A Comparison of 3D Sensors for Wheeled Mobile Robots

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 302)


3D sensors are used for many different applications, e.g., scene reconstruction, object detection, and mobile robots, etc. Several studies on usability and accuracy have been done for different sensors. However, all these studies have used different settings for the different sensors. For this reason we compare five 3D sensors, including the structured light sensors Microsoft Kinect and ASUS Xtion Pro Live, and the time of flight sensors Fotonic E70P, IFM O3D200 and Nippon Signal FX6, using the same settings. The sensor noise, absolute error, and point detection rates are compared for different depth values, environmental illumination, and different surfaces. Also, simple models of the noise depending on the measured depth are proposed. It is found that structured light sensors are very accurate for close ranges. The time of flight sensors have more noise, but the noise does not increase as strongly with the measured distance. Further, it is found that these sensors can be used for outdoor applications.



This work is funded by the Germany Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF Grant 01IM12005B). The authors are responsible for the content of this publication. Further, we thank Jan Leininger for assisting us with all the measurements.


  1. 1.
    D. D. Chow, Jacky C. K. and Lichti, “A study of systematic errors in the PMD CamBoard nano,” Proc. SPIE, vol. 8791, pp. 87 910X–87 910X–10, May 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. M. Mutto, Carlo Dal and Zanuttigh, Pietro and Cortelazzo, “Time-of-Flight Cameras and Microsoft Kinect (TM)”. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2012.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Boehm, “Accuracy Investigation for Natural User Interface Sensors,” in Low-Cost 3D - Sensoren, Algorithmen, Anwendungen, Berlin, Berlin, 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Laible, Y. N. Khan, K. Bohlmann, and A. Zell, “3D LIDAR- and Camera-BasedTerrain Classification Under Different Lighting Conditions,” in Autonomous Mobile Systems 2012, ser. Informatik aktuell.   Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 21–29.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Klose, J. Penlington, and A. Ruckelshausen, “Usability study of 3D Time-of-Flight cameras for automatic plant phenotyping,” Applied Sciences, vol. 69, pp. 93–105, 2009.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Khoshelham and S. O. Elberink, “Accuracy and resolution of Kinect depth data for indoor mapping applications.” Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1437–54, Jan. 2012.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Weingarten, G. Gruener, and R. Siegwart, “A state-of-the-art 3D sensor for robot navigation,” in IROS 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566), vol. 3, no. 2, 2004, pp. 2155–2160.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. K. Molnár, B; Toth, “Accuracy Test of Microsoft Kinect for Human Morphologic Measurements,” vol. XXXIX, no. September, pp. 543–547, 2012.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Bohlmann, A. Beck-greinwald, S. Buck, H. Marks, and A. Zell, “Autonomous Person Following with 3D LIDAR in Outdoor Environments,” in 1st International Workshop on Perception for Mobile Robots Autonomy (PEMRA 2012), 2012.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Stoyanov, R. Mojtahedzadeh, H. Andreasson, and A. J. Lilienthal, “Comparative evaluation of range sensor accuracy for indoor mobile robotics and automated logistics applications,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 1094–1105, 2013.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    U. Wong, A. Morris, C. Lea, J. Lee, C. Whittaker, B. Garney, and R. Whittaker, “Comparative evaluation of range sensing technologies for underground void modeling,” in Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, Sept. 2011, pp. 3816–3823.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Chiabrando, R. Chiabrando, D. Piatti, and F. Rinaudo, “Sensors for 3D Imaging: Metric Evaluation and Calibration of a CCD/CMOS Time-of-Flight Camera,” Sensors, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 10 080–10 096, 2009.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Biber, U. Weiss, M. Dorna, and A. Albert, “Navigation System of the Autonomous Agricultural Robot “BoniRob”,”, 2010.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. May, S. and Werner, B. and Surmann, H. and Pervolz, “3D time-of-flight cameras for mobile robotics,” Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pp. 790–795, 2006.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. O. Peter Einramhof and M. Vincze, “Experimental Evaluation of State of the Art 3D-Sensors,” OGAM Annual Workshop of the Austrian Association for Pattern Recognition (OAGM 07), Krumbach; 05/2007; in: "Proceedings OAGM07", (2007), 8 S., 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. A. Scherer, D. Dube, and A. Zell, “Using depth in visual simultaneous localisation and mapping,” 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 5216–5221, May 2012.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Gonzalez-Jorge, B. Riveiro, E. Vazquez-Fernandez, J. Martínez-Sánchez, and P. Arias, “Metrological evaluation of Microsoft Kinect and Asus Xtion sensors,” Measurement, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 1800–1806, July 2013.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ifm, “O3D200 data sheet.” [Online]. Available:
  19. 19.
    FOTONIC, “FOTONIC E40/70 data sheet,” pp. 3–6. [Online]. Available:
  20. 20.
    S. Thrun, “Probabilistic Robotics,” pp. 1999–2000, 2000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. B. Rusu and S. Cousins, “3D is here: Point Cloud Library (PCL),” 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1–4, May 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Cognitive SystemsUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations