Advertisement

Linear Multi View Reconstruction with Missing Data

  • Carsten Rother
  • Stefan Carlsson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2351)

Abstract

General multi view reconstruction from affine or projective cameras has so far been solved most efficiently using methods of factorizing image data matrices into camera and scene parameters. This can be done directly for affine cameras[18] and after computing epipolar geometry for projective cameras [17]. A notorious problem has been the fact that these factorization methods require all points to be visible in all views. This paper presents alternative algorithms for general affine and projective views of multiple points where a) points and camera centers are computed as the nullspace of one linear system constructed from all the image data b) only three points have to be visible in all views. The latter requirement increases the flexibility and usefulness of 3D reconstruction from multiple views. In the case of projective views and unknown epipolar geometry, an additional algorithm is presented which initially assumes affine views and compensates iteratively for the perspective effects. In this paper affine cameras are represented in a projective framework which is novel and leads to a unified treatment of parallel and perspective projection in a single framework. The experiments cover a wide range of different camera motions and compare the presented algorithms to factorization methods, including approaches which handle missing data.

Keywords

Structure from Motion Linear Multiple View Reconstruction Missing Data Affine and Projective Cameras 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Faugeras, O. and Luong, Q.-T. 2001. The Geometry of Multiple Images. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fitzgibbon, A. W. and Zisserman, A. 1998. Automatic camera recovery for closed or open image sequences. In Europ. Conf. Comp. Vis., Freiburg, Germany, pp. 311–326.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hartley, R. 1997. In defence of the 8-point algorithm. In IEEE Trans. on Pattern Anal. and Machine Intell., 19(6), pp. 580–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hartley, R. and Zisserman, A. 2000. Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hartley, R., Dano, N. and Kaucic, R. 2001. Plane-based Projective Reconstruction. In Int. Conf. Comp. Vis., Vancouver, Canada, pp. 420–427.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heyden, A., Berthilsson, R. and Sparr, G. 1999. An iterative factorization method for projective structure and motion from image sequences. In Image and Vision Computing, 17(13), pp. 981–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heyden, A. and Kahl, F. 2000. Direct Affine Reconstruction. Int. Conf. Pattern Recog., Barcelona, Spain, pp. 885–888.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Irani, M. and Anandan, P. 1996. Parallax geometry of pairs of points for 3d scene analysis. In Europ. Conf. Comp. Vis., Cambridge, UK, pp. 17–30.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jacobs, D. 1997. Linear Fitting with Missing Data for Structure-from-Motion. In IEEE Conf. Comp. Vis. and Pattern Recog., San Juan, Puerto Rico, pp. 206–212.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kahl, F. and Heyden, A. 1999. Affine structure and motion from points, lines and conics. In Int. J. Computer Vision, 33(3):163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koch, R., Pollefeys, M. and VanGool, L. 1998. Multi viewpoint stereo from uncalibrated video sequences. In Europ. Conf. Comp. Vis., Freiburg, Germany, pp. 55–65.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koenderink, J.J. and van Doorn, A.J. 1991. Affine structure from motion. In J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, 8(2), pp. 377–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oliensis, J. 1995. Multiframe Structure from Motion in Perspective. In Workshop on Representations of Visual Scenes, Boston, USA, pp. 77–84.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quan, L., Heyden A. and Kahl, F. 1999. Minimal Projective Reconstruction with Missing Data. In IEEE Conf. Comp. Vis. and Pattern Recog., Fort Collins, Colorado, pp. 210–216.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rother, C. and Carlsson S. 2001. Linear Multi View Reconstruction and Camera Recovery. In Int. Conf. Comp. Vis., Vancouver, Canada, pp. 42–51.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schaffalitzky, F., Zisserman, A., Hartley, R. I. and Torr, P.H.S. 2000. A Six Point Solution for Structure and Motion. In Europ. Conf. Comp. Vis., Dublin, Ireland, pp. 632–648.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sturm, P. and Triggs, B. 1996. A factorization based algorithm for multi-image projective structure and motion. In Europ. Conf. Comp. Vis., Cambridge, U.K., pp. 709–719.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tomasi, C. and Kanade, T. 1992. Shape and Motion from Image Streams under Orthography: a Factorization Method. In Int. J. Computer Vision, 9(2):137–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Triggs, B. 1996. Factorization methods for projective structure and motion. In IEEE Conf. Comp. Vis. and Pattern Recog., San Francisco, CA, pp. 845–851.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Triggs, B. 1997. Linear projective reconstruction from matching tensors. In Image and Vision Computing, 15(8), pp. 617–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Triggs, B. 2000. Plane + Parallax, Tensors and Factorization. In Europ. Conf. Comp. Vis., Dublin, Ireland, pp. 522–538.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carsten Rother
    • 1
  • Stefan Carlsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Computational Vision and Active Perception Laboratory (CVAP)StockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations