Given a picture taken by a simple digital that contains an image of a rectangle of known dimensions. How can I - to some degree of accuracy - determine the parameters of this camera?
I am mostly interested in Pan-, Tilt- and Swing angles.
Optionally distance to the rectangle would be nice.
I acknowledge the fact that the focal length and resolution of the camera should be known, but it can be assumed that they are available (for example through exif metadata).
Are there any simple algorithms for this problems?
What you are looking for are camera calibration algorithms. A commonly used one is Zhang's algorithm.
For more information regarding calibrating cameras, a good source is Hartley and Zisserman's textbook
for a slightly simpler introduction and sample code see (chap 12 IIRC)
Related
I want to verify an algorithm about camera calibration. But using the pictures taken by myself is not convincing. Are there any canonical image libraries for camera calibration simulation?
Look at the page A Flexible New Technique for Camera Calibration by Zhengyou Zhang; in the section "Experimental data and result for camera calibration", you will find five images like this one , five sets of image coordinates (like for example this one https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/imagepointsone.txt) and the result of the calibration here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/completecalibration.txt
I do not know whether it is canonical or not, for sure Zhengyou Zhang is well known for his work related to camera calibration and his article:
ZHANG, Zhengyou. A flexible new technique for camera calibration. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2000, 22.11: 1330-1334.
is highly cited.
You may also have a look at Camera Calibration Toolbox for Matlab by Jean-Yves Bouguet, his code is the basis for the OpenCV algorithms but I do not know whether there are images for accuracy and correctness testing.
I am a beginner when it comes to computer vision so I apologize in advance. Basically, the idea I am trying to code is that given two cameras that can simulate a multiple baseline stereo system; I am trying to estimate the pose of one camera given the other.
Looking at the same scene, I would incorporate some noise in the pose of the second camera, and given the clean image from camera 1, and slightly distorted/skewed image from camera 2, I would like to estimate the pose of camera 2 from this data as well as the known baseline between the cameras. I have been reading up about homography matrices and related implementation in opencv, but I am just trying to get some suggestions about possible approaches. Most of the applications of the homography matrix that I have seen talk about stitching or overlaying images, but here I am looking for a six degrees of freedom attitude of the camera from that.
It'd be great if someone can shed some light on these questions too: Can an approach used for this be extended to more than two cameras? And is it also possible for both the cameras to have some 'noise' in their pose, and yet recover the 6dof attitude at every instant?
Let's clear up your question first. I guess You are looking for the pose of the camera relative to another camera location. This is described by Homography only for pure camera rotations. For General motion that includes translation this is described by rotation and translation matrices. If the fields of view of the cameras overlap the task can be solved with structure from motion which still estimates only 5 dof. This means that translation is estimated up to scale. If there is a chessboard with known dimensions in the cameras' field of view you can easily solve for 6dof by running a PnP algorithm. Of course, cameras should be calibrated first. Finally, in 2008 Marc Pollefeys came up with an idea how to estimate 6 dof from two moving cameras with non-overlapping fields of view without using any chess boards. To give you more detail please tell a bit for the intended appljcation you are looking for.
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.
I try to match two overlapping images captured with a camera. To do this, I'd like to use OpenCV. I already extracted the features with the SurfFeatureDetector. Now I try to to compute the rotation and translation vector between the two images.
As far as I know, I should use cvFindExtrinsicCameraParams2(). Unfortunately, this method require objectPoints as an argument. These objectPoints are the world coordinates of the extracted features. These are not known in the current context.
Can anybody give me a hint how to solve this problem?
The problem of simultaneously computing relative pose between two images and the unknown 3d world coordinates has been treated here:
Berthold K. P. Horn. Relative orientation revisited. Berthold K. P. Horn. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 545 Technology ...
EDIT: here is a link to the paper:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.64.4700
Please see my answer to a related question where I propose a solution to this problem:
OpenCV extrinsic camera from feature points
EDIT: You may want to take a look at bundle adjustments too,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_adjustment
That assumes an initial estimate is available.
EDIT: I found some code resources you might want to take a look at:
Resource I:
http://www.maths.lth.se/vision/downloads/
Two View Geometry Estimation with Outliers
C++ code for finding the relative orientation of two calibrated
cameras in presence of outliers. The obtained solution is optimal in
the sense that the number of inliers is maximized.
Resource II:
http://lear.inrialpes.fr/people/triggs/src/ Relative orientation from
5 points: a somewhat more polished C routine implementing the minimal
solution for relative orientation of two calibrated cameras from
unknown 3D points. 5 points are required and there can be as many as
10 feasible solutions (but 2-5 is more common). Also requires a few
CLAPACK routines for linear algebra. There's also a short technical
report on this (included with the source).
Resource III:
http://www9.in.tum.de/praktika/ppbv.WS02/doc/html/reference/cpp/toc_tools_stereo.html
vector_to_rel_pose Compute the relative orientation between two
cameras given image point correspondences and known camera parameters
and reconstruct 3D space points.
There is a theoretical solution, however, the OpenCV implementation of camera pose estimation lacks the needed tools.
The theoretical approach:
Step 1: extract the homography (the matrix describing the geometrical transform between images). use findHomography()
Step 2. Decompose the result matrix into rotations and translations. Use cv::solvePnP();
Problem: findHomography() returns a 3x3 matrix, corresponding to a projection from a plane to another. solvePnP() needs a 3x4 matrix, representing the 3D rotation/translation of the objects. I think that with some approximations, you can modify the solvePnP to give you some results, but it requires a lot of math and a very good understanding of 3D geometry.
Read more about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_matrix
I am aware of the chessboard camera calibration technique, and have implemented it.
If I have 2 cameras viewing the same scene, and I calibrate both simultaneously with the chessboard technique, can I compute the rotation matrix and translation vector between them? How?
If you have the 3D camera coordinates of the corresponding points, you can compute the optimal rotation matrix and translation vector by Rigid Body Transformation
If You are using OpenCV already then why don't you use cv::stereoCalibrate.
It returns the rotation and translation matrices. The only thing you have to do is to make sure that the calibration chessboard is seen by both of the cameras.
The exact way is shown in .cpp samples provided with OpenCV library( I have 2.2 version and samples were installed by default in /usr/local/share/opencv/samples).
The code example is called stereo_calib.cpp. Although it's not explained clearly what they are doing there (for that You might want to look to "Learning OpenCV"), it's something You can base on.
If I understood you correctly, you have two calibrated cameras observing a common scene, and you wish to recover their spatial arrangement. This is possible (provided you find enough image correspondences) but only up to an unknown factor on translation scale. That is, we can recover rotation (3 degrees of freedom, DOF) and only the direction of the translation (2 DOF). This is because we have no way to tell whether the projected scene is big and the cameras are far, or the scene is small and cameras are near. In the literature, the 5 DOF arrangement is termed relative pose or relative orientation (Google is your friend).
If your measurements are accurate and in general position, 6 point correspondences may be enough for recovering a unique solution. A relatively recent algorithm does exactly that.
Nister, D., "An efficient solution to the five-point relative pose problem," Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on , vol.26, no.6, pp.756,770, June 2004
doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2004.17
Update:
Use a structure from motion/bundle adjustment package like Bundler to solve simultaneously for the 3D location of the scene and relative camera parameters.
Any such package requires several inputs:
camera calibrations that you have.
2D pixel locations of points of interest in cameras (use a interest point detection like Harris, DoG (first part of SIFT)).
Correspondences between points of interest from each camera (use a descriptor like SIFT, SURF, SSD, etc. to do the matching).
Note that the solution is up to a certain scale ambiguity. You'll thus need to supply a distance measurement either between the cameras or between a pair of objects in the scene.
Original answer (applies primarily to uncalibrated cameras as the comments kindly point out):
This camera calibration toolbox from Caltech contains the ability to solve and visualize both the intrinsics (lens parameters, etc.) and extrinsics (how the camera positions when each photo is taken). The latter is what you're interested in.
The Hartley and Zisserman blue book is also a great reference. In particular, you may want to look at the chapter on epipolar lines and fundamental matrix which is free online at the link.