I'm trying to do calibration of Kinect camera and external camera, with Emgu/OpenCV.
I'm stuck and I would really appreciate any help.
I've choose do this via fundamental matrix, i.e. epipolar geometry.
But the result is not as I've expected. Result images are black, or have no sense at all.
Mapx and mapy points are usually all equal to infinite or - infinite, or all equals to 0.00, and rarely have regular values.
This is how I tried to do rectification:
1.) Find image points get two arrays of image points (one for every camera) from set of images. I've done this with chessboard and FindChessboardCorners function.
2.) Find fundamental matrix
CvInvoke.cvFindFundamentalMat(points1Matrix, points2Matrix,
_fundamentalMatrix.Ptr, CV_FM.CV_FM_RANSAC,1.0, 0.99, IntPtr.Zero);
Do I pass all collected points from whole set of images, or just from two images trying to rectify?
3.) Find homography matrices
CvInvoke.cvStereoRectifyUncalibrated(points11Matrix, points21Matrix,
_fundamentalMatrix.Ptr, Size, h1.Ptr, h2.Ptr, threshold);
4.) Get mapx and mapy
double scale = 0.02;
CvInvoke.cvInvert(_M1.Ptr, _iM.Ptr, SOLVE_METHOD.CV_LU);
CvInvoke.cvMul(_H1.Ptr, _M1.Ptr, _R1.Ptr,scale);
CvInvoke.cvMul(_iM.Ptr, _R1.Ptr, _R1.Ptr, scale);
CvInvoke.cvInvert(_M2.Ptr, _iM.Ptr, SOLVE_METHOD.CV_LU);
CvInvoke.cvMul(_H2.Ptr, _M2.Ptr, _R2.Ptr, scale);
CvInvoke.cvMul(_iM.Ptr, _R2.Ptr, _R2.Ptr, scale);
CvInvoke.cvInitUndistortRectifyMap(_M1.Ptr,_D1.Ptr, _R1.Ptr, _M1.Ptr,
mapxLeft.Ptr, mapyLeft.Ptr) ;
I have a problem here...since I'm not using calibrated images, what is my camera matrix and distortion coefficients ? How can I get it from fundamental matrix or homography matrices?
5.) Remap
CvInvoke.cvRemap(src.Ptr, destRight.Ptr, mapxRight, mapyRight,
(int)INTER.CV_INTER_LINEAR, new MCvScalar(255));
And this doesn't returning good result. I would appreciate if someone would tell me what am I doing wrong.
I have set of 25 pairs of images, and chessboard pattern size 9x6.
The book "Learning OpenCV," from O'Reilly publishing, has two full chapters devoted to this specific topic. Both make heavy use of OpenCV's included routines cvCalibrateCamera2() and cvStereoCalibrate(); These routines are wrappers to code that is very similar to what you have written here, with the added benefit of having been more thoroughly debugged by the folks who maintain the OpenCV libraries. while they are convenient, both require quite a bit of preprocessing to achieve the necessary inputs to the routines. There may in fact be a sample program, somewhere deep in the samples directory of the OpenCV distribution, that uses these routines, with examples on how to go from chessboard image to calibration/intrinsics matrix. If you take an in depth look at any of these places, I am sure you will see how you can achieve your goal with advice from the experts.
cv::findFundamentalMat cannot work if the intrinsic parameter of your image points is an identity matrix. In other words, it cannot work with unprojected image points.
Related
I need to find the intrinsic parameters of a CCTV camera using a set of historic footage images (That is all I got, no control on the environment, thus no chessboard calibration).
The good news is that I have the access to some ground-truth real-world coordinates, visible in most of the images.
Just wondering if there is any solid approach to come up with the camera intrinsic parameters.
P.S. I already found the homography matrix using cv2.findHomography in Python.
P.S. I have already tested QTcalib on two machines, but it is unable to visualize the images in the first place. Not sure what is wrong with it.
Thanks in advance.
intrinsic parameters contain both fx fy cx cy and skew with additional distortion parameters k1-k5 r1-r2.
Assuming you have no distortion and cx and cy are perfectly in the center. Image origin at top left as a normal understanding of the image. As you say you know some ground truth level 3D points.3D measurements are with respect to camera optical axis. Then this 3D point P can be projected into camera image plane called p. The P p O(the camera optical center) with center lines forms isosceles triangle.
fx / （p_x-cx) = P_z / P_x
fx = （p_x-cx) * P_z / P_x
The same goes for the fy. and usually fx and fy are the same.
This is under the perfect assumption that you don't have distortion on camera. If you start to have distortion, then you need to find enough sample points all over the image to form distortion understanding as shown below. One or 2 points won't give you the whole picture understanding.
There are some cheats in some papers that using sea vanishing lines(see ref, it is a series of works) or perfect 3D building vanishing points to detect the distortion. We start from extrinsic to intrinsic and it can get some good guess after some trial eventually. But it is very much in research and can not apply to general cases.
Ref: Han Wang, Wei Mou, Xiaozheng Mou, Shenghai Yuan, Soner Ulun, Shuai Yang and Bok-Suk Shin, An Automatic Self-Calibration Approach for Wide Baseline Stereo Cameras Using Sea Surface Images, unmanned system
If all you have is a video and a few 3d points, your best bet is probably to matchmove it, that is, do a manually assisted bundle adjustment using a 3D computer graphics environment, e.g. Blender. There are a lot of tutorials online on how to do it (example). To add the 3d points as constraints, you build some shapes representing them in the virtual world (e.g. some small spheres) and place them so that their relative positions match the ground truth you have, then add them to the tracker solution.
I have question regrading undistortion of a single point using either Scaramuzza or Mei's opencv
I have done the calibration on a dataset and extracted camera matrix and distortion coefficient (for mei) and the necessary parameters for Scaramuzza, after getting mapx (map1) and mapy (map2) I want to apply the undistortion on a single point.
for mei:
we have a position for a point (an intersection in a chess board) in a fisheye image, I was able to find its position using findchessboardcoreners (I know this can be used for calibration but I want to know a position for a well-known point in the image), now I have the undistorted image and I want to know the position of that point after the distortion correction,
I have read many links, suggesting to use undistortpoints method, or by using remap method, and I read links describing that dst(x,y)=src(mapx(x,y),mapy(x,y)) and I applied them all but when I draw the resulted point it wasn't on the same intersection of the chessboard it was even out of the board closer to its position in the fisheye
for Scaramuzza:
I tried to understand world2cam and cam2world methods but still I can't get it right
so
is there a method to know the position of a single point after the distortion correction if we have its position before the distortion? also can someone explain in deep way mapx and mapy .. I have read examples about them and how they can be used but whenever I wanted to implement the mapping between the distorted point and the undistorted one I got confused, for example: mapx and mapy should have the size of the src (in my case it is a point) so how can I use remap method here? or I should get them form the camera matrix and distortion coefficient and use dst(x,y)=src(map1(x,y),map2(x,y) ?
note
I have applied estimateNewCameraMatrixForUndistortRectify, initUndistortRectifyMap and remap successfully on images (for mei's) and I have also applied the undistortion method which was implemented by Scaramuzza on images with a very satisfying result (better than mei)
I was able to solve it by undistortpoints openCV function, the problem was I did not use the fisheye::undistortPoints but I was using the original one, still the surrounded points are not in their right position but the result was kind of acceptable
My problem statement is very simple. But I am unable to get the opencv calibration work for me. I am using the code from here : source code.
I have to take images parallel to the camera at a fixed distance. I tried taking test images (about 20 of them) only parallel to the camera as well as at different planes. Also I changed the size and the no of squares.
What would be the best way to calibrate in this scenario?
The undistorted image is cropped later, that's why it looks smaller.
After going through the images closely, the pincushion distortion seems to have been corrected. But the "trapezoidal" distortion still remains. Since the camera is mounted in a closed box, the planes at which I can take images is limited.
To simplify what Vlad already said: It is theoretically impossible to calibrate your camera with test images only parallel to the camera. You have to change your calibration board's orientation. In fact, you should have different orientation in each test image.
Check out the first two images in the link below to see how the calibration board should be slanted (or tilted):
http://www.vision.caltech.edu/bouguetj/calib_doc/
think about calibration problem as finding a projection matrix P:
image_points = P * 3d_points, where P = intrinsic * extrinsic
Now just bear with me:
You basically are interested in intrinsic part but the calibration algorithm has to find both intrinsic and extrinsic. Now, each column of projection matrix can be obtained if you select a 3D point at infinity, for example xInf = [1, 0, 0, 0]. This point is at infinity because when you transform it from homogeneous coordinates to Cartesian you get
[1/0, 0, 0]. If you multiply a projection matrix with a point at infinity you will get its corresponding column (1st for Xinf, 2nd for yInf, 3rd for zInf and 4th for camera center).
