On a very high level, my pose estimation pipeline looks somewhat like this:
Find features in image_1 and image_2 (let's say cv::ORB)
Match the features (let's say using the BruteForce-Hamming descriptor matcher)
Calculate Essential Matrix (using cv::findEssentialMat)
Decompose it to get the proper rotation matrix and translation unit vector (using cv::recoverPose)
Repeat
I noticed that at some point, the yaw angle (calculated using the output rotation matrix R of cv::recoverPose) suddenly jumps by more than 150 degrees. For that particular frame, the number of inliers is 0 (the return value of cv::recoverPose). So, to understand what exactly that means and what's going on, I asked this question on SO.
As per the answer to my question:
So, if the number of inliers is 0, then something went very wrong. Either your E is wrong, or the point matches are wrong, or both. In this case you simply cannot estimate the camera motion from those two images.
For that particular image pair, based on the visualization and from my understanding, matches look good:
The next step in the pipeline is finding the Essential Matrix. So, now, how can I check whether the calculated Essential Matrix is correct or not without decomposing it i.e. without calculating Roll Pitch Yaw angles (which can be done by finding the rotation matrix via cv::recoverPose)?
Basically, I want to double-check whether my Essential Matrix is correct or not before I move on to the next component (which is cv::recoverPose) in the pipeline!
The essential matrix maps each point p in image 1 to its epipolar line in image 2. The point q in image 2 that corresponds to p must be very close to the line. You can plot the epipolar lines and the matching points to see if they make sense. Remember that E is defined in normalized image coordinates, not in pixels. To get the epipolar lines in pixel coordinates, you would need to convert E to F (the fundamental matrix).
The epipolar lines must all intersect in one point, called the epipole. The epipole is the projection of the other camera's center in your image. You can find the epipole by computing the nullspace of F.
If you know something about the camera motion, then you can determine where the epipole should be. For example, if the camera is mounted on a vehicle that is moving directly forward, and you know the pitch and roll angles of the camera relative to the ground, then you can calculate exactly where the epipole will be. If the vehicle can turn in-plane, then you can find the horizontal line on which the epipole must lie.
You can get the epipole from F, and see if it is where it is supposed to be.
Related
I want to reopen a similar question to one which somebody posted a while ago with some major difference.
The previous post is https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52536520/image-matching-using-intrinsic-and-extrinsic-camera-parameters]
and my question is can I do the matching if I do have the depth?
If it is possible can some describe a set of formulas which I have to solve to get the desirable matching ?
Here there is also some correspondence on slide 16/43:
Depth from Stereo Lecture
In what units all the variables here, can some one clarify please ?
Will this formula help me to calculate the desirable point to point correspondence ?
I know the Z (mm, cm, m, whatever unit it is) and the x_l (I guess this is y coordinate of the pixel, so both x_l and x_r are on the same horizontal line, correct if I'm wrong), I'm not sure if T is in mm (or cm, m, i.e distance unit) and f is in pixels/mm (distance unit) or is it something else ?
Thank you in advance.
EDIT:
So as it was said by #fana, the solution is indeed a projection.
For my understanding it is P(v) = K (Rv+t), where R is 3 x 3 rotation matrix (calculated for example from calibration), t is the 3 x 1 translation vector and K is the 3 x 3 intrinsics matrix.
from the following video:
It can be seen that there is translation only in one dimension (because the situation is where the images are parallel so the translation takes place only on X-axis) but in other situation, as much as I understand if the cameras are not on the same parallel line, there is also translation on Y-axis. What is the translation on the Z-axis which I get through the calibration, is it some rescale factor due to different image resolutions for example ? Did I wrote the projection formula correctly in the general case?
I also want to ask about the whole idea.
Suppose I have 3 cameras, one with large FOV which gives me color and depth for each pixel, lets call it the first (3d tensor, color stacked with depth correspondingly), and two with which I want to do stereo, lets call them second and third.
Instead of calibrating the two cameras, my idea is to use the depth from the first camera to calculate the xyz of pixel u,v of its correspondent color frame, that can be done easily and now to project it on the second and the third image using the R,t found by calibration between the first camera and the second and the third, and using the K intrinsics matrices so the projection matrix seems to be full known, am I right ?
Assume for the case that FOV of color is big enough to include all that can be seen from the second and the third cameras.
That way, by projection each x,y,z of the first camera I can know where is the corresponding pixels on the two other cameras, is that correct ?
let's say I am placing a small object on a flat floor inside a room.
First step: Take a picture of the room floor from a known, static position in the world coordinate system.
Second step: Detect the bottom edge of the object in the image and map the pixel coordinate to the object position in the world coordinate system.
Third step: By using a measuring tape measure the real distance to the object.
I could move the small object, repeat this three steps for every pixel coordinate and create a lookup table (key: pixel coordinate; value: distance). This procedure is accurate enough for my use case. I know that it is problematic if there are multiple objects (an object could cover an other object).
My question: Is there an easier way to create this lookup table? Accidentally changing the camera angle by a few degrees destroys the hard work. ;)
Maybe it is possible to execute the three steps for a few specific pixel coordinates or positions in the world coordinate system and perform some "calibration" to calculate the distances with the computed parameters?
If the floor is flat, its equation is that of a plane, let
a.x + b.y + c.z = 1
in the camera coordinates (the origin is the optical center of the camera, XY forms the focal plane and Z the viewing direction).
Then a ray from the camera center to a point on the image at pixel coordinates (u, v) is given by
(u, v, f).t
where f is the focal length.
The ray hits the plane when
(a.u + b.v + c.f) t = 1,
i.e. at the point
(u, v, f) / (a.u + b.v + c.f)
Finally, the distance from the camera to the point is
p = √(u² + v² + f²) / (a.u + b.v + c.f)
This is the function that you need to tabulate. Assuming that f is known, you can determine the unknown coefficients a, b, c by taking three non-aligned points, measuring the image coordinates (u, v) and the distances, and solving a 3x3 system of linear equations.
From the last equation, you can then estimate the distance for any point of the image.
The focal distance can be measured (in pixels) by looking at a target of known size, at a known distance. By proportionality, the ratio of the distance over the size is f over the length in the image.
Most vision libraries (including opencv) have built in functions that will take a couple points from a camera reference frame and the related points from a Cartesian plane and generate your warp matrix (affine transformation) for you. (some are fancy enough to include non-linearity mappings with enough input points, but that brings you back to your time to calibrate issue)
A final note: most vision libraries use some type of grid to calibrate off of ie a checkerboard patter. If you wrote your calibration to work off of such a sheet, then you would only need to measure distances to 1 target object as the transformations would be calculated by the sheet and the target would just provide the world offsets.
I believe what you are after is called a Projective Transformation. The link below should guide you through exactly what you need.
Demonstration of calculating a projective transformation with proper math typesetting on the Math SE.
Although you can solve this by hand and write that into your code... I strongly recommend using a matrix math library or even writing your own matrix math functions prior to resorting to hand calculating the equations as you will have to solve them symbolically to turn it into code and that will be very expansive and prone to miscalculation.
Here are just a few tips that may help you with clarification (applying it to your problem):
-Your A matrix (source) is built from the 4 xy points in your camera image (pixel locations).
-Your B matrix (destination) is built from your measurements in in the real world.
-For fast recalibration, I suggest marking points on the ground to be able to quickly place the cube at the 4 locations (and subsequently get the altered pixel locations in the camera) without having to remeasure.
-You will only have to do steps 1-5 (once) during calibration, after that whenever you want to know the position of something just get the coordinates in your image and run them through step 6 and step 7.
-You will want your calibration points to be as far away from eachother as possible (within reason, as at extreme distances in a vanishing point situation, you start rapidly losing pixel density and therefore source image accuracy). Make sure that no 3 points are colinear (simply put, make your 4 points approximately square at almost the full span of your camera fov in the real world)
ps I apologize for not writing this out here, but they have fancy math editing and it looks way cleaner!
Final steps to applying this method to this situation:
In order to perform this calibration, you will have to set a global home position (likely easiest to do this arbitrarily on the floor and measure your camera position relative to that point). From this position, you will need to measure your object's distance from this position in both x and y coordinates on the floor. Although a more tightly packed calibration set will give you more error, the easiest solution for this may simply be to have a dimension-ed sheet(I am thinking piece of printer paper or a large board or something). The reason that this will be easier is that it will have built in axes (ie the two sides will be orthogonal and you will just use the four corners of the object and used canned distances in your calibration). EX: for a piece of paper your points would be (0,0), (0,8.5), (11,8.5), (11,0)
So using those points and the pixels you get will create your transform matrix, but that still just gives you a global x,y position on axes that may be hard to measure on (they may be skew depending on how you measured/ calibrated). So you will need to calculate your camera offset:
object in real world coords (from steps above): x1, y1
camera coords (Xc, Yc)
dist = sqrt( pow(x1-Xc,2) + pow(y1-Yc,2) )
If it is too cumbersome to try to measure the position of the camera from global origin by hand, you can instead measure the distance to 2 different points and feed those values into the above equation to calculate your camera offset, which you will then store and use anytime you want to get final distance.
