I am using a x-IMU from x-io Technologies.
For drift correction it uses the AHRS On-board algorithm.
Without Hard-iron calibration there is a small continuous rotation.
From Hard-iron calibration with x-IMU-GUI-v13.1 I get values like:
x-axis hard-iron bias: 882076,942002059
y-axis hard-iron bias: -814599,840421389
z-axis hard-iron bias: 834205,266804569
They are automatically set to the hard-iron bias registers.
This registers have values between -16 & 15.99951.
Which leads to following register values:
x-axis hard-iron bias: 15.99951
y-axis hard-iron bias: -16
z-axis hard-iron bias: 15.99951
If I rotate the IMU horizontal, I get following values on Magnetometer y-axis:
y-axis
But all values above 16 are cut off...
There is the same problem at x-axis.
So, where is the problem?
At the Hard-iron calibration or at the magnetometer register settings?
Thanks a lot for answering!
The Customer Service of x-io Technologies Limited could help me.
I had to change my Windows regional settings such that a decimal place is represented by a '.' and not a ','.
Now the calibration dataset is valid.
Related
In reading about and experimenting with camera calibration I haven't seen any mention of the required tolerance for the placement of calibration targets. For example say I have a field of view of 200mm x 30mm and I want to be able to measure the position of objects in this field to within 1mm. I will calibrate my camera using a grid pattern and the OpenCV calibrateCamera flow. Say my calibration target is a printed chessboard grid with 5mm pitch. What is the tolerance on that 5mm spacing between corners on my target? Does a tighter tolerance result in more accurate pixel to real-world transformation? Does a tighter tolerance result in better distortion removal?
Note I'm measuring objects on a 2D plane, no depth measurement, and unfortunately I don't have the ability to move the calibration targets around and take multiple views of it. So I'm talking specifically about calibrating using a single view.
Calibration using a single view is a poor idea, generally speaking, because of the small number of independent samples it entails, so it is possible that tolerance on the calibration grid manufacture be the least of your worries. But if you must...
The controlling factor here is the sensor's dot pitch. Given the nominal focal length of your lens, and that you want your calibration RMSE to be order of a few tenths of pixel, you can work out the angle spanned by, say, 1/10 of a pixel along the sensor's horizontal axis. Back projecting that at the nominal distance between the lens's exit pupil and the target will give you a length in 3D world that measures the uncertainty in a target's corner location at the calibration optimum. Your physical target points should be known at least as accurately, and normally better.
Example:
Setup: Dot pitch 5um, 16mm focal lens, 200mm working distance to target.
Backprojected 1/10 pixel: 200/16*0.5um =~ 6um.
Backprojected 1/2 pixel : 200/16*2.5um =~ 31um.
You can loosen that if you assume perfect Chi-square scaling of the errors with the square root of the number of the data points. If you have, say, 100 corners, you can multiply that by 10, i.e. ~ 300um for 1/2 pixel
Note that with this kind of tolerances temperature control (for camera and target) may become a factor to keep into account.
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 have to represent hand as a cluster of finger segments in time series curve.( Horizontal axis - Angle between one fixed point to each contour vertex.
vertical axis - Euclidean distance between center point(in hand) and each contour vertex ) .Is there is any algorithm for drawing that curve?
How can I represent the hand shape in time series curve?
Thanks in advance.
I am have been using solvepnp() for the calculation of the rotation and translation matrix. But the euler angles calculated from the obtained rotation matrix gave very erratic values. Trying to find the problem, I had a set of 2D projection points for my marker and kept the other parameters of solvepnp() constant.
Eg values:
2D points
[219.67473, 242.78395; 363.4151, 238.61298; 503.04855, 234.56117; 501.70917, 628.16742; 500.58069, 959.78564; 383.1756, 972.02679; 262.8746, 984.56982; 243.17044, 646.22925]
The euler angle theta(x) calculated from the output rotation matrix of solvepnp() was -26.4877
Next, I incremented only the x value of the first point(i.e 219.67473) by 0.1 to check the variation of the theta(x) euler angle (keeping the remaining points and the other parameters constant) and ran the solvepnp() again .For that very small change,I had values which were decreasing from -19 degree, -18 degree (for x coord = 223.074) then suddenly jump to 27 degree for a while (for x coord = 223.174 to 226.974) then come down to 1.3 degree (for x coord = 227.074).
