I am following the OpenCV camera calibration tutorial https://opencv-python-tutroals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/py_tutorials/py_calib3d/py_calibration/py_calibration.html to run camera calibration
ret, mtx, dist, rvecs, tvecs = cv2.calibrateCamera(objpoints, imgpoints, gray.shape[::-1],None,None)
What I want to do next is to reconstruction the 3D location of some feature points. The features points are defined in the image space. Here is what I am planning to do:
Found the new camera matrix:
h, w = my image dimension
newcameramtx, roi=cv2.getOptimalNewCameraMatrix(mtx,dist,(w,h),1,(w,h))
Undistort the feature point location:
new_points= cv2.undistortPoints(my_feature_points, mtx, dist, P=newcameramtx)
Reconstruct the 3D coordinate of the feature points for a given Z. I have two problems here. First, I do not know how to reconstruct the 3D coordinate. 2. When I do it, should I use the original camera matrix "mtx" or the new camera matrix "newcameramtx". And how about "roi"? where should I apply it?
Thank you very much.
Take a look at this version of the docs, which I find easier to read. The key equation is this one:
Once you have undistorted your image this equation applies. The matrix with fx, fy, cx, and cy is your camera matrix, often called M.
This equation tells you how to go from 2D pixel locations, on the left (x, y), to 3D locations in the world (on the right, [X, Y, Z].
First, I do not know how to reconstruct the 3D coordinate
To do that, we can apply the equation. Given a pixel location and a range (plug in as w), we have:
which we can do in code like so:
pixels = [x, y, range]
XYZ = np.mult( np.linalg.inv(mtx), pixels)
I'm not sure that you want to be calling getOptimalNewCameraMatrix, because that is cropping out pixels that may not be valid. I'd skip that for the moment until you have a better understanding of the system. The ROI is telling you where the undistorted image won't have any blank pixels.
I really recommend the book Learning OpenCV (or the new version 3 one); it helped me a huge amount. It took me from getting really frustrated reading the docs (which assume a lot of prior knowledge) to actually understanding what was going on.
Related
I am searching lots of resources on internet for many days but i couldnt solve the problem.
I have a project in which i am supposed to detect the position of a circular object on a plane. Since on a plane, all i need is x and y position (not z) For this purpose i have chosen to go with image processing. The camera(single view, not stereo) position and orientation is fixed with respect to a reference coordinate system on the plane and are known
I have detected the image pixel coordinates of the centers of circles by using opencv. All i need is now to convert the coord. to real world.
http://www.packtpub.com/article/opencv-estimating-projective-relations-images
in this site and other sites as well, an homographic transformation is named as:
p = C[R|T]P; where P is real world coordinates and p is the pixel coord(in homographic coord). C is the camera matrix representing the intrinsic parameters, R is rotation matrix and T is the translational matrix. I have followed a tutorial on calibrating the camera on opencv(applied the cameraCalibration source file), i have 9 fine chessbordimages, and as an output i have the intrinsic camera matrix, and translational and rotational params of each of the image.
I have the 3x3 intrinsic camera matrix(focal lengths , and center pixels), and an 3x4 extrinsic matrix [R|T], in which R is the left 3x3 and T is the rigth 3x1. According to p = C[R|T]P formula, i assume that by multiplying these parameter matrices to the P(world) we get p(pixel). But what i need is to project the p(pixel) coord to P(world coordinates) on the ground plane.
I am studying electrical and electronics engineering. I did not take image processing or advanced linear algebra classes. As I remember from linear algebra course we can manipulate a transformation as P=[R|T]-1*C-1*p. However this is in euclidian coord system. I dont know such a thing is possible in hompographic. moreover 3x4 [R|T] Vector is not invertible. Moreover i dont know it is the correct way to go.
Intrinsic and extrinsic parameters are know, All i need is the real world project coordinate on the ground plane. Since point is on a plane, coordinates will be 2 dimensions(depth is not important, as an argument opposed single view geometry).Camera is fixed(position,orientation).How should i find real world coordinate of the point on an image captured by a camera(single view)?
EDIT
I have been reading "learning opencv" from Gary Bradski & Adrian Kaehler. On page 386 under Calibration->Homography section it is written: q = sMWQ where M is camera intrinsic matrix, W is 3x4 [R|T], S is an "up to" scale factor i assume related with homography concept, i dont know clearly.q is pixel cooord and Q is real coord. It is said in order to get real world coordinate(on the chessboard plane) of the coord of an object detected on image plane; Z=0 then also third column in W=0(axis rotation i assume), trimming these unnecessary parts; W is an 3x3 matrix. H=MW is an 3x3 homography matrix.Now we can invert homography matrix and left multiply with q to get Q=[X Y 1], where Z coord was trimmed.
I applied the mentioned algorithm. and I got some results that can not be in between the image corners(the image plane was parallel to the camera plane just in front of ~30 cm the camera, and i got results like 3000)(chessboard square sizes were entered in milimeters, so i assume outputted real world coordinates are again in milimeters). Anyway i am still trying stuff. By the way the results are previosuly very very large, but i divide all values in Q by third component of the Q to get (X,Y,1)
FINAL EDIT
I could not accomplish camera calibration methods. Anyway, I should have started with perspective projection and transform. This way i made very well estimations with a perspective transform between image plane and physical plane(having generated the transform by 4 pairs of corresponding coplanar points on the both planes). Then simply applied the transform on the image pixel points.
You said "i have the intrinsic camera matrix, and translational and rotational params of each of the image.” but these are translation and rotation from your camera to your chessboard. These have nothing to do with your circle. However if you really have translation and rotation matrices then getting 3D point is really easy.
Apply the inverse intrinsic matrix to your screen points in homogeneous notation: C-1*[u, v, 1], where u=col-w/2 and v=h/2-row, where col, row are image column and row and w, h are image width and height. As a result you will obtain 3d point with so-called camera normalized coordinates p = [x, y, z]T. All you need to do now is to subtract the translation and apply a transposed rotation: P=RT(p-T). The order of operations is inverse to the original that was rotate and then translate; note that transposed rotation does the inverse operation to original rotation but is much faster to calculate than R-1.
I know that in the general case, making this conversion is impossible since depth information is lost going from 3d to 2d.
However, I have a fixed camera and I know its camera matrix. I also have a planar calibration pattern of known dimensions - let's say that in world coordinates it has corners (0,0,0) (2,0,0) (2,1,0) (0,1,0). Using opencv I can estimate the pattern's pose, giving the translation and rotation matrices needed to project a point on the object to a pixel in the image.
Now: this 3d to image projection is easy, but how about the other way? If I pick a pixel in the image that I know is part of the calibration pattern, how can I get the corresponding 3d point?
I could iteratively choose some random 3d point on the calibration pattern, project to 2d, and refine the 3d point based on the error. But this seems pretty horrible.
Given that this unknown point has world coordinates something like (x,y,0) -- since it must lie on the z=0 plane -- it seems like there should be some transformation that I can apply, instead of doing the iterative nonsense. My maths isn't very good though - can someone work out this transformation and explain how you derive it?
Here is a closed form solution that I hope can help someone. Using the conventions in the image from your comment above, you can use centered-normalized pixel coordinates (usually after distortion correction) u and v, and extrinsic calibration data, like this:
|Tx| |r11 r21 r31| |-t1|
|Ty| = |r12 r22 r32|.|-t2|
|Tz| |r13 r23 r33| |-t3|
|dx| |r11 r21 r31| |u|
|dy| = |r12 r22 r32|.|v|
|dz| |r13 r23 r33| |1|
With these intermediate values, the coordinates you want are:
X = (-Tz/dz)*dx + Tx
Y = (-Tz/dz)*dy + Ty
Explanation:
The vector [t1, t2, t3]t is the position of the origin of the world coordinate system (the (0,0) of your calibration pattern) with respect to the camera optical center; by reversing signs and inversing the rotation transformation we obtain vector T = [Tx, Ty, Tz]t, which is the position of the camera center in the world reference frame.
Similarly, [u, v, 1]t is the vector in which lies the observed point in the camera reference frame (starting from camera center). By inversing the rotation transformation we obtain vector d = [dx, dy, dz]t, which represents the same direction in world reference frame.
To inverse the rotation transformation we take advantage of the fact that the inverse of a rotation matrix is its transpose (link).
Now we have a line with direction vector d starting from point T, the intersection of this line with plane Z=0 is given by the second set of equations. Note that it would be similarly easy to find the intersection with the X=0 or Y=0 planes or with any plane parallel to them.
Yes, you can. If you have a transformation matrix that maps a point in the 3d world to the image plane, you can just use the inverse of this transformation matrix to map a image plane point to the 3d world point. If you already know that z = 0 for the 3d world point, this will result in one solution for the point. There will be no need to iteratively choose some random 3d point. I had a similar problem where I had a camera mounted on a vehicle with a known position and camera calibration matrix. I needed to know the real world location of a lane marking captured on the image place of the camera.
If you have Z=0 for you points in world coordinates (which should be true for planar calibration pattern), instead of inversing rotation transformation, you can calculate homography for your image from camera and calibration pattern.
When you have homography you can select point on image and then get its location in world coordinates using inverse homography.
This is true as long as the point in world coordinates is on the same plane as the points used for calculating this homography (in this case Z=0)
This approach to this problem was also discussed below this question on SO: Transforming 2D image coordinates to 3D world coordinates with z = 0
I have an image of a chessboard taken at some angle. Now I want to warp perspective so the chessboard image look again as if was taken directly from above.
I know that I can try to use 'findHomography' between matched points but I wanted to avoid it and use e.g. rotation data from mobile sensors to build homography matrix on my own. I calibrated my camera to get intrinsic parameters. Then lets say the following image has been taken at ~60degrees angle around x-axis. I thought that all I have to do is to multiply camera matrix with rotation matrix to obtain homography matrix. I tried to use the following code but looks like I'm not understanding something correctly because it doesn't work as expected (result image completely black or white.
import cv2
import numpy as np
import math
camera_matrix = np.array([[ 5.7415988502105745e+02, 0., 2.3986181527877352e+02],
[0., 5.7473682183375217e+02, 3.1723734404756237e+02],
[0., 0., 1.]])
distortion_coefficients = np.array([ 1.8662919398453856e-01, -7.9649812697463640e-01,
1.8178068172317731e-03, -2.4296638847737923e-03,
7.0519002388825025e-01 ])
theta = math.radians(60)
rotx = np.array([[1, 0, 0],
[0, math.cos(theta), -math.sin(theta)],
[0, math.sin(theta), math.cos(theta)]])
homography = np.dot(camera_matrix, rotx)
im = cv2.imread('data/chess1.jpg')
gray = cv2.cvtColor(im,cv2.COLOR_BGR2GRAY)
im_warped = cv2.warpPerspective(gray, homography, (480, 640), flags=cv2.WARP_INVERSE_MAP)
cv2.imshow('image', im_warped)
cv2.waitKey()
pass
I also have distortion_coefficients after calibration. How can those be incorporated into the code to improve results?
This answer is awfully late by several years, but here it is ...
(Disclaimer: my use of terminology in this answer may be imprecise or incorrect. Please do look up on this topic from other more credible sources.)
Remember:
Because you only have one image (view), you can only compute 2D homography (perspective correspondence between one 2D view and another 2D view), not the full 3D homography.
Because of that, the nice intuitive understanding of the 3D homography (rotation matrix, translation matrix, focal distance, etc.) are not available to you.
What we say is that with 2D homography you cannot factorize the 3x3 matrix into those nice intuitive components like 3D homography does.
You have one matrix - (which is the product of several matrices unknown to you) - and that is it.
However,
OpenCV provides a getPerspectiveTransform function which solves the 3x3 perspective matrix (using homogenous coordinate system) for a 2D homography between two planar quadrilaterals.
Link to documentation
To use this function,
Find the four corners of the chessboard on the image. These will be your source coordinates.
Supply four rectangle corners of your choice. These will be your destination coordinates.
Pass the source coordinates and destination coordinates into the getPerspectiveTransform to generate a 3x3 matrix that is able to dewarp your chessboard to an upright rectangle.
Notes to remember:
Mind the ordering of the four corners.
If the source coordinates are picked in clockwise order, the destination also needs to be picked in clockwise order.
Likewise, if counter-clockwise order is used, do it consistently.
Likewise, if z-order (top left, top right, bottom left, bottom right) is used, do it consistently.
Failure to order the corners consistently will generate a matrix that executes the point-to-point correspondence exactly (mathematically speaking), but will not generate a usable output image.
The aspect ratio of the destination rectangle can be chosen arbitrarily. In fact, it is not possible to deduce the "original aspect ratio" of the object in world coordinates, because "this is 2D homography, not 3D".
One problem is that to multiply by a camera matrix you need some concept of a z coordinate. You should start by getting basic image warping given Euler angles to work before you think about distortion coefficients. Have a look at this answer for a slightly more detailed explanation and try to duplicate my result. The idea of moving your image down the z axis and then projecting it with your camera matrix can be confusing, let me know if any part of it does not make sense.
You do not need to calibrate the camera nor estimate the camera orientation (the latter, however, in this case would be very easy: just find the vanishing points of those orthogonal bundles of lines, and take their cross product to find the normal to the plane, see Hartley & Zisserman's bible for details).
The only thing you need to do is estimate the homography that maps the checkers to squares, then apply it to the image.
I am doing stereo calibration of two cameras (let's name them L and R) with opencv. I use 20 pairs of checkerboard images and compute the transformation of R with respect to L. What I want to do is use a new pair of images, compute the 2d checkerboard corners in image L, transform those points according to my calibration and draw the corresponding transformed points on image R with the hope that they will match the corners of the checkerboard in that image.
I tried the naive way of transforming the 2d points from [x,y] to [x,y,1], multiply by the 3x3 rotation matrix, add the rotation vector and then divide by z, but the result is wrong, so I guess it's not that simple (?)
Edit (to clarify some things):
The reason I want to do this is basically because I want to validate the stereo calibration on a new pair of images. So, I don't actually want to get a new 2d transformation between the two images, I want to check if the 3d transformation I have found is correct.
This is my setup:
I have the rotation and translation relating the two cameras (E), but I don't have rotations and translations of the object in relation to each camera (E_R, E_L).
Ideally what I would like to do:
Choose the 2d corners in image from camera L (in pixels e.g. [100,200] etc).
Do some kind of transformation on the 2d points based on matrix E that I have found.
Get the corresponding 2d points in image from camera R, draw them, and hopefully they match the actual corners!
The more I think about it though, the more I am convinced that this is wrong/can't be done.
What I am probably trying now:
Using the intrinsic parameters of the cameras (let's say I_R and I_L), solve 2 least squares systems to find E_R and E_L
Choose 2d corners in image from camera L.
Project those corners to their corresponding 3d points (3d_points_L).
Do: 3d_points_R = (E_L).inverse * E * E_R * 3d_points_L
Get the 2d_points_R from 3d_points_R and draw them.
I will update when I have something new
It is actually easy to do that but what you're making several mistakes. Remember after stereo calibration R and L relate the position and orientation of the second camera to the first camera in the first camera's 3D coordinate system. And also remember to find the 3D position of a point by a pair of cameras you need to triangulate the position. By setting the z component to 1 you're making two mistakes. First, most likely you have used the common OpenCV stereo calibration code and have given the distance between the corners of the checker board in cm. Hence, z=1 means 1 cm away from the center of camera, that's super close to the camera. Second, by setting the same z for all the points you are saying the checker board is perpendicular to the principal axis (aka optical axis, or principal ray), while most likely in your image that's not the case. So you're transforming some virtual 3D points first to the second camera's coordinate system and then projecting them onto the image plane.
If you want to transform just planar points then you can find the homography between the two cameras (OpenCV has the function) and use that.
Is it possible to obtain front-parallel view of image or camera position by 2d-3d points relation using OpenCV?
For this I have intrinsic and extrinsic parameters. I have also 3d coordinates of set of control points (which lies in one plane) on image (relation 2d-3d).
In fact I need location and orientation of camera, but it is not difficult to find it if I can convert image to fronto-parallel view.
If it is not possible to do with OpenCV, are the other libraries which can solve this task?
Solution is based on the formulas in the OpenCV documentation Camera Calibration and 3D Reconstruction
Let's consider numerical form without distortion coefficient (in contrast with matrix form).
We have u and v.
It is easy to calculate x' and y'.
But x and y can not be calculate because we can choose any non-zero z.
Line in 3d corresponds to one point in 2d image.
To solve this we take two points for z=1 and z=2.
Then we find 2 points in 3d space which specify line (x1,y1,z1) and (x2,y2,z2).
Then we can apply R-1 to (x1,y1,z1) and (x2,y2,z2) which results in line determined by two points (X1, Y1, Z1) and (X1, Y1, Z1).
Since our control points lie in one plane (let plane is Z=0 for simplicity) we can find corresponding X and Y point which is a point in 3d.
After applying normalization from mm to pixels we obtain fronto-parallel image.
(If we have input image distorted we should undistort it first)