Advertisement

Approximate and SQP Two View Triangulation

  • Timo Tossavainen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6494)

Abstract

The two view triangulation problem with Gaussian errors, aka optimal triangulation, has an optimal solution that requires finding the roots of a 6th degree polynomial. This is computationally quite demanding for a basic building block of many reconstruction algorithms. We consider two faster triangulation methods. The first is a closed form approximate solution that comes with intuitive and tight error bounds that also describe cases where the optimal method is needed. The second is an iterative method based on local sequential quadratic programming (SQP). In simulations, triangulation errors of the approximate method are on par with the optimal method in most cases of practical interest and the triangulation errors of the SQP method are on par with the optimal method in practically all cases. The SQP method is faster of the two and about two orders of magnitude faster than the optimal method.

Keywords

Approximate Method Sequential Quadratic Programming Optimal Error Epipolar Line Sequential Quadratic Programming Method 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kahl, F., Hartley, R.: Multiple-view geometry under the L  ∞ -norm. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 30, 1603–1617 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Byröd, M., Josephson, K., Åström, K.: Fast optimal three view triangulation. In: Yagi, Y., Kang, S.B., Kweon, I.S., Zha, H. (eds.) ACCV 2007, Part II. LNCS, vol. 4844, pp. 549–559. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nordberg, K.: The Triangulation Tensor. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 113, 935–945 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hartley, R., Zisserman, A.: Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hartley, R.I., Sturm, P.: Triangulation. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 68, 146–157 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nister, D., Hartley, R., Stewenius, H.: Using Galois Theory to Prove Structure from Motion Algorithms are Optimal. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2007). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luong, Q.T., Faugeras, O.: The Fundamental matrix: theory, algorithms, and stability Analysis. International Journal of Computer Vision 17, 43–75 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kanatani, K., Sugaya, Y., Niitsuma, H.: Triangulation from two views revisited: Hartley-Sturm vs. optimal correction. In: Proceedings of the 19th British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC 2008), pp. 173–182 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nocedal, J., Wright, S.J.: Numerical Optimization, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pollefeys, M., Van Gool, L., Vergauwen, M., Verbiest, F., Cornelis, K., Tops, J., Koch, R.: Visual modeling with a hand-held camera. International Journal of Computer Vision 59, 207–232 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lowe, D.G.: Object recognition from local scale-invariant features. In: ICCV 1999: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 1150–1157. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bay, H., Ess, A., Tuytelaars, T., Gool, L.V.: SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 110, 346–359 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timo Tossavainen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Media TechnologyAalto University School of Science and TechnologyFinland

Personalised recommendations