I cannot understand this behaviour at all.Could somebody please explain?
My euler angle calculation from the rotation matrix uses this procedure.
Try Rodrigues() for conversion between rotation matrix and rotation vector to make sure everything is clean and right. Non RANSAC version can be very sensitive to outliers that create a huge error in the parameters and thus bias a solution. Using RANSAC version of solvePnP may make it more stable to outliers. For example, adding too much to one of the points coordinates will eventually make it an outlier and it won’t influence a solution after that.
If everything fails, write a series unit tests: create an artificial set of points in 3D (possibly non planar), apply a simple translation first, in second variant apply rotation only, and in a third test apply both. Project using your camera matrix and then plug in your 2D, 3D points and projection matrix into your code to find the pose. If the result deviates from the inverse of the translations and rotations your applied to the points look for the bug in feeding parameters to PnP.
It seems the coordinate systems are different.OpenCV uses right-hand coordinate-system Y-pointing downwards. At nghiaho.com it says the calculations are based on this and if you look at the axis they don't seem to match. I guess you are using Rodrigues for matrix computation? Try comparing rotation vectors as well.
I'm trying to estimate the relative camera pose using OpenCV. Cameras in my case are calibrated (i know the intrinsic parameters of the camera).
Given the images captured at two positions, i need to find out the relative rotation and translation between two cameras. Typical translation is about 5 to 15 meters and yaw angle rotation between cameras range between 0 - 20 degrees.
For achieving this, following steps are adopted.
a. Finding point corresponding using SIFT/SURF
b. Fundamental Matrix Identification
c. Estimation of Essential Matrix by E = K'FK and modifying E for singularity constraint
d. Decomposition Essential Matrix to get the rotation, R = UWVt or R = UW'Vt (U and Vt are obtained SVD of E)
e. Obtaining the real rotation angles from rotation matrix
Experiment 1: Real Data
For real data experiment, I captured images by mounting a camera on a tripod. Images captured at Position 1, then moved to another aligned Position and changed yaw angles in steps of 5 degrees and captured images for Position 2.
Problems/Issues:
Sign of the estimated yaw angles are not matching with ground truth yaw angles. Sometimes 5 deg is estimated as 5deg, but 10 deg as -10 deg and again 15 deg as 15 deg.
In experiment only yaw angle is changed, however estimated Roll and Pitch angles are having nonzero values close to 180/-180 degrees.
Precision is very poor in some cases the error in estimated and ground truth angles are around 2-5 degrees.
How to find out the scale factor to get the translation in real world measurement units?
The behavior is same on simulated data also.
Have anybody experienced similar problems as me? Have any clue on how to resolve them.
Any help from anybody would be highly appreciated.
(I know there are already so many posts on similar problems, going trough all of them has not saved me. Hence posting one more time.)
In chapter 9.6 of Hartley and Zisserman, they point out that, for a particular essential matrix, if one camera is held in the canonical position/orientation, there are four possible solutions for the second camera matrix: [UWV' | u3], [UWV' | -u3], [UW'V' | u3], and [UW'V' | -u3].
The difference between the first and third (and second and fourth) solutions is that the orientation is rotated by 180 degrees about the line joining the two cameras, called a "twisted pair", which sounds like what you are describing.
The book says that in order to choose the correct combination of translation and orientation from the four options, you need to test a point in the scene and make sure that the point is in front of both cameras.
For problems 1 and 2,
Look for "Euler angles" in wikipedia or any good math site like Wolfram Mathworld. You would find out the different possibilities of Euler angles. I am sure you can figure out why you are getting sign changes in your results based on literature reading.
For problem 3,
It should mostly have to do with the accuracy of our individual camera calibration.
For problem 4,
Not sure. How about, measuring a point from camera using a tape and comparing it with the translation norm to get the scale factor.
Possible reasons for bad accuracy:
1) There is a difference between getting reasonable and precise accuracy in camera calibration. See this thread.
2) The accuracy with which you are moving the tripod. How are you ensuring that there is no rotation of tripod around an axis perpendicular to surface during change in position.
I did not get your simulation concept. But, I would suggest the below test.
Take images without moving the camera or object. Now if you calculate relative camera pose, rotation should be identity matrix and translation should be null vector. Due to numerical inaccuracies and noise, you might see rotation deviation in arc minutes.