As already mentioned in the previous answers you'll need a projective transformation or simply a homography. However, I'll consider it from a more practical view and will try to summarize it short and simple.
So, given the proper homography you can warp your picture of a plane such that it looks like you took it from above (like here). Even simpler you can transform a pixel coordinate of your image to world coordinates of the plane (the same is done during the warping for each pixel).
A homography is basically a 3x3 matrix and you transform a coordinate by multiplying it with the matrix. You may now think, wait 3x3 matrix and 2D coordinates: You'll need to use homogeneous coordinates.
However, most frameworks and libraries will do this handling for you. What you need to do is finding (at least) four points (x/y-coordinates) on your world plane/floor (preferably the corners of a rectangle, aligned with your desired world coordinate system), take a picture of them, measure the pixel coordinates and pass both to the "find-homography-function" of your desired computer vision or math library.
In OpenCV that would be findHomography, here an example (the method perspectiveTransform then performs the actual transformation).
In Matlab you can use something from here. Make sure you are using a projective transformation as transform type. The result is a projective tform, which can be used in combination with this method, in order to transform your points from one coordinate system to another.
In order to transform into the other direction you just have to invert your homography and use the result instead.
I'm working on an object tracking application using openCV. I want to convert my pixel coordinates to world coordinates to get more meaningful information. I have read a lot about computing the perspective transform matrix, and I know about cv2.solvePnP. But I feel like my case should be special, because I'm tracking a runner on a track and field runway with the runway orthogonal to the camera's z-axis. I will set up the camera to ensure this.
If I just pick two points on the runway edge, I can calculate a linear conversion from pixels to world coords at that specific height (ground level) and distance from the camera (i.e. along that line). Then I reason that the runner will run on a line parallel to the runway at a different height and slightly different distance from the camera, but the lines should still be parallel in the image, because they will both be orthogonal to the camera z-axis. With all those constraints, I feel like I shouldn't need the normal number of points to track the runner on that particular axis. My gut says that 2-3 should be enough. Can anyone help me nail down the method here? Am I completely off track? With both height and distance from camera essentially fixed, shouldn't I be able to work with a much smaller set of correspondences?
Thanks, Bill
So, I think I've answered this one myself. It's true that only two correspondence points are needed given the following assumptions.
Assume:
World coordinates are set up with X-axis and Y-axis parallel to the ground plane. X-axis is parallel to the runway.
Camera is translated and possibly rotated about X-axis (angled downward), but no rotation around Y-axis(camera plane parallel to runway and x-axis) or Z-axis (camera is level with respect to ground).
Camera intrinsic parameters are known from camera calibration.
Method:
Pick two points in the ground plane with known coordinates in world and image. For example, two points on the runway edge as mentioned in original post. The line connecting the poitns in world coordinates should not be parallel with either X or Z axis.
Since Y=0 for these points, ignore the second column of the rotation/translation matrix, reducing the projection to a planar homography transform (3x3 matrix). Now we have 9 degrees of freedom.
The rotation assumptions will enforce a certain form on the rotation/translation matrix. Namely, the first column and first row will be the identity (1,0,0). This further reduces the number of degrees of freedom in the matrix to 5.
Constrain the values of the second column of the matrix such that cos^2(theta)+sin^2(theta) = 1. This reduces the number of unknowns to only 4. Two correspondence points will give us the 4 equations we need to calculate the homography matrix for the ground plane.
Factor out the camera intrinsic parameter matrix from the homography matrix, leaving the rotation/translation matrix for the ground plane.
Due to the rotation assumptions made earlier, the ignored column of the rotation/translation matrix can be easily constructed from the third column of the same matrix, which is the second column in the ground plane homography matrix.
Multiply back out with the camera intrinsic parameters to arrive at the final universal projection matrix (from only 2 correspondence points!)
My test implentation has worked quite well. Of course, it's sensitive to the accuracy of the two correspondence points provided, but that's kind of a given.
I'm working on a problem where I have a calibrated stereo pair and am identifying stereo matches. I then project those matches using perspectiveTransform to give me (x, y, z) coordinates.
