Skip to main content

Geometry of Eye Design: Biology and Technology

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2032))

Abstract

Natural or artificial vision systems process the images that they collect with their eyes or cameras in order to derive information for performing tasks related to navigation and recognition. Since the way images are acquired determines how dificult it is to perform a visual task, and since systems have to cope with limited resources, the eyes used by a specific system should be designed to optimize subsequent image processing as it relates to particular tasks. Different ways of sampling light, i.e., different eyes, may be less or more powerful with respect to particular competences. This seems intuitively evident in view of the variety of eye designs in the biological world. It is shown here that a spherical eye (an eye or system of eyes providing panoramic vision) is superior to a camera-type eye (an eye with restricted field of view) as regards the competence of three-dimensional motion estimation. This result is derived from a statistical analysis of all the possible computational models that can be used for estimating 3D motion from an image sequence. The findings explain biological design in a mathematical manner, by showing that systems that fly and thus need good estimates of 3D motion gain advantages from panoramic vision. Also, insights obtained from this study point to new ways of constructing powerful imaging devices that suit particular tasks in robotics, visualization and virtual reality better than conventional cameras, thus leading to a new camera technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Y. Aloimonos and A. Rosenfeld. Computer vision. Science, 253:1249–1254, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. K. Daniilidis and M. E. Spetsakis. Understanding noise sensitivity in structure from motion. In Y. Aloimonos, editor, Visual Navigation: From Biological Systems to Unmanned Ground Vehicles, Advances in Computer Vision, chapter 4. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Dawkins. Climbing Mount Improbable. Norton, New York, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. Fermuller and Y. Aloimonos. Direct perception of three-dimensional motion from patterns of visual motion. Science, 270:1973–1976, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. C. Fermuller and Y. Aloimonos. Qualitative egomotion. International Journal of Computer Vision, 15:7–29, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. C. Fermuller and Y. Aloimonos. Ambiguity in structure from motion: Sphere versus plane. International Journal of Computer Vision, 28:137–154, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. C. Fermuller and Y. Aloimonos. What is computed by structure from motion algorithms? In Proc. European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 359–375, Freiburg, Germany, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  8. C. Fermuller, F. Defoort, and Y. Aloimonos. Motion segmentation for a binocular observer. Technical Report CAR-TR-884, Center for Automation Research, University of Maryland, April 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  9. T. Hamada. Vision, action, and navigation in animals. In Y. Aloimonos, editor, Visual Navigation: From Biological Systems to Unmanned Ground Vehicles, chapter 2. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  10. E. Hildreth. Computations underlying the measurement of visual motion. Artificial Intelligence, 23:309–354, 1984.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. B. K. P. Horn. Robot Vision. McGraw Hill, New York, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  12. B. K. P. Horn and B. Schunck. Determining optical flow. Artificial Intelligence, 17:185–203, 1981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. B. K. P. Horn and E. J. Weldon, Jr. Direct methods for recovering motion. International Journal of Computer Vision, 2:51–76, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. G. A. Horridge. What can engineers learn from insect vision? Proc. Royal Society, London B, August 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. J. Koenderink. Optic flow. Vision Research, 26:161–180, 1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. K. N. Kutulakos and S. M. Seitz. What do N photographs tell us about 3D shape? Computer Science Technical Report 692, University of Rochester, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  17. K. N. Kutulakos and J. R. Vallino. Calibration-free augmented reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 4:1–20, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. M. Land and R. D. Fernald. The evolution of eyes. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 15:1–29, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. H. C. Longuet-Higgins. A computer algorithm for reconstructing a scene from two projections. Nature, 293:133–135, 1981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. H. C. Longuet-Higgins and K. Prazdny. The interpretation of a moving retinal image. Proc. Royal Society, London B, 208:385–397, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  21. S. J. Maybank. Theory of Reconstruction from Image Motion. Springer, Berlin, 1993.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. T. Poggio and W. Reichardt. Considerations on models of movement detection. Kybernetik, 13:223–227, 1973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. W. Reichardt. Autocorrelation, a principle for evaluation of sensory information by the central nervous system. In W. A. Rosenblith, editor, Sensory Communication: Contributions to the Symposium on Principles of Sensory Communication, pages 303–317. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  24. W. Reichardt. Evaluation of optical motion information by movement detectors. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 161:533–547, 1987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. M. E. Spetsakis and J. Aloimonos. Optimal motion estimation. In Proc. IEEE Workshop on Visual Motion, pages 229–237, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  26. M. V. Srinivasan, S. W. Zhang, and K. C. Shekara. Evidence for two distinct movement detecting mechanisms in insect vision. Naturwissenschaften, 80:38–41, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. J. P. H. van Santen and G. Sperling. Temporal covariance model of human motion perception. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 1:451–473, 1984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. S. M. Zeki. A Vision of the Brain. Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Fermüller, C., Aloimonos, Y. (2001). Geometry of Eye Design: Biology and Technology. In: Klette, R., Gimel’farb, G., Huang, T. (eds) Multi-Image Analysis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2032. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45134-X_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45134-X_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42122-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45134-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics