Have anyone done something like that?
My problems with the OpenCV sticher is that it warps the images for panoramas, meaning the images get stretched a lot as one moves away from the first image.
From what I can tell OpenCV also builds ontop of the assumption of the camera is in the same position. I am seeking a little guidence on this, if its just the warper I need to change or I also need to relax this asusmption about the camera position being fixed before that.
I noticed that opencv uses a bundle adjuster also, is it using the same assumption that the camera is fixed?
Aerial image mosaicing
The image warping routines that are used in remote sensing and digital geography (for example to produce geotiff files or more generally orthoimages) rely on both:
estimating the relative image motion (often improved with some aircraft motion sensors such as inertial measurement units),
the availability of a Digital Elevation Model of the observed scene.
This allows to estimate the exact projection on the ground of each measured pixel.
Furthermore, this is well beyond what OpenCV will provide with its built-in stitcher.
OpenCV's Stitcher
OpenCV's Stitcher class is indeed dedicated to the assembly of images taken from the same point.
This would not be so bad, except that the functions try to estimate just a rotation (to be more robust) instead of plain homographies (this is where the fixed camera assumption will bite you).
It adds however more functionality that are useful in the context of panoramao creation, especially the image seam cut detection part and the image blending in overlapping areas.
What you can do
With aerial sensors, it is usually sound to assume (except when creating orthoimages) that the camera - scene distance is big enough so that you can approach the inter-frame transform by homographies (expecially if your application does not require very accurate panoramas).
You can try to customize OpenCV's stitcher to replace the transform estimate and the warper to work with homographies instead of rotations.
I can't guess if it will be difficult or not, because for the most part it will consist in using the intermediate transform results and bypassing the final rotation estimation part. You may have to modify the bundle adjuster too however.
Related
This is the setup: A fairly large room with 4 fish-eye cameras mounted on the ceiling. There are no blind spots. Each camera coverage overlaps a little with the other.
The idea is to track people across these cameras. As of now a blob extracting algorithm is in place, which detects people as blobs. It's a fairly decently working algorithm which detects individual people pretty good. Am using the OpenCV API for all of this.
What I mean by track people is that - Say, camera 1 identifies two people, say Person A and Person B. Now, as these two people move from the coverage of camera 1 into the overlapping area of coverage of cam1 and cam2 and into the area where only cam2 covers, cam2 should be able to identify them as the same people A and B cam1 identified them as.
This is what I thought I'd do -
1) The camera renders the image at 15fps and I think the dimensions of the frames are of 1920x1920.
2) Identify blobs individually in each camera and give each blob an unique label.
3) Now as for the overlaps - Compute an affine transformation matrix which maps pixels on one camera's frame onto another camera's frame - this needn't be done for every frame - this can be done before the whole process starts, as a pre-processing step. So in real time, whenever I detect a blob which is in the overlapping area, all I have to do is apply the transformation matrix to the pixels in cam1 and see if there is a corresponding blob in cam2 and give them the same label.
So, Questions :
1) Would this system give me a badly-working system which tracks people decently ?
2) So, for the affine transform, do I have to convert the fish-eye to rectilinear image ? (My answer is yes, but am not too sure)
Please feel free to point out possible errors and why certain things might not work in the process I've described. Also alternate suggestions are welcome! TIA
1- blob extraction is not enough to track a specific object, for people case I suggest HoG - or at least background subtraction before blob extraction, since all of the cameras have still scenes.
2- opencv <=2.4.9 uses pinhole model for stereo vision. so, before any calibration with opencv methods your fisheye images must be converted to rectilinear images first. You might try calibrating yourself using other approaches too
release 3.0.0 will have support for fisheye model. It is on alpha stage, you can still download and give it a try.
I took the example of code for calibrating a camera and undistorting images from this book: shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596516130.do
As far as I understood the usual camera calibration methods of OpenCV work perfectly for "normal" cameras.
When it comes to Fisheye-Lenses though we have to use a vector of 8 calibration parameters instead of 5 and also the flag CV_CALIB_RATIONAL_MODEL in the method cvCalibrateCamera2.
