Advertisement

Autocalibration from planar scenes

  • Bill Triggs
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1406)

Abstract

This paper describes the theory and a practical algorithm for the autocalibration of a moving projective camera, from m ≥ 5 views of a planar scene. The unknown camera calibration, motion and scene geometry are recovered up to scale, from constraints encoding the motion-invariance of the camera's internal parameters. This extends the domain of autocalibration from the classical non-planar case to the practically common planar one, in which the solution can not be bootstrapped from an intermediate projective reconstruction. It also generalizes Hartley's method for the internal calibration of a rotating camera, to allow camera translation and to provide 3D as well as calibration information. The basic constraint is that orthogonal directions (points at infinity) in the plane must project to orthogonal directions in the calibrated images. Abstractly, the plane's two circular points (representing its Euclidean structure) lie on the 3D absolute conic, so their projections must lie on the absolute image conic (representing the camera calibration). The resulting algorithm optimizes this constraint numerically over all circular points and all projective calibration parameters, using the inter-image homographies as a projective scene representation.

Keywords

Autocalibration Euclidean structure Absolute Conic & Quadric Planar Scenes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. Armstrong, A. Zisserman, and R. Hartley. Self-calibration from image triplets. In B. Buxton and R. Cipolla, editors, European Conf. Computer Vision, pages 3–16, Cambridge, U.K., April 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    O. Faugeras. Stratification of 3-d vision: Projective, affine, and metric representations. J. Optical Society of America, A 12(3):465–84, March 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    O. Faugeras, Q.-T. Luong, and S. J. Maybank. Camera self calibration: Theory and experiments. In European Conf. Computer Vision, Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy, May 1992. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Gill, W. Murray, and M. Wright. Practical Optimization. Academic Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Hartley. Euclidean reconstruction from multiple views. In 2nd Europe-U.S. Workshop on Invariance, pages 237–56, Ponta Delgada, Azores, October 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Hartley. Self-calibration from multiple views with a rotating camera. In European Conf. Computer Vision, pages 471–8. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Hartley. In defence of the 8-point algorithm. In E. Grimson, editor, IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision, pages 1064–70, Cambridge, MA, June 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Hartley. Minimizing algebraic error. In IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision, Bombay, January 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Heyden and K. åström. Euclidean reconstruction from constant intrinsic parameters. In Int. Conf. Pattern Recognition, pages 339–43, Vienna, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Heyden and K. åström. Euclidean reconstruction from image sequences with varying and unknown focal length and principal point. In IEEE Conf. Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition, Puerto Rico, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Horaud and G. Csurka. Self-calibration and euclidean reconstruction using motions of a stereo rig. In IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision, January 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Kanatani. Statistical Optimization for Geometric Computation: Theory and Practice. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1996.MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Q.-T. Luong and T. Viéville. Canonic representations for the geometries of multiple projective views. Technical Report UCB/CSD-93-772, Dept. EECS, Berkeley, California, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. J. Maybank and O. Faugeras. A theory of self calibration of a moving camera. Int. J. Computer Vision, 8(2):123–151, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Pollefeys and L Van Gool. A stratified approach to metric self-calibration. In IEEE Conf. Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition, pages 407–12, San Juan, Puerto Rico, June 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Pollefeys, L Van Gool, and M. Proesmans. Euclidean 3d reconstruction from image sequences with variable focal length. In B. Buxton and R. Cipolla, editors, European Conf. Computer Vision, pages 31–42, Cambridge, U.K., April 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. G. Semple and G. T. Kneebone. Algebraic Projective Geometry. Oxford University Press, 1952.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Sturm. Critical motion sequences for monocular self-calibration and uncalibrated Euclidean reconstruction. In IEEE Conf. Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition, Puerto Rico, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Sturm. Vision 3D non calibrée: contributions à la reconstruction projective et étude des mouvements critiques pour l'auto-calibrage. Ph.D. Thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, December 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    B. Triggs. A new approach to geometric fitting. Available from http://www.inrialpes.fr/movi/people/Triggs.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. Triggs. SVD based relative orientation from planar scenes. Available from http://www.inrialpes.fr/movi/people/Triggs.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    B. Triggs. Autocalibration and the absolute quadric. In IEEE Conf. Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition, Puerto Rico, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. Viéville and O. Faugeras. Motion analysis with a camera with unknown and possibly varying intrinsic parameters. In E. Grimson, editor, IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision, pages 750–6, Cambridge, MA, June 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    W. Wunderlich. Rechnerische rekonstruktion eines ebenen objekts aus zwei photographien. In Mittsilungen Geodät. Inst. TU Gras, Folge 40 (festschrift K. Rimmer sum 70. Geburstag), pages 365–77, 1982.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. Zeller and O. Faugeras. Camera self-calibration from video sequences: the Kruppa equations revisited. Technical Report 2793, INRIA, INRIA Sophia-Antipolis, France, 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Z. Zhang, Q.-T. Luong, and O. Faugeras. Motion of an uncalibrated stereo rig: Self-calibration and metric reconstruction. Technical Report 2079, INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, France, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bill Triggs
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA RhÔne-AlpesMontbonnot St. MartinFrance

Personalised recommendations