A Variational Approach to Shape from Defocus

  • Hailin Jin
  • Paolo Favaro
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2351)


We address the problem of estimating the three-dimensional shape and radiance of a surface in space from images obtained with different focal settings. We pose the problem as an infinite-dimensional optimization and seek for the global shape of the surface by numerically solving a partial differential equation (PDE). Our method has the advantage of being global (so that regularization can be imposed explicitly), efficient (we use level set methods to solve the PDE), and geometrically correct (we do not assume a shift-invariant imaging model, and therefore are not restricted to equifocal surfaces).


Variational Approach Tangent Plane Blind Deconvolution Focal Setting Defocused Image 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Special issue on blind system identification and estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE, October 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Asada, H. Fujiwara, and T. Matsuyama. Edge and depth from focus. Intl. J. of Comp. Vision, 26(2):153–163, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. Boothby. Introduction to Differentiable Manifolds and Riemannian Geometry. Academic Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Chaudhuri and A. Rajagopalan. Depth from defocus: a real aperture imaging approach. Springer Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Chen, B. Merriman, S. Osher and P. Smereka. A simple level set method for solving Stefan problems. Journal of Computational Physics, 135, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    I. Csiszár. Why least-squares and maximum entropy; an axiomatic approach to inverse problems. Annals of statistics, 19:2033–2066, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Darell and K. Wohn. Depth from focus using a pyramid architecture. Pattern Recognition Letters, 11(2):787–796, 1990.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Ens and P. Lawrence. An investigation of methods for determining depth from focus. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 15:97–108, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O. Faugeras and R. Keriven. Variational principles, surface evolution pdes, level set methods and the stereo problem. INRIA Technical report, 3021:1–37, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Favaro and S. Soatto. Shape and reflectance estimation from the information divergence of blurred images. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 755–768, June 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Luenberger. Optimization by vector space methods. Wiley, 1968.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Marshall, C. Burbeck, and D. Ariely. Occlusion edge blur: a cue to relative visual depth. Intl. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, 13:681–688, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Mennucci and S. Soatto. On observing shape from defocused images. In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Image Analysis and Processing, pages 550–555, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Watanabe and S. K. Nayar. Telecentric optics for constant magnification imaging. In Technical Report CUCS-026-95, pages Dept. of Computer Science, Columbia University, New York, USA, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. K. Nayar and Y. Nakagawa. Shape from focus. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 16(8):824–831, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Osher and J. A. Sethian. Fronts propagating with curvature-dependent speed: algorithms based on hamilton-jacobi equations. J. of Comp. Physics, 79:12–49, 1988.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Pentland. A new sense for depth of field. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 9:523–531, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. N. Rajagopalan and S. Chaudhuri. A variational approach to recovering depth from defocused images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 19(10):1158–64, October 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Y. Schechner and N. Kiryati. The optimal axial interval in estimating depth from defocus. In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. of Comp. Vision, pages 843–848, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. A. Sethian. Level Set Methods: Evolving Interfaces in Geometry, Fluid Mechanics, Computer Vision, and Material Science. Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. L. Snyder, T. Schulz, and J. A. O’Sullivan. Deblurring subject to nonnegativity constraints. IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, 40(5): 1143–1150, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Soatto and P. Favaro. A geometric approach to blind deconvolution with application to shape from defocus. In Intl. Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10–17, June 2000.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Subbarao and G. Surya. Depth from defocus: a spatial domain approach. Intl. J. of Computer Vision, 13:271–294, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Watanabe and S. K. Nayar. Rational filters for passive depth from defocus. Intl. J. of Comp. Vision, 27(3):203–225, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Y Xiong and S. Shafer. Depth from focusing and defocusing. In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. of Comp. Vision and Pat. Recogn., pages 68–73, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. Ziou. Passive depth from defocus using a spatial domain approach. In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. of Computer Vision, pages 799–804, 1998.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    H. K. Zhao, T. Chen, and B. Merriman, and S. Osher. A variational level set approach to multiphase motion. Journal of Computational Physics 127, pages 179–195, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hailin Jin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paolo Favaro
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringWashington UniversitySaint LouisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations