Advertisement

Beyond the Epipolar Constraint: Integrating 3D Motion and Structure Estimation

  • Tomáš Brodský
  • Cornelia Fermüller
  • Yiannis Aloimonos
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1506)

Abstract

This paper develops a novel solution to the problem of recovering the structure of a scene given an uncalibrated video sequence depicting the scene. The essence of the technique lies in a method for recovering the rigid transformation between the different views in the image sequence. Knowledge of this 3D motion allows for self-calibration and for subsequent recovery of 3D structure. The introduced method breaks away from applying only the traditionally used epipolar constraint and introduces a new constraint based on the interaction between 3D motion and shape.

Up to now, structure from motion algorithms proceeded in two well defined steps, where the first and most important step is recovering the rigid transformation between two views, and the subsequent step is using this transformation to compute the structure of the scene in view. Here both aforementioned steps are accomplished in a synergistic manner. Existing approaches to 3D motion estimation are mostly based on the use of optic flow which however poses a problem at the locations of depth discontinuities. If we knew where depth discontinuities were, we could (using a multitude of approaches based on smoothness constraints) estimate accurately flow values for image patches corresponding to smooth scene patches; but to know the discontinuities requires solving the structure from motion problem first. In the past this dilemma has been addressed by improving the estimation of flow through sophisticated optimization techniques, whose performance often depends on the scene in view. In this paper the main idea is based on the interaction between 3D motion and shape which allows us to estimate the 3D motion while at the same time segmenting the scene. If we use a wrong 3D motion estimate to compute depth, then we obtain a distorted version of the depth function. The distortion, however, is such that the worse the motion estimate, the more likely we are to obtain depth estimates that are locally unsmooth, i.e., they vary more than the correct ones. Since local variability of depth is due either to the existence of a discontinuity or to a wrong 3D motion estimate, being able to differentiate between these two cases provides the correct motion, which yields the “smoothest” estimated depth as well as the image locations of scene discontinuities. Although no optic flow values are computed, we show that our algorithm is very much related to minimizing the epipolar constraint when the scene in view is smooth. When however the imaged scene is not smooth, the introduced constraint has in general different properties from the epipolar constraint and we present experimental results with real sequences where it performs better.

Keywords

Structure from motion 3D motion estimation shape segmentation epipolar constraint self-calibration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. L. Barron, D. J. Fleet, and S. S. Beauchemin. Performance of optical flow techniques. Int. Journal of Computer Vision, 12(1):43–77, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Brodský, C. Fermüller, and Y. Aloimonos. Directions of motion fields are hardly ever ambiguous. Int. Journal of Computer Vision, 26:5–24, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Brodský, C. Fermüller, and Y. Aloimonos. Self-calibration from image derivatives. In Proc. Int. Conf. Computer Vision, pages 83–89, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L.-F. Cheong, C. Fermüller, and Y. Aloimonos. Effects of errors in viewing geometry on shape estimation. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 1996. In press. Earlier version available as technical report CS-TR-3480, June 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Daniilidis and M. Spetsakis. Understanding noise sensitivity in structure from motion. In Y. Aloimonos, editor, Visual Navigation: From Biological Systems to Unmaned Ground Vehicles, chapter 4. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O. D. Faugeras. Three-Dimensional Computer Vision. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Fermüller and Y. Aloimonos. What is computed by structure from motion algorithms? Technical Report CS-TR-3809, Center for Automation Research, University of Maryland, College Park, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Geman and D. Geman. Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distribution and Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Trans. PAMI, 6:721–741, 1984.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. K. P. Horn. Motion fields are hardly ever ambiguous. Int. Journal of Computer Vision, 1(3):259–274, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. J. Koenderink and A. J. van Doorn. Affine structure from motion. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 8:377–385, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. D. Lucas. Generalized Image Matching by the Method of Differences. PhD thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1984.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Q.-T. Luong and O. D. Faugeras. The fundamental matrix: Theory, algorithms, and stability analysis. Int. Journal of Computer Vision, 17:43–75, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Marroquin. Probabilistic Solution of Inverse Problems. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. J. Maybank. Algorithm for analysing optical flow based on the least-squares method. Image and Vision Computing, 4:38–42, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. J. Maybank. A Theoretical Study of Optical Flow. PhD thesis, University of London, England, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Mumford and J. Shah. Boundary detection by minimizing functionals. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22–25, 1985.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Viéville and O. Faugeras. The first-order expansion of motion equations in the uncalibrated case. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 64(1):128–146, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomáš Brodský
    • 1
  • Cornelia Fermüller
    • 1
  • Yiannis Aloimonos
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Vision Laboratory, Center for Automation ResearchUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations