Advertisement

A Comparison of Viewing Geometries for Augmented Reality

  • Dana Cobzas
  • Martin Jagersand
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2749)

Abstract

Recently modern non-Euclidean structure and motion estimation methods have been incorporated into augmented reality scene tracking and virtual object registration. We present a study of how the choice of projective, affine or Euclidean scene viewing geometry and similarity, affine or homography based object registration affects how accurately a virtual object can be overlaid in scene video from varying viewpoints. We found that projective and affine methods gave accurate overlay to a few pixels, while Euclidean geometry obtained by auto calibrating the camera was not as accurate and gave about 7 pixel overlay error.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Azuma. A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4):355–385, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Cobzas, M. Jagersand, and K. Yerex. Editing real world scenes: Augmented reality with image-based rendering (poster). In IEEE Virtual Reality, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Cornells, M. Pollefeys, M. Vergauwen, and L. V. Gool. Augmented reality using uncalibrated video sequences. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2018, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. D. Hager and K. Toyama. X vision: A portable substrate for real-time vision applications. Computer Vision and Image Understanding: CVIU, 69(1):23–37, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. I. Hartley and A. Zisserman. Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Jagersand, O. Fuentes, and R. Nelson. Experimental evaluation of uncalibrated visual servoing for precision manipulation. In Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. N. Kutulakos and J. R. Vallino. Calibration-free augmented reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 4(1):1–20, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Marchand and F. Chaumette. Virtual visual servoing: A framework for real-time augmented reality. In Eurographics, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Seo, M. H. Ahn, and K. Hong. Video augmentation by image-based rendedring under the perspective camera model. In International Workshop on Advanced Image Technology, pages 147–153, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Seo and K. Hong. Calibration-free augmented reality in perspective. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 6(4), 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Shahrokni, L. Vachetti, V. Lepetit, and P. Fua. Extended version of polyhedral object detection and pose estimation for augmented reality applications. In International Conference on Computer Animation, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. A. Smith, A. W. Fitzgibbon, and A. Zisserman. Improving augmented reality using image and scene constraints. In British Machine Vision Conference, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Tomasi and T. Kanade. Shape and motion from image streams under orthography: A factorization method. International Journal of Computer Vision, 9:137–154, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. Triggs. Auto-calibration and the absolute quadric. In IEEE Conference Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR97), pages 609–614, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. T. Werner, T. Pajdla. Practice of 3d reconstruction from multiple uncalibrated unorganized images. In Czech Pattern Recognition Workshop, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dana Cobzas
    • 1
  • Martin Jagersand
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing ScienceUniversity of AlbertaCanada

Personalised recommendations