sep. 2002. BMVA.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Mičušík and T. Pajdla. Estimation of omnidirectional camera model from epipolar geometry. In Proc. CVPR. IEEE Computer Society, June 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. Mičušík and T. Pajdla. Using RANSAC for omnidirectional camera model fitting. In Proc. of the 8th Computer Vision Winter Workshop, pages 153–158, Valtice, Czech Republic, Feb. 2003. Czech Pattern Recognition Society.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Oliensis. Exact two-image structure from motion. PAMI, 24(12):1618–1633, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Shah and J. K. Aggarwal. Intrinsic parameter calibration procedure for a (high distortion) fish-eye lens camera with distortion model and accuracy estimation. Pattern Recognition, 29(11):1775–1788, November 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. P. Stein. Lens distortion calibrating using point correspondences. In Proc. CVPR, pages 602–609, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. Svoboda and T. Pajdla. Epipolar geometry for central catadioptric cameras. International Journal of Computer Vision, 49(1):23–37, August 2002.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Swaminathan and S. K. Nayar. Nonmetric calibration of wide-angle lenses and polycameras. PAMI, 22(10):1172–1178, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. Tisseur and K. Meerbergen. The quadratic eigenvalue problem. SIAM Review, 43(2):235–286, 2001.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Y. Xiong and K. Turkowski. Creating image-based VR using a self-calibrating fisheye lens. In Proc. CVPR, pages 237–243, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Z. Zhang, R. Deriche, O. Faugeras, and Q.-T. Luong. A robust technique for matching two uncalibrated images through the recovery of the unknown epipolar geometry. Artificial Intelligence, 78(1–2):87–119, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Branislav Mičušík
    • 1
  • Tomáš Pajdla
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Machine Perception, Dept. of CyberneticsCzech Technical UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations