Efficient Hierarchical Triplet Merging for Camera Pose Estimation

  • Helmut MayerEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8753)


This paper deals with efficient means for camera pose estimation for difficult scenes. Particularly, we speed up the combination of image triplets to image sets by hierarchical merging and a reduction of the number of merged points. By image sets we denote a generalization of image sequences where images can be linked in multiple directions, i.e., they can form a graph. To obtain reliable results for triplets, we use large numbers of corresponding points. For a high-quality and yet efficient merging of the triplets we propose strategies for the reduction of the number of points. The strategies are evaluated based on statistical measures employing the full covariance information for the camera poses from bundle adjustment. We show that to obtain a statistically sound result, intuitively appealing deterministic reduction strategies are problematic and that a simple reduction strategy based on random deletion was evaluated best. We also discuss the benefits of the evaluation measures for finding conceptual and implementation weaknesses. The paper is illustrated with a number of experiments giving standard deviations for all values.


Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Image Point Bundle Adjustment Quad Core Random Deletion 
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.



We want to thank Wolfgang Förstner for his invaluable recommendations and clarifications and the reviewers for their helpful comments.


  1. 1.
    Agarwal, S., Snavely, N., Simon, I., Seitz, S., Szeliski, R.: Building rome in a Day. In: Twelfth International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 72–79 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartelsen, J., Mayer, H., Hirschmüller, H., Kuhn, A., Michelini, M.: Orientation and dense reconstruction from unordered wide baseline image sets. Photogram. Fernerkun. Geoinformation 4(12), 4–432 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fischler, M., Bolles, R.: Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Commun. ACM 24(6), 381–395 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fitzgibbon, A.W., Zisserman, A.: Automatic camera recovery for closed or open image sequences. In: Burkhardt, H.-J., Neumann, B. (eds.) ECCV 1998. LNCS, vol. 1406, pp. 311–326. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Förstner, W., Dickscheid, T., Schindler, F.: Detecting interpretable and accurate scale-invariant keypoints. In: Twelfth International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 2256–2263 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frahm, J.-M., Fite-Georgel, P., Gallup, D., Johnson, T., Raguram, R., Wu, C., Jen, Y.-H., Dunn, E., Clipp, B., Lazebnik, S., Pollefeys, M.: Building rome on a cloudless day. In: Daniilidis, K., Maragos, P., Paragios, N. (eds.) ECCV 2010, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 6314, pp. 368–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jeong, Y., Nistér, D., Steedly, D., Szeliski, R., Kweon, I.S.: Pushing the envelope of modern methods for bundle adjustment. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 34(8), 1605–1617 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jian, Y.D., Balcan, D., Dellaert, F.: Generalized subgraph preconditioners for large-scale bundle adjustment. In: Thirteenth International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 295–302 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klingner, B., Martin, D., Roseborough, J.: Street view motion-from-structure-from-motion. In: Fourteenth International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 953–960 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klopschitz, M., Irschara, A., Reitmayr, G., Schmalstieg, D.: Robust incremental structure from motion. In: Fifth International Symposium on 3D Data Processing, Visualization and Transmission (3DPVT), pp. 1–7 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lowe, D.: Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 60(2), 91–110 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mayer, H., Bartelsen, J., Hirschmüller, H., Kuhn, A.: Dense 3D reconstruction from wide baseline image sets. In: Dellaert, F., Frahm, J.-M., Pollefeys, M., Leal-Taixé, L., Rosenhahn, B. (eds.) Real-World Scene Analysis 2011. LNCS, vol. 7474, pp. 285–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McGlone, J. (ed.): Manual of Photogrammetry, 6th edn. American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Strecha, C., von Hansen, W., Van Gool, L., Fua, P., Thoennessen, U.: On benchmarking camera calibration and multi-view stereo for high resolution imagery. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1–8 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Torr, P., Zisserman, A.: Robust parametrization and computation of the trifocal tensor. Image Vis. Comput. 15, 591–605 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Applied Computer ScienceBundeswehr University MunichNeubibergGermany

Personalised recommendations