Uniqueness of 3D affine reconstruction of lines with affine cameras

  • Long Quan
  • Roger Mohr
Structure from Motion
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1296)


We prove that 3D affine reconstruction of lines with uncalibrated affine cameras is subject to a two way ambiguity. The key idea is to convert 3D affine reconstruction of “lines” into 2D projective reconstruction of “points”. Then, the ambiguity of 2D projective reconstruction is analyzed by using the full tensorial representation of three uncalibrated 1D views.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Dementhon and L.S. Davis. Model-based object pose in 25 lines of code. IJCV, 15(1/2):123–141, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O.D. Faugeras, F. Lustman, and G. Toscani. Motion and structure from point and line matches. In ICCV, June 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O. Faugeras. What can be seen in three dimensions with an uncalibrated stereo rig? In ECCV, pages 563–578. May 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    O. Faugeras and B. Mourrain. About the correspondence of points between N images. In Workshop on Representations of Visual Scenes, June 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Hartley, R. Gupta, and T. Chang. Stereo from uncalibrated cameras. In CVPR, pages 761–764, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Hartley. Lines and Points in Three Views — An Integrated Approach. Technical report, G.E. CRD, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.I. Hartley. Projective reconstruction from line correspondences. In CVPR, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Horaud, S. Christy, and F. Dornaika. Object Pose: the Link between Weak Perspective, Para Perspective, and Full Perspective. Technical report, Inria, September 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.J. Koenderink and A. J. Van Doorn. Affine structure from motion. Technical report, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, October 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C.H. Lee and T. Huang. Finding point correspondences and determining motion of a rigid object from two weak perspective views. CVGIP, 52:309–327, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. Liu and T.S. Huang. A linear algorithm for motion estimation using straight line correspondences. CVGIP, 44(1):35–57, October 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H.C. Longuet-Higgins, A computer program for reconstructing a scene from two projections. in Nature, vol. 293, pp. 133–135. XX, September 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Q.T. Luong and T. Vieville. Canonic Representations for the Geometries of Multiple Projective Views. In ECCV, pages 589–599. May 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ph.F. McLauchlan, I.D. Reid and D.W. Murray. Recursive affine structure and motion from image sequences. In ECCV, pages 217–224. May 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Mohr, L. Quan, and F. Veillon, “Relative 3D reconstruction using multiple uncalibrated images”, The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 619–632, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.L. Mundy and A. Zisserman, editors. Geometric Invariance in Computer Vision. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. J. Poelman and T. Kanade. A paraperspective factorization method for shape and motion recovery. In ECCV, pages 97–108, May 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. Quan and R. Mohr. Affine shape representation from motion through reference points. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 1:145–151, 1992. also in IEEE Workshop on Visual Motion, New Jersey, pages 249–254, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. Quan. Self-calibration of an affine camera from multiple views. IJCV, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. Quan and T. Kanade. A factorization method for shape and motion from line correspondences. In CVPR, June, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. Quan and T. Kanade. Affine Structure from Line Correspondences with Uncalibrated Affine Cameras. To appear in Ieee T-PAMI, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    L.S. Shapiro, A. Zisserman, and M. Brady. Motion from point matches using affine epipolar geometry. IJCV, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Shashua. Algebraic functions for recognition. Ieee T-PAMI, 1994. in press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Spetsakis and J. Aloimonos. A Unified theory of structure from motion. In Proceedings DARPA IU Workshop, 1990.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. Tomasi and T. Kanade. Shape and motion from image streams under orthography: A factorization method. IJCV, 9(2):137–154, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    B. Triggs. The geometry of projective reconstruction I: Matching constraints and the joint image. In ICCV, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Ullman and R. Basri. Recognition by linear combinations of models. Ieee T-PAMI, 13(10):992–1006, 1991.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    D. Weinshall and C. Tomasi. Linear and incremental acquisition of invariant shape models from image sequences. In ICCV. 1993.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    T. Vieville and O. Faugeras and Q.T. Luong. Motion of points and lines in the uncalibrated case. IJCV, 7(3):211–241, 1996.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. Weng and T.S. Huang and N. Ahuja. Motion and structure from line correspondences: Closed-form solution, uniqueness, and optimization. Ieee T-PAMI, 14(3):318–336, 1992.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Z. Zhang and O. Faugeras. Three-dimensional motion computation and object segmentation in a long sequence of stereo frames. IJCV, 7(3):211–241, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Long Quan
    • 1
  • Roger Mohr
    • 1
  1. 1.CNRS-GRAVIR-INRIA ZIRSTMontbonnotFrance

Personalised recommendations