At least, that's what it says in the OpenCV documentary
So, when I use this on an array of images like this (Sample images from OCamCalib) I get the following results using cvInitUndistortMap: abload.de/img/rastere4u2w.jpg
Since the resulting images are cut out of the whole undistorted image, I went ahead and used cvInitUndistortRectifyMap (like it's described here stackoverflow.com/questions/8837478/opencv-cvremap-cropping-image). So I got the following results: abload.de/img/rasterxisps.jpg
And now my question is: Why is not the whole image undistorted? In some pics of my later results you can recognize that the laptop for example is still totally distorted. How can I acomplish even better results using the standard OpenCV methods?
I'm new to stackoverflow and I'm new to OpenCV as well, so please excuse any of my shortcomings when it comes to expressing my problems.
All chessboard corners should be visible to be found. The algorithm expect a certain size of chessboard such as 4x3 or 7x6 (for example). The white border around a chess board should be visible too or dark squares may not be defined precisely.
You still have high distortions at the image periphery after undistort() since distortions are radial (that is they increase with the radius) and your found coefficients are wrong. The latter are wrong since a calibration process minimizes the sum of squared errors in pixel coordinates and you did not represent the periphery with enough samples.
TODO: You have to have 20-40 chess board pattern images if you use 8 distCoeff. Slant your boards at different angles, put them at different distances and spread them around, especially at the periphery. Remember, the success of calibration depends on sampling and also on seeing vanishing points clearly from your chess board (hence slanting and tilting).
I have a photocamera mounted vertically under water in a tank, looking downwards.
There is a flat grid on the bottom of the tank (approx 2m away from the camera).
I want to be able to place markers on the bottom, and use computer vision to know their real life exact position.
So, I need to map from pixels to mm.
If I am not mistaken, cv::calibrateCamera(...) does just this, but is dependent on moving a pattern in front of the camera.
I have just static pictures of the scene, and the camera never moves in relation to the grid. Thus, I have only a "single" image to find the parameters.
How can I do this using the grid?
Thank you.
Interesting problem! The "cute" part is the effect on the intrinsic parameters of the refraction at the water-glass interface, namely to increase the focal length (or, conversely, to reduce the field of view) compared to the same lens in air. In theory, you could calibrate in air and then correct for the difference in refraction index, but calibrating directly in water is likely to give you more accurate results.
Do know your accuracy requirements? And have you verified that your lens/sensor combination is adequate to meet them (with an adequate margin)? To answer the question you need to estimate (either by calculation from the lens and sensor specifications, or experimentally using a resolution chart) whether you can resolve in an image the minimal distances required by your application.
From the wording of your question I think that you are interested only in measurements on a single plane. So you only need to (a) remove the nonlinear (barrel or pincushion) lens distortion and (b) estimate the homography between the plane of interest and the image. Once you have the latter, you can directly convert from undistorted image coordinates to world ones by matrix multiplication. Additionally if (as I imagine) the plane of interest is roughly parallel to the image plane, you should not have any problem keeping the entire field-of-view in focus.
Of course, for all of this to work as expected, you should make sure that the tank bottom is really flat, within the measurement tolerances of your application. Otherwise you are really dealing with a 3D problem, and need to modify your procedures accordingly.
The actual procedure depends a lot on the size of the tank, which you don't indicate clearly. If it's small enough that it is practical to manufacture a chessboard-like movable calibration target, by all means go for it. You may want to take a look at this other answer for suggestions. In the following I'll discuss the more interesting case in which your tank is large, e.g. the size of a swimming pool.
I'd proceed by sticking calibration markers in a regular grid at the pool bottom. I'd probably choose checker-like markers like these, maybe printing them myself with a good laser printer on plastic with an adhesive backing (assuming you can leave them in place forever). You should plan on having quite a few of them, say, an 8x8 or 10x10 grid, covering as much as possible of the field of view of the camera in its operating position and pose. To help with lining up the grid nicely you might use a laser line projector of suitable fan angle, or a laser pointer attached to a rotating support. Note carefully that it is not necessary that they be affixed in a precise X-Y grid (which may be complicated, depending on the size of your pool), only that their positions with respect any arbitrarily chosen (but fixed) three of them be known. In other words, you can attach them to the bottom approximately in a grid, then measure the distances of three extreme corners from each other as accurately as you can, thus building a base triangle, then measure the distances of all the other corners from the vertices of the triangle, and finally reconstruct their true positions with a bit of trigonometry. It's basically a surveying problem and, depending on your accuracy requirements and budget, you may want to enroll a local friendly professional surveyor (and their tools) to get it done as precisely as necessary.
Once you have your grid, you can fill the pool, get your camera, focus and f-stop the lens as needed for the application. From now on you may not touch the focus and f-stop ever again, under penalty of miscalibrating - exposure can only be controlled by the exposure time, so make sure to have enough light. Disable any and all auto-focus and auto-iris functions, if any. If the camera has a non-rigid lens mount (e.g. a DLSR), you'll need some kind of mechanical rig to ensure that the lens-body pair stay rigid. F-stop as close as you can, given the available lighting and sensor, so to have a fair bit of depth of field available. Then take several photos (~ 10) of the grid, moving and rotating the camera, and going a bit closer and farther away than your expected operating distance from the plane. You'll want to "see" in some images some significant perspective foreshortening of the grid - this is needed to accurately calibrate the focal length. Avoid JPG and any other lossy compression format when storing the images - use lossless PNG or TIFF.
Once you have the images, you can manually mark and identify the checker markers in the images. For a once-off project like this I would not bother with automatic identification, just do it manually (e.g. in Matlab, or even in Photoshop or Gimp). To help identify the markers, you could, e.g. print a number next to them. Once you have the manual marks, you can refine them automatically to subpixel accuracy, e.g. using cv::findCornerSubpix.
You're almost done. Feed the "reference" measured position of the real corners, and the observed ones in all images, to your favorite camera calibration routine, e.g. cv::calibrateCamera. You use the nominal focal length of the camera (converted to pixels) for an initial estimate, along with null distortion. If all goes well, you will obtain the camera intrinsic parameters, which you will keep, and the camera poses at all images, which you'll throw away.
Now you can mount the camera in your final setup, as needed by your application, and take one further image of the grid. Mark and refine the corner positions as before. Undistort their image positions using the distortion parameters returned by the calibration. Finally compute the homography between the reference positions of the real markers (in meters) and their undistorted positions, and you're done.
HTH
To calibrate the camera you do need multiple images of the checkerboard (or one of the other patterns found here). What you can do, is calibrate the camera outside of the water or do a calibration sequence once.
Once you have that information (focal length, center of lens, distortion, etc). You can use the solvePNP function to estimate the orientation of a single board. This estimation provides you with a distance from the camera to the board.
A completely different alternative could be to find what kind of lens the camera uses and manually fill in the data. I've not tried this, so I'm uncertain how well this would work.
For a project of mine, I'm required to process images differences with OpenCV. The goal is to detect an intrusion in a zone.
To be a little more clear, here are the inputs and outputs:
Inputs:
An image of reference
A second image from approximately the same point of view (can be an error margin)
Outputs:
Detection of new objects in the scene.
Bonus:
Recognition of those objects.
For me, the most difficult part of it is to take off small differences (luminosity, camera position margin error, movement of trees...)
I already read a lot about OpenCV image processing (subtraction, erosion, threshold, SIFT, SURF...) and have some good results.
What I would like is a list of steps you think is the best to have a good detection (humans, cars...), and the algorithms to do each step.
Many thanks for your help.
Track-by-Detect, human tracker:
You apply the Hog detector to detect humans.
You draw a respective rectangle as foreground area on the foreground mask.
You pass this mask to "The OpenCV Video Surveillance / Blob Tracker Facility"
You can, now, group the passing humans based on their blob.{x,y} values into public/restricted areas.
I had to deal with this problem the last year.
I suggest an adaptive background-foreground estimation algorithm which produced a foreground mask.
On top of that, you add a blob detector and tracker, and then calculate if an intersection takes place between the blobs and your intrusion area.
Opencv comes has samples of all of these within the legacy code. Ofcourse, if you want you can also use your own or other versions of these.
Links:
http://opencv.willowgarage.com/wiki/VideoSurveillance
http://experienceopencv.blogspot.gr/2011/03/blob-tracking-video-surveillance-demo.html
I would definitely start with a running average background subtraction if the camera is static. Then you can use findContours() to find the intruding object's location and size. If you want to detect humans that are walking around in a scene, I would recommend looking at using the built-in haar classifier:
http://docs.opencv.org/doc/tutorials/objdetect/cascade_classifier/cascade_classifier.html#cascade-classifier
where you would just replace the xml with the upperbody classifier.
I am totally new to camera calibration techniques... I am using OpenCV chessboard technique... I am using a webcam from Quantum...
Here are my observations and steps..
I have kept each chess square side = 3.5 cm. It is a 7 x 5 chessboard with 6 x 4 internal corners. I am taking total of 10 images in different views/poses at a distance of 1 to 1.5 m from the webcam.
I am following the C code in Learning OpenCV by Bradski for the calibration.
my code for calibration is
cvCalibrateCamera2(object_points,image_points,point_counts,cvSize(640,480),intrinsic_matrix,distortion_coeffs,NULL,NULL,CV_CALIB_FIX_ASPECT_RATIO);
Before calling this function I am making the first and 2nd element along the diagonal of the intrinsic matrix as one to keep the ratio of focal lengths constant and using CV_CALIB_FIX_ASPECT_RATIO
With the change in distance of the chess board the fx and fy are changing with fx:fy almost equal to 1. there are cx and cy values in order of 200 to 400. the fx and fy are in the order of 300 - 700 when I change the distance.
Presently I have put all the distortion coefficients to zero because I did not get good result including distortion coefficients. My original image looked handsome than the undistorted one!!
Am I doing the calibration correctly?. Should I use any other option than CV_CALIB_FIX_ASPECT_RATIO?. If yes, which one?
Hmm, are you looking for "handsome" or "accurate"?
Camera calibration is one of the very few subjects in computer vision where accuracy can be directly quantified in physical terms, and verified by a physical experiment. And the usual lesson is that (a) your numbers are just as good as the effort (and money) you put into them, and (b) real accuracy (as opposed to imagined) is expensive, so you should figure out in advance what your application really requires in the way of precision.
If you look up the geometrical specs of even very cheap lens/sensor combinations (in the megapixel range and above), it becomes readily apparent that sub-sub-mm calibration accuracy is theoretically achievable within a table-top volume of space. Just work out (from the spec sheet of your camera's sensor) the solid angle spanned by one pixel - you'll be dazzled by the spatial resolution you have within reach of your wallet. However, actually achieving REPEATABLY something near that theoretical accuracy takes work.
Here are some recommendations (from personal experience) for getting a good calibration experience with home-grown equipment.
If your method uses a flat target ("checkerboard" or similar), manufacture a good one. Choose a very flat backing (for the size you mention window glass 5 mm thick or more is excellent, though obviously fragile). Verify its flatness against another edge (or, better, a laser beam). Print the pattern on thick-stock paper that won't stretch too easily. Lay it after printing on the backing before gluing and verify that the square sides are indeed very nearly orthogonal. Cheap ink-jet or laser printers are not designed for rigorous geometrical accuracy, do not trust them blindly. Best practice is to use a professional print shop (even a Kinko's will do a much better job than most home printers). Then attach the pattern very carefully to the backing, using spray-on glue and slowly wiping with soft cloth to avoid bubbles and stretching. Wait for a day or longer for the glue to cure and the glue-paper stress to reach its long-term steady state. Finally measure the corner positions with a good caliper and a magnifier. You may get away with one single number for the "average" square size, but it must be an average of actual measurements, not of hopes-n-prayers. Best practice is to actually use a table of measured positions.
Watch your temperature and humidity changes: paper adsorbs water from the air, the backing dilates and contracts. It is amazing how many articles you can find that report sub-millimeter calibration accuracies without quoting the environment conditions (or the target response to them). Needless to say, they are mostly crap. The lower temperature dilation coefficient of glass compared to common sheet metal is another reason for preferring the former as a backing.
Needless to say, you must disable the auto-focus feature of your camera, if it has one: focusing physically moves one or more pieces of glass inside your lens, thus changing (slightly) the field of view and (usually by a lot) the lens distortion and the principal point.
Place the camera on a stable mount that won't vibrate easily. Focus (and f-stop the lens, if it has an iris) as is needed for the application (not the calibration - the calibration procedure and target must be designed for the app's needs, not the other way around). Do not even think of touching camera or lens afterwards. If at all possible, avoid "complex" lenses - e.g. zoom lenses or very wide angle ones. For example, anamorphic lenses require models much more complex than stock OpenCV makes available.
Take lots of measurements and pictures. You want hundreds of measurements (corners) per image, and tens of images. Where data is concerned, the more the merrier. A 10x10 checkerboard is the absolute minimum I would consider. I normally worked at 20x20.
Span the calibration volume when taking pictures. Ideally you want your measurements to be uniformly distributed in the volume of space you will be working with. Most importantly, make sure to angle the target significantly with respect to the focal axis in some of the pictures - to calibrate the focal length you need to "see" some real perspective foreshortening. For best results use a repeatable mechanical jig to move the target. A good one is a one-axis turntable, which will give you an excellent prior model for the motion of the target.
Minimize vibrations and associated motion blur when taking photos.
Use good lighting. Really. It's amazing how often I see people realize late in the game that you need a generous supply of photons to calibrate a camera :-) Use diffuse ambient lighting, and bounce it off white cards on both sides of the field of view.
Watch what your corner extraction code is doing. Draw the detected corner positions on top of the images (in Matlab or Octave, for example), and judge their quality. Removing outliers early using tight thresholds is better than trusting the robustifier in your bundle adjustment code.
Constrain your model if you can. For example, don't try to estimate the principal point if you don't have a good reason to believe that your lens is significantly off-center w.r.t the image, just fix it at the image center on your first attempt. The principal point location is usually poorly observed, because it is inherently confused with the center of the nonlinear distortion and by the component parallel to the image plane of the target-to-camera's translation. Getting it right requires a carefully designed procedure that yields three or more independent vanishing points of the scene and a very good bracketing of the nonlinear distortion. Similarly, unless you have reason to suspect that the lens focal axis is really tilted w.r.t. the sensor plane, fix at zero the (1,2) component of the camera matrix. Generally speaking, use the simplest model that satisfies your measurements and your application needs (that's Ockam's razor for you).
When you have a calibration solution from your optimizer with low enough RMS error (a few tenths of a pixel, typically, see also Josh's answer below), plot the XY pattern of the residual errors (predicted_xy - measured_xy for each corner in all images) and see if it's a round-ish cloud centered at (0, 0). "Clumps" of outliers or non-roundness of the cloud of residuals are screaming alarm bells that something is very wrong - likely outliers due to bad corner detection or matching, or an inappropriate lens distortion model.
Take extra images to verify the accuracy of the solution - use them to verify that the lens distortion is actually removed, and that the planar homography predicted by the calibrated model actually matches the one recovered from the measured corners.
This is a rather late answer, but for people coming to this from Google:
The correct way to check calibration accuracy is to use the reprojection error provided by OpenCV. I'm not sure why this wasn't mentioned anywhere in the answer or comments, you don't need to calculate this by hand - it's the return value of calibrateCamera. In Python it's the first return value (followed by the camera matrix, etc).
The reprojection error is the RMS error between where the points would be projected using the intrinsic coefficients and where they are in the real image. Typically you should expect an RMS error of less than 0.5px - I can routinely get around 0.1px with machine vision cameras. The reprojection error is used in many computer vision papers, there isn't a significantly easier or more accurate way to determine how good your calibration is.
Unless you have a stereo system, you can only work out where something is in 3D space up to a ray, rather than a point. However, as one can work out the pose of each planar calibration image, it's possible to work out where each chessboard corner should fall on the image sensor. The calibration process (more or less) attempts to work out where these rays fall and minimises the error over all the different calibration images. In Zhang's original paper, and subsequent evaluations, around 10-15 images seems to be sufficient; at this point the error doesn't decrease significantly with the addition of more images.
Other software packages like Matlab will give you error estimates for each individual intrinsic, e.g. focal length, centre of projection. I've been unable to make OpenCV spit out that information, but maybe it's in there somewhere. Camera calibration is now native in Matlab 2014a, but you can still get hold of the camera calibration toolbox which is extremely popular with computer vision users.
http://www.vision.caltech.edu/bouguetj/calib_doc/
Visual inspection is necessary, but not sufficient when dealing with your results. The simplest thing to look for is that straight lines in the world become straight in your undistorted images. Beyond that, it's impossible to really be sure if your cameras are calibrated well just by looking at the output images.
The routine provided by Francesco is good, follow that. I use a shelf board as my plane, with the pattern printed on poster paper. Make sure the images are well exposed - avoid specular reflection! I use a standard 8x6 pattern, I've tried denser patterns but I haven't seen such an improvement in accuracy that it makes a difference.
I think this answer should be sufficient for most people wanting to calibrate a camera - realistically unless you're trying to calibrate something exotic like a Fisheye or you're doing it for educational reasons, OpenCV/Matlab is all you need. Zhang's method is considered good enough that virtually everyone in computer vision research uses it, and most of them either use Bouguet's toolbox or OpenCV.