Generalised epipolar constraints

  • Kalle Åström
  • Roberto Cipolla
  • Peter J. Giblin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1065)


The frontier of a curved surface is the envelope of contour generators showing the boundary, at least locally, of the visible region swept out under viewer motion. In general, the outlines of curved surfaces (apparent contours) from different viewpoints are generated by different contour generators on the surface and hence do not provide a constraint on viewer motion. Frontier points, however, have projections which correspond to a real point on the surface and can be used to constrain viewer motion by the epipolar constraint.

We show how to recover viewer motion from frontier points and generalise the ordinary epipolar constraint to deal with points, curves and apparent contours of surfaces. This is done for both continuous and discrete motion, known or unknown orientation, calibrated and uncalibrated, perspective, weak perspective and orthographic cameras. Results of an iterative scheme to recover the epipolar line structure from real image sequences using only the outlines of curved surfaces, is presented. A statistical evaluation is performed to estimate the stability of the solution. It is also shown how the full motion of the camera from a sequence of images can be obtained from the relative motion between image pairs.


Motion Parameter Camera Model Discrete Motion Contour Generator Epipolar Constraint 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    K. Åström, R. Cipolla, and P. J. Giblin. Generalised epipolar constraints. Technical report, Dept. of Mathematics, Lund University, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Åström and A. Heyden. Stochastic modelling and analysis of image acquisition and sub-pixel edge detection. Technical report, Dept. of Mathematics, Lund University, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Carlsson. Sufficient image structure for 3D motion and shape estimation. In J-O. Eklundh, editor, Proc. ECCV'94, volume I, pages 83–91. Springer-Verlag 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Cipolla, K. Åström, and P. J. Giblin. Motion from the frontier of curved surfaces. In Proc. ICCV'95, pages 269–275, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Cipolla and A. Blake. Surface shape from the deformation of apparent contours. Int. Journal of Computer Vision, 9(2):83–112, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Curwen and A. Blake. Dynamic contours: real-time active splines. In A. Blake and A. Yuille, editors, Active Vision. MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P.J. Giblin, F.E. Pollick, and J.E. Rycroft. Recovery of an unknown axis or rotation from the profiles of a rotating surface. J. Opt. Soc. America, A11:1976–1984, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.J. Giblin and R. Weiss. Reconstruction of surfaces from profiles. In Proc. ICCV'87, pages 136–144, London, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Heyden and K. Åström. A canonical framework for sequences of images. In Proc. IEEE workshop on Representation of Visual Scenes, MIT, USA, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H.C. Longuet-Higgins. A computer algorithm for reconstructing a scene from two projections. Nature, 293:133–135, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Q-T. Luong, R. Deriche, O. Faugeras, and T. Papadopoulo. On determining the fundamental matrix: analysis of different methods and experimental results. In Israelian Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Computer Vision, Tel-Aviv, Israel, 1993. A longer version is INRIA Tech Report RR-1894.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Porrill and S.B. Pollard. Curve matching and stereo calibration. Image and Vision Computing, 9(1):45–50, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.H. Rieger. Three dimensional motion from fixed points of a deforming profile curve. Optics Letters, 11:123–125, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Vaillant and O.D. Faugeras. Using extremal boundaries for 3D object modelling. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intell., 14(2):157–173, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kalle Åström
    • 1
  • Roberto Cipolla
    • 2
  • Peter J. Giblin
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept of MathematicsLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Dept of EngineeringUniv. of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Dept of Pure MathematicsUniv. of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations