I am working on converting 2d images to 3d environment. The images were collected from a video made in a lateral motion. Then the images were placed one behind the other, so it would be easy to find the correspondences between the two images. This is called a spatial-temporal volume.
Next I take a slice from the spatiotemporal volume. That slice is called the Epipolar Plane Image.
Using the Epipolar Plane Image, I want to calculate the depth of the objects in the scene and make a 3D enviornment. I have listed the reference but I have not been able to figure out the math described in the paper. Can someone help me figure this out? Any help is appreciated.
Reference
Epipolar-Plane Image Analysis: An Approach to Determining Structure from Motion* !
The math in this situation is easy and straight forward.
First let's define two the coordinate systems for two overlapping images taken by the same camera with the focal length with the following schema:
Let us say that first camera position is defined as follows:
While it's orientation by using three Euler angles is:
By using this definition the corresponding rotation matrix is the identity matrix
The second camera position can be defined as follows:
And since the orientation is the same as the first camera, all Euler angles remain zero:
Which also means that the corresponding rotation matrix is the identity matrix.
If the images overlap and the orientation is the same, the situation in the image space looks like this:
Here the image coordinates and their measurement accuracy are defined as follows:
This geometrical situation can be described by using the Intercept Theorem:
As you see it's not complicated. But be aware that this solution is certainly not the best, since it's base assumption that all orientation angles are the same can't be fulfilled in reality.
If you need to be accurate then you have to perform an bundle adjustment. However, this equations are often used to determine the approximated solution for this geometric situation, where the values are used to linearize the collinearity equations.
Related
I know the principle of triangulation for 3D Point estimation from images.
However, how would you solve the following problem, I have images from a Line in 3D space with known Camera position and also known calibration. But since I don't know how much/which segment of the Line is seen in eag image, I am not sure how to form an equation for the Line estimation. See image (I have more than 2 images available, in all images most part of the Line visible should be the same, but not exact the same):
I am thinking of spanning a plane from the Camera through the line in the image and intersecting all Planes spanned from each perspective to get an estimate of the Line?
However, I don't really know if that's possible or how I could do this.
Thanks for any help.
Cheers
Afraid other answers and comments have it backwards, pun intended.
Backprojecting ("triangulating") image lines into 3D space and then trying to fit them together with some ad-hoc heuristics may be good for an initial approximation.
However, to refine this approximation, you should then assume that a 3D line exists with unknown parameters (a point and a unit vector), plus additional scalar parameters identifying the initial and final points along the line of the segments you observe. Using the projection equations, you then set up an optimization problem whose goal is to find the set of parameters that minimize the projection errors of the 3D line with those parameters onto the images. This is essentially bundle adjustment, but expressed in the language of your problem, and in fact you can use any good software package for bundle adjustment (hint: Ceres) to solve it. The initial approximation computed with some ad-hoc heuristic will be used as the starting point of the bundle adjustment.
Plane can be defined with one point and direction.
If bot cameras are calibrated and have known position then ...
Make two planes, first from first camera, using eye and projected line second plane at the same way.
Line from screen you can easily convert to line in space because you have camera position.
What is left to intersect those two planes.
I am trying to reconstruct the real-world coordinates of 3D points from two images taken from the same camera. The camera is not calibrated, but the movement (translation and rotation) is known. In short:
Requirement:
No calibration
Extra constraints other than image point correspondences:
Known camera translation and rotation
Same camera used in all views
I understand that, from image point correspondences alone, a scene can be reconstructed only up to a projective transformation. With more constraints, an affine or similarity reconstruction may be done. In my case, I need a similarity reconstruction.
Given the above constraints, is a similarity reconstruction possible? If possible, how should I go about doing it?
I have tried to attack the problem from a few angles. Since I am not mathematically fluent, I try to use opencv as much as possible.
findFundamentalMat() from the two images, hopefully extract the two camera matrices somehow, then triangulatePoints(). As you could have guessed, I got stuck in the middle, unable to obtain camera matrices from fundamental matrix.
The textbook "Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision" (by Hartley and Zisserman) gives an expression (p.256, Result 9.14) that expresses the camera matrices in terms of fundamental matrix and one of the epipoles. However, without knowing the camera's intrinsic parameters (requirement: no calibration), I don't see how I can get the epipole.
I also try to treat my problem as a stereo system and use opencv's stereo*** functions. But they all seem to require human intervention to calibrate, which violates my requirement.
So, that's why I ask the question here today. The key is still, given those extra constraints, is a similarity reconstruction possible? I am not smart enough to understand the wealth of knowledge out there, and not able to come up with my own solution. Any help is appreciated.
I'm currently working on an augmented reality application using a medical imaging program called 3DSlicer. My application runs as a module within the Slicer environment and is meant to provide the tools necessary to use an external tracking system to augment a camera feed displayed within Slicer.
Currently, everything is configured properly so that all that I have left to do is automate the calculation of the camera's extrinsic matrix, which I decided to do using OpenCV's solvePnP() function. Unfortunately this has been giving me some difficulty as I am not acquiring the correct results.
My tracking system is configured as follows:
The optical tracker is mounted in such a way that the entire scene can be viewed.
Tracked markers are rigidly attached to a pointer tool, the camera, and a model that we have acquired a virtual representation for.
The pointer tool's tip was registered using a pivot calibration. This means that any values recorded using the pointer indicate the position of the pointer's tip.
Both the model and the pointer have 3D virtual representations that augment a live video feed as seen below.
The pointer and camera (Referred to as C from hereon) markers each return a homogeneous transform that describes their position relative to the marker attached to the model (Referred to as M from hereon). The model's marker, being the origin, does not return any transformation.
I obtained two sets of points, one 2D and one 3D. The 2D points are the coordinates of a chessboard's corners in pixel coordinates while the 3D points are the corresponding world coordinates of those same corners relative to M. These were recorded using openCV's detectChessboardCorners() function for the 2 dimensional points and the pointer for the 3 dimensional. I then transformed the 3D points from M space to C space by multiplying them by C inverse. This was done as the solvePnP() function requires that 3D points be described relative to the world coordinate system of the camera, which in this case is C, not M.
Once all of this was done, I passed in the point sets into solvePnp(). The transformation I got was completely incorrect, though. I am honestly at a loss for what I did wrong. Adding to my confusion is the fact that OpenCV uses a different coordinate format from OpenGL, which is what 3DSlicer is based on. If anyone can provide some assistance in this matter I would be exceptionally grateful.
Also if anything is unclear, please don't hesitate to ask. This is a pretty big project so it was hard for me to distill everything to just the issue at hand. I'm wholly expecting that things might get a little confusing for anyone reading this.
Thank you!
UPDATE #1: It turns out I'm a giant idiot. I recorded colinear points only because I was too impatient to record the entire checkerboard. Of course this meant that there were nearly infinite solutions to the least squares regression as I only locked the solution to 2 dimensions! My values are much closer to my ground truth now, and in fact the rotational columns seem correct except that they're all completely out of order. I'm not sure what could cause that, but it seems that my rotation matrix was mirrored across the center column. In addition to that, my translation components are negative when they should be positive, although their magnitudes seem to be correct. So now I've basically got all the right values in all the wrong order.
Mirror/rotational ambiguity.
You basically need to reorient your coordinate frames by imposing the constraints that (1) the scene is in front of the camera and (2) the checkerboard axes are oriented as you expect them to be. This boils down to multiplying your calibrated transform for an appropriate ("hand-built") rotation and/or mirroring.
The basic problems is that the calibration target you are using - even when all the corners are seen, has at least a 180^ deg rotational ambiguity unless color information is used. If some corners are missed things can get even weirder.
You can often use prior info about the camera orientation w.r.t. the scene to resolve this kind of ambiguities, as I was suggesting above. However, in more dynamical situation, of if a further degree of automation is needed in situations in which the target may be only partially visible, you'd be much better off using a target in which each small chunk of corners can be individually identified. My favorite is Matsunaga and Kanatani's "2D barcode" one, which uses sequences of square lengths with unique crossratios. See the paper here.
I'm using open cv in C++ in multi-view scene with two cameras. I have the intrinsic and extrinsic parameters for both cameras.
I would like to map a (X,Y) point in View 1 to the same point in the second View. I'm am slightly unsure how I should use the intrinsic and extrinsic matrices in order to convert the points to a 3D world and finally end up with the new 2D point in view 2.
It is (normally) not possible to take a 2D coordinate in one image and map it into another 2D coordinate without some additional information.
The main problem is that a single point in the left image will map to a line in the right image (an epipolar line). There are an infinite number of possible corresponding locations because depth is a free parameter. Secondly it's entirely possible that the point doesn't exist in the right image i.e. it's occluded. Finally it may be difficult to determine exactly which point is the right correspondence, e.g. if there is no texture in the scene or if it contains lots of repeating features.
Although the fundamental matrix (which you get out of cv::StereoCalibrate anyway) gives you a constraint between points in each camera: x'Fx = 0, for a given x' there will be a whole family of x's which will satisfy the equation.
Some possible solutions are as follows:
You know the 3D location of a 2D point in one image. Provided that 3D point is in a common coordinate system, you just use cv::projectPoints with the calibration parameters of the other camera you want to project into.
You do some sparse feature detection and matching using something like SIFT or ORB. Then you can calculate a homography to map the points from one image to the other. This makes a few assumptions about things being planes. If you Google panorama homography, there are plenty of lecture slides detailing this.
You calibrate your cameras, perform an epipolar rectification (cv::StereoRectify, cv::initUndistortRectifyMap, cv::remap) and then run them through a stereo matcher. The output is a disparity map which gives you exactly what you want: a per-pixel mapping from one camera to the other. That is, left[y,x] = right[y, x+disparity_map[y,x]].
(1) is by far the easiest, but it's unlikely you have that information already. (2) is often doable and might be suitable, and as another commenter pointed out will be poor where the planarity assumption fails. (3) is the general (ideal) solution, but has its own drawbacks and relies on the images being amenable to dense matching.
I have a set of 3-d points and some images with the projections of these points. I also have the focal length of the camera and the principal point of the images with the projections (resulting from previously done camera calibration).
Is there any way to, given these parameters, find the automatic correspondence between the 3-d points and the image projections? I've looked through some OpenCV documentation but I didn't find anything suitable until now. I'm looking for a method that does the automatic labelling of the projections and thus the correspondence between them and the 3-d points.
The question is not very clear, but I think you mean to say that you have the intrinsic calibration of the camera, but not its location and attitude with respect to the scene (the "extrinsic" part of the calibration).
This problem does not have a unique solution for a general 3d point cloud if all you have is one image: just notice that the image does not change if you move the 3d points anywhere along the rays projecting them into the camera.
If have one or more images, you know everything about the 3D cloud of points (e.g. the points belong to an object of known shape and size, and are at known locations upon it), and you have matched them to their images, then it is a standard "camera resectioning" problem: you just solve for the camera extrinsic parameters that make the 3D points project onto their images.
If you have multiple images and you know that the scene is static while the camera is moving, and you can match "enough" 3d points to their images in each camera position, you can solve for the camera poses up to scale. You may want to start from David Nister's and/or Henrik Stewenius's papers on solvers for calibrated cameras, and then look into "bundle adjustment".
If you really want to learn about this (vast) subject, Zisserman and Hartley's book is as good as any. For code, look into libmv, vxl, and the ceres bundle adjuster.