A Robust Least Squares Solution to the Calibrated Two-View Geometry with Two Known Orientation Angles

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 458)

Abstract

This paper proposes a robust least squares solution to the calibrated two-view geometry with two known orientation angles. Using the knowledge reduces the degrees of freedom (DoF) from five to three: one from a remaining angle and two from a translation vector. This paper determines that the three parameters are obtained by solving a minimization problem of the smallest eigenvalue containing the unknown angle. The proposed solution minimizes a new simple cost function based on the matrix determinant in order to avoid the complicated eigenvalue computation. The estimated parameters are optimal since the cost function is minimized under three DoFs. Experimental results of synthetic data show that the robustness of the proposed solution is up to 1.5\(^\circ \) angle noise, which is approximately three times that of a conventional solution. Moreover, 60 point correspondences, fewer than half those in conventional solutions, are sufficient to reach the performance boundary.

Keywords

Two-view geometry Relative pose problem Essential matrix Structure from motion Two known orientation angles 

References

  1. 1.
    Philip, J.: A non-iterative algorithm for determining all essential matrices corresponding to five point pairs. Photogram. Rec. 15, 589–599 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Triggs, B.: Routines for relative pose of two calibrated cameras from 5 points. Technical Report, INRIA (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nistér, D.: An efficient solution to the five-point relative pose problem. In: Proceedings 2003 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 2, II-195. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stewénius, H., Engels, C., Nistér, D.: Recent developments on direct relative orientation. ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 60, 284–294 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li, H., Hartley, R.: Five-point motion estimation made easy. In: 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2006, ICPR 2006, vol. 1, pp. 630–633. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kukelova, Z., Bujnak, M., Pajdla, T.: Polynomial eigenvalue solutions to the 5-pt and 6-pt relative pose problems. BMVC 2008, 2 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kalantari, M., Jung, F., Guedon, J., Paparoditis, N.: The five points pose problem: A new and accurate solution adapted to any geometric configuration. In: Wada, T., Huang, F., Lin, S. (eds.) PSIVT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5414, pp. 215–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pizarro, O., Eustice, R., Singh, H.: Relative pose estimation for instrumented, calibrated imaging platforms. In: Proceedings of Digital Image Computing Techniques and Applications, pp. 601–612, Sydney, Australia (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hartley, R.I., Zisserman, A.: Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004). ISBN: 0521540518CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischler, M.A., Bolles, R.C.: Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Commun. ACM 24, 381–395 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalantari, M., Hashemi, A., Jung, F., Guédon, J.P.: A new solution to the relative orientation problem using only 3 points and the vertical direction. CoRR abs/0905.3964 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fraundorfer, F., Tanskanen, P., Pollefeys, M.: A minimal case solution to the calibrated relative pose problem for the case of two known orientation angles. In: Daniilidis, K., Maragos, P., Paragios, N. (eds.) ECCV 2010, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 6314, pp. 269–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faugeras, O.: Three-Dimensional Computer Vision: A Geometric Viewpoint. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horn, B.K.P.: Recovering baseline and orientation from essential matrix. J. Optical Soc. Am. (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cox, D.A., Little, J.B., O’Shea, D.: Using Algebraic Geometry, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kukelova, Z., Bujnak, M., Pajdla, T.: Automatic Generator of Minimal Problem Solvers. In: Forsyth, D., Torr, P., Zisserman, A. (eds.) ECCV 2008, Part III. LNCS, vol. 5304, pp. 302–315. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sinha, S.N., Frahm, J.M., Pollefeys, M., Genc, Y.: Gpu-based video feature tracking and matching. In: EDGE, Workshop on Edge Computing Using New Commodity Architectures, vol. 278, p. 4321 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Terriberry, T.B., French, L.M., Helmsen, J.: Gpu accelerating speeded-up robust features. In: Proceedings of 3DPVT ’08 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information and Media Processing LaboratoriesNEC CorporationNakahara-ku, KawasakiJapan

Personalised recommendations