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.
Related
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 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.
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 2 images for the same object from different views. I want to form a camera calibration, but from what I read so far I need to have a 3D world points to get the camera matrix.
I am stuck at this step, who can explain it to me
Popular camera calibration methods use 2D-3D point correspondences to determine the projective properties (intrinsic parameters) and the pose of a camera (extrinsic parameters). The most simple approach is the Direct Linear Transformation (DLT).
You might have seen, that often planar chessboards are used for camera calibrations. The 3D coordinates of it's corners can be chosen by the user itself. Many people choose the chessboard being in x-y plane [x,y,0]'. However, the 3D coordinates need to be consistent.
Coming back to your object: Span your own 3D coordinate system over the object and find at least six spots, from which you can determine easy their 3D position. Once you have that, you have to find their corresponding 2D positions (pixel) in your two images.
There are complete examples in OpenCV. Maybe you get a better picture when reading the code.
i have a stereopair,
photo 1: http://savepic.org/1671682.jpg
photo 2: http://savepic.org/1667586.jpg
there is coordinate system in each image. How can I find coordinates of point A in this system using OpenCV library. It would be nice to see sample code.
I've looked for it at opencv.willowgarage.com/documentation/cpp/camera_calibration_and_3d_reconstruction.html but haven't found (or haven't understood :) )
Your 'stereo' images are fine. What you have already done is solve the correspondence problem: in both images you have indicated points 'A'. This means that you know which pixel corresponds to eachother labeling point 'A'.
What you want to do, is triangulate where your camera is. You can only do this by first calibrating your camera. This is inside of OpenCV already.
http://docs.opencv.org/doc/tutorials/calib3d/camera_calibration/camera_calibration.html
http://docs.opencv.org/modules/calib3d/doc/camera_calibration_and_3d_reconstruction.html
This gives you the exact vector/ray of light for each vector, and the optical center of your cameras through which the ray passes. Moreover, you need stereo calibration. This establishes the orientation and position of each camera with respect through each other.
From that point on, your triangulation is simple, knowing the pixel location in both images of point 'A'. You have
Location and orientation of camera 1 and camera 2
Otical Ray Vector (pixel location) from the cameras to label 'A'.
So you have 2 locations in space, and 2 rays from these location. The intersection of these rays is your 3D answer.
Note that in practice there rays will never exactly intersect (2 lines in 3D rarely do), so you need to approximate. Use opencv function triangulatePoints(), using the input of the stereo calibration and the pixel index relating to label A.
Firstly of all this is not truly a stereo pair. A nice stereo pair needs to have 60%-80% overlap usually small rotation differences between images. Even if this pair had the necessary BASE to be a good stereo pair due to the extremely kappa rotation the resulting epipolar image would be useless.
Secondly among others you should take a look at the camera calibration and collinearity equations both supported by OpenCV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_resectioning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collinearity_equation
You need to understand the maths.
If the page isn't enough then you should look at the opencv book - it devotes a couple of chapters to this. Then there are a lot of textbooks that cover it in more detail