Later, I'm taking those coordinates and reprojecting them into my original, unrectified image using projectPoints with takes my left camera's M and D parameters. I was surprised to find that, despite all of this happening within the same calibration, the points do not project on the correct part of the image (they have about a 5 pixel offset, depending where they are in the image). This offset seems to change with different calibrations.
My question is: should I expect this, or am I likely doing something wrong? It seems like the calibration ought to be internally consistent.
Here's a screenshot of just a single point being remapped (drawn with the two lines):
(ignore the little boxes, those are something else)
I was doing something slightly wrong. When reprojecting from 3D to 2D, I missed that stereoRectify returns R1, the output rectification rotation matrix. When calling projectPoints, I needed to pass the inverse of that matrix as the second parameter (rvec).
Is there a way to calculate the distance to specific object using stereo camera?
Is there an equation or something to get distance using disparity or angle?
NOTE: Everything described here can be found in the Learning OpenCV book in the chapters on camera calibration and stereo vision. You should read these chapters to get a better understanding of the steps below.
One approach that do not require you to measure all the camera intrinsics and extrinsics yourself is to use openCVs calibration functions. Camera intrinsics (lens distortion/skew etc) can be calculated with cv::calibrateCamera, while the extrinsics (relation between left and right camera) can be calculated with cv::stereoCalibrate. These functions take a number of points in pixel coordinates and tries to map them to real world object coordinates. CV has a neat way to get such points, print out a black-and-white chessboard and use the cv::findChessboardCorners/cv::cornerSubPix functions to extract them. Around 10-15 image pairs of chessboards should do.
The matrices calculated by the calibration functions can be saved to disc so you don't have to repeat this process every time you start your application. You get some neat matrices here that allow you to create a rectification map (cv::stereoRectify/cv::initUndistortRectifyMap) that can later be applied to your images using cv::remap. You also get a neat matrix called Q, which is a disparity-to-depth matrix.
The reason to rectify your images is that once the process is complete for a pair of images (assuming your calibration is correct), every pixel/object in one image can be found on the same row in the other image.
There are a few ways you can go from here, depending on what kind of features you are looking for in the image. One way is to use CVs stereo correspondence functions, such as Stereo Block Matching or Semi Global Block Matching. This will give you a disparity map for the entire image which can be transformed to 3D points using the Q matrix (cv::reprojectImageTo3D).
The downfall of this is that unless there is much texture information in the image, CV isn't really very good at building a dense disparity map (you will get gaps in it where it couldn't find the correct disparity for a given pixel), so another approach is to find the points you want to match yourself. Say you find the feature/object in x=40,y=110 in the left image and x=22 in the right image (since the images are rectified, they should have the same y-value). The disparity is calculated as d = 40 - 22 = 18.
Construct a cv::Point3f(x,y,d), in our case (40,110,18). Find other interesting points the same way, then send all of the points to cv::perspectiveTransform (with the Q matrix as the transformation matrix, essentially this function is cv::reprojectImageTo3D but for sparse disparity maps) and the output will be points in an XYZ-coordinate system with the left camera at the center.
I am still working on it, so I will not post entire source code yet. But I will give you a conceptual solution.
You will need the following data as input (for both cameras):
camera position
camera point of interest (point at which camera is looking)
camera resolution (horizontal and vertical)
camera field of view angles (horizontal and vertical)
You can measure the last one yourself, by placing the camera on a piece of paper and drawing two lines and measuring an angle between these lines.
Cameras do not have to be aligned in any way, you only need to be able to see your object in both cameras.
Now calculate a vector from each camera to your object. You have (X,Y) pixel coordinates of the object from each camera, and you need to calculate a vector (X,Y,Z). Note that in the simple case, where the object is seen right in the middle of the camera, the solution would simply be (camera.PointOfInterest - camera.Position).
Once you have both vectors pointing at your target, lines defined by these vectors should cross in one point in ideal world. In real world they would not because of small measurement errors and limited resolution of cameras. So use the link below to calculate the distance vector between two lines.
Distance between two lines
In that link: P0 is your first cam position, Q0 is your second cam position and u and v are vectors starting at camera position and pointing at your target.
You are not interested in the actual distance, they want to calculate. You need the vector Wc - we can assume that the object is in the middle of Wc. Once you have the position of your object in 3D space you also get whatever distance you like.
I will post the entire source code soon.
I have the source code for detecting human face and returns not only depth but also real world coordinates with left camera (or right camera, I couldn't remember) being origin. It is adapted from source code from "Learning OpenCV" and refer to some websites to get it working. The result is generally quite accurate.