Thus the conclusion is simple - to get a projection matrix (that is a successful calibration) you have to clearly see points at infinity or vanishing points from the converging extensions of lines in your chessboard rig (aka end of the railroad tracks at the horizon). Your images don’t make it easy to detect vanishing points since you don’t slant your chessboard, nor rotate nor scale it by stepping back. Thus your calibration will always fail.
I got a task:
We have a system working where a camera does a halfcircle around a human head. We know the camera matrix and the rotation/translation of every frame. (Distortion and more... but I want first to work without these parameters)
My task is that I have only the Camera Matrix, which is constant over this move, and the images (more than 100). Now I have to get the translation and rotation from frame by frame and compare it with the rotation and translation in real world (from the system which I have but only for compare, I have too prove it!)
First steps I did so far:
use the robustMatcher from the OpenCV Cookbook - works finde - 40-70 Matches each frame - visible looks it very good!
I get the fundamentalMatrix with getFundamental(). I use the robust Points from robustMatcher and RANSAC.
When I got the F i can get the Essentialmatrix E with my CameraMatrix K like this:
cv::Mat E = K.t() * F * K; //Found at the Bible HZ Chapter 9.12
Now we need to extract R and t out of E with SVD. By the way camera1 position is just zero because we have to start somewhere.
cv::SVD svd(E);
cv::SVD svd(E);
cv::Matx33d W(0,-1,0, //HZ 9.13
1,0,0,
0,0,1);
cv::Matx33d Wt(0,1,0,//W^
-1,0,0,
0,0,1);
cv::Mat R1 = svd.u * cv::Mat(W) * svd.vt; //HZ 9.19
cv::Mat R2 = svd.u * cv::Mat(Wt) * svd.vt; //HZ 9.19
//R1 or R2???
R = R1; //R2
//t=+u3 or t=-u3?
t = svd.u.col(2); //=u3
This is my actual status!
My plans are:
triangulate all points to get 3D points
Join frame i with frame i++
Visualize my 3D points them somehow!
Now my Questions are:
is this robust matcher dated? is there a other method?
Is it wrong to use this points as descriped at my second step? Must they be converted with distortion or something?
What R and t is this i extract here? Is it the rotation and translation between camera1 and camera2 with point of view from camera1?
When I read at the bible or papers or elsewhere i find that there are 4 possibilities how R and t can be!
´P′ = [UWV^T |+u3] oder [UWV^T |−u3] oder [UW^TV^T |+u3] oder [UW^TV^T |−u3]´
P´ is the projectionmatrix of the second image.
That means t could be - or + and R could be total different?!
I found out that I should calculate one point into 3D and find out if this point is infront of both cameras, then I have found the correct matrix!
I found some of this code at the internet and he just said this no further calculating:
cv::Mat R1 = svd.u * cv::Mat(W) * svd.vt
and
t = svd.u.col(2); //=u3
Why is this correct? If it isn't - how would I do this triangulation in OpenCV?
I compared this translation to the translation which is given to me. (First i had to transfer the translation and rotation in relationship to camera1 but I got this now!) But its not the same. The values of my program are just lets call it jumping from plus too minus. But it should be more constant because the camera is moving in a constant circle.
I am sure that some axes may be switched. I know that the translation is only from -1 till 1 but I thought I could extract a factor from my results to my comparevalues and then it should be similiar.
Does somebody have done something like this before?
Many people doing a camera calibration by using a chessboard, but I can't use this method to get the extrinsic parameters.
I know that visual sfm can do this somehow. (At youtube is a video where someone walks around a tree and get from these pictures a reconstruction of this tree using visual sfm)
This is pretty the same what I have to do.
Last question:
Does somebody know an easy way to visualize my 3D Points? I prefere MeshLab. Some experience with that?
Many people doing a camera calibration by using a chessboard, but I can't use this method to get the extrinsic parameters.
A chess board or checker board is used to find the internal/intrinsic matrix/parameters, not the extrinsic parameters. You're saying you have got the internal matrix already, I suppose that's what you meant by
We know the camera matrix and ...
Those videos you have seen on youtube have done the same, the camera is already calibrated, that is the internal matrix is known.
is this robust matcher dated? is there a other method?
I don't have that book so cant see the code and answer this.
Is it wrong to use this points as descriped at my second step? Must they be converted with distortion or something?
You need to cancel the radial distortion first, see undistortPoints.
What R and t is this i extract here? Is it the rotation and translation between camera1 and camera2 with point of view from camera1?
R is the orientation of the second camera in the first camera's coordinate system. And T is position of the second camera in that coordinate system. These have several usages.
When I read at the bible or papers or elsewhere i find that there are 4 possibilities how ....
Read the relevant section of the bible, this is very well explained there, triangulation is naive method, a better approach is explained there.
Does somebody know an easy way to visualize my 3D Points?
To see them in Meshlab a very easy way is to save the coordinate of the 3D points in a PLY file, this is an extremely simple format and supported by Meshlab and almost all other 3D model viewers.
In this article "An Efficient Solution to the Five-Point Relative Pose Problem", Nistér explain a very good method to determine which of the four configurations it the correct one (talking about R and T).
I've tried the robust matcher and I think is quiet good. The problems that has this matcher is that is really slow because it uses SURF, maybe you should try with others detectors and extractors to improve the speed.I also believe that the function in OpenCV that calculates the fundamental matrix does not need the Ransac parameter because the methods rate and symmetry do a great job removing the outliers, you should try the 8-point parameter.
OpenCV has the function triangulate, this only needs two projection Matrices, points that are in the first and the second image. Check the calib3d module.
I'd like to know what would be the best strategy to compare a group of contours, in fact are edges resulting of a canny edges detection, from two pictures, in order to know which pair is more alike.
I have this image:
http://i55.tinypic.com/10fe1y8.jpg
And I would like to know how can I calculate which one of these fits best to it:
http://i56.tinypic.com/zmxd13.jpg
(it should be the one on the right)
Is there anyway to compare the contours as a whole?
I can easily rotate the images but I don't know what functions to use in order to calculate that the reference image on the right is the best fit.
Here it is what I've already tried using opencv:
matchShapes function - I tried this function using 2 gray scales images and I always get the same result in every comparison image and the value seems wrong as it is 0,0002.
So what I realized about matchShapes, but I'm not sure it's the correct assumption, is that the function works with pairs of contours and not full images. Now this is a problem because although I have the contours of the images I want to compare, they are hundreds and I don't know which ones should be "paired up".
So I also tried to compare all the contours of the first image against the other two with a for iteration but I might be comparing,for example, the contour of the 5 against the circle contour of the two reference images and not the 2 contour.
Also tried simple cv::compare function and matchTemplate, none with success.
Well, for this you have a couple of options depending on how robust you need your approach to be.
Simple Solutions (with assumptions):
For these methods, I'm assuming your the images you supplied are what you are working with (i.e., the objects are already segmented and approximately the same scale. Also, you will need to correct the rotation (at least in a coarse manner). You might do something like iteratively rotate the comparison image every 10, 30, 60, or 90 degrees, or whatever coarseness you feel you can get away with.
For example,
for(degrees = 10; degrees < 360; degrees += 10)
coinRot = rotate(compareCoin, degrees)
// you could also try Cosine Similarity, or even matchedTemplate here.
metric = SAD(coinRot, targetCoin)
if(metric > bestMetric)
bestMetric = metric
coinRotation = degrees
Sum of Absolute Differences (SAD): This will allow you to quickly compare the images once you have determined an approximate rotation angle.
Cosine Similarity: This operates a bit differently by treating the image as a 1D vector, and then computes the the high-dimensional angle between the two vectors. The better the match the smaller the angle will be.
Complex Solutions (possibly more robust):
These solutions will be more complex to implement, but will probably yield more robust classifications.
Haussdorf Distance: This answer will give you an introduction on using this method. This solution will probably also need the rotation correction to work properly.
Fourier-Mellin Transform: This method is an extension of Phase Correlation, which can extract the rotation, scale, and translation (RST) transform between two images.
Feature Detection and Extraction: This method involves detecting "robust" (i.e., scale and/or rotation invariant) features in the image and comparing them against a set of target features with RANSAC, LMedS, or simple least squares. OpenCV has a couple of samples using this technique in matcher_simple.cpp and matching_to_many_images.cpp. NOTE: With this method you will probably not want to binarize the image, so there are more detectable features available.