I wanted to translate a set of reference points on contour to a set of corresponding target points. There are total 8 points on each contour.
In order to calculate the rotation & translation vector, I was using Math.Net Numerics library to perform SVD calculation - The idea came from this URL (page 3-7):
But somehow I noticed that transformation done using result from SVD calculation seems inaccurate. The result as shown below:
The transform supposed to move reference points to target points as close as possible, but as highlighted, it moves far away from target point.
In addition, I also did a simple test whereby I calculated centroid for both contours and perform deduction: (TargetCentroid - RefCentroid = translation vector). The final transformation result is the same as going through SVD.
Am I did something wrong? Can anyone suggest a better solution to transform ref point to target point?
Edit:
1. Garment transformation from reference model to various target models
This seems like an over complicated solution to the problem.
If you have the target points, you can just Lerp the given points to their corresponding target points.
Or if the target is the same mesh but of different scale and rotation as in the picture, you can just Lerp the transform values, scale and rotation respectfully, without the need to go over all the points individually.
Using Vector3.Lerp
Edit:
Additionally, lerping will cause all the points to reach their targets at the same time, which is, in most cases, the desired behavior.
Related
How do you determine that the intrinsic and extrinsic parameters you have calculated for a camera at time X are still valid at time Y?
My idea would be
to use a known calibration object (a chessboard) and place it in the camera's field of view at time Y.
Calculate the chessboard corner points in the camera's image (at time Y).
Define one of the chessboard corner points as world origin and calculate the world coordinates of all remaining chessboard corners based on that origin.
Relate the coordinates of 3. with the camera coordinate system.
Use the parameters calculated at time X to calculate the image points of the points from 4.
Calculate distances between points from 2. with points from 5.
Is that a clever way to go about it? I'd eventually like to implement it in MATLAB and later possibly openCV. I think I'd know how to do steps 1)-2) and step 6). Maybe someone can give a rough implementation for steps 2)-5). Especially I'd be unsure how to relate the "chessboard-world-coordinate-system" with the "camera-world-coordinate-system", which I believe I would have to do.
Thanks!
If you have a single camera you can easily follow the steps from this article:
Evaluating the Accuracy of Single Camera Calibration
For achieving step 2, you can easily use detectCheckerboardPoints function from MATLAB.
[imagePoints, boardSize, imagesUsed] = detectCheckerboardPoints(imageFileNames);
Assuming that you are talking about stereo-cameras, for stereo pairs, imagePoints(:,:,:,1) are the points from the first set of images, and imagePoints(:,:,:,2) are the points from the second set of images. The output contains M number of [x y] coordinates. Each coordinate represents a point where square corners are detected on the checkerboard. The number of points the function returns depends on the value of boardSize, which indicates the number of squares detected. The function detects the points with sub-pixel accuracy.
As you can see in the following image the points are estimated relative to the first point that covers your third step.
[The image is from this page at MATHWORKS.]
You can consider point 1 as the origin of your coordinate system (0,0). The directions of the axes are shown on the image and you know the distance between each point (in the world coordinate), so it is just the matter of depth estimation.
To find a transformation matrix between the points in the world CS and the points in the camera CS, you should collect a set of points and perform an SVD to estimate the transformation matrix.
But,
I would estimate the parameters of the camera and compare them with the initial parameters at time X. This is easier, if you have saved the images that were used when calibrating the camera at time X. By repeating the calibrating process using those images you should get very similar results, if the camera calibration is still valid.
Edit: Why you need the set of images used in the calibration process at time X?
You have a set of images to do the calibrations for the first time, right? To recalibrate the camera you need to use a new set of images. But for checking the previous calibration, you can use the previous images. If the parameters of the camera are changes, there would be an error between the re-estimation and the first estimation. This can be used for evaluating the validity of the calibration not for recalibrating the camera.
I have two moving objects with position and orientation data (Euler Angles, Quaternions) relative to ECI coordinate frame. I would like to calculate AZ/EL from what I'm guessing is the "body frame" of the first object. I have attempted to convert both objects into the body frame through rotation matrices (X-Y-Z and Z-Y-X rotation sequence) and calculate a target vector AZ/EL this way but have not had success. I've also tried to get body frame positions and calculate the body axis/angles and convert back to Eulers (relative to body frame). I'm never sure how the coordinate system axes I'm supposedly creating are aligned along my object.
I have found a couple other questions like this answered with Quaternion solutions so that may be the best path to take, however my Quaternion background is weak at best and I fail to see how the computations given result in a target vector.
Any advice would be much appreciated and I'm happy to share my progress/experiences going forward.
get the current NEH transform matrix for the moving object
you must know position and at least two directions from North,East,Height(Up or Altitude) of the moving object otherwise is your problem unsolvable no matter what. This matrix/frame is called NEH (X=North,Y=East,Z=Height) or sometimes also ENU (X=East,Y=North,Z=Up). Look here transform matrix anatomy and here Earth's NEH construction and change the position and radius to match your moving object.
convert point P0 from GCS (global coordinate system) to NEH
simply: P1=Inverse(NEH)*P0 where P1 is now in NEH LCS (Local coordinate system). Both P0,P1 are in homogenous coordinates { x,y,z,w=1 } to allow multiplications with 4x4 matrix so you can compute azimut and elevation directly from it:
Azimut=atanxy(P1.x,P1.y);
Elevation=atan(P1.z/sqrt((P1.x*P1.x)+(P1.y*P1.y)));
where atanxy is mine atan2 (4 quadrant atan) first is dx then dy. I think atan2 in matlab has it in reverse.
[Notes]
Always visually check all frames (especially NEH). Just draw the 3 axises as lines of some length to validate if the result is correct. It should look like on image, just different color for each axis. You can move to next point only if NEH is OK !!!
Check atan2/atanxy operands order and also check goniometric functions units (rad,deg) to avoid confusions.
I am trying to compute the 3D coordinates from several pair of two view points.
First, I used the matlab function estimateFundamentalMatrix() to get the F of the matched points (Number > 8) which is:
F1 =[-0.000000221102386 0.000000127212463 -0.003908602702784
-0.000000703461004 -0.000000008125894 -0.010618266198273
0.003811584026121 0.012887141181108 0.999845683961494]
And my camera - taken these two pictures - was pre-calibrated with the intrinsic matrix:
K = [12636.6659110566, 0, 2541.60550098958
0, 12643.3249022486, 1952.06628069233
0, 0, 1]
From this information I then computed the essential matrix using:
E = K'*F*K
With the method of SVD, I finally got the projective transformation matrices:
P1 = K*[ I | 0 ]
and
P2 = K*[ R | t ]
Where R and t are:
R = [ 0.657061402787646 -0.419110137500056 -0.626591577992727
-0.352566614260743 -0.905543541110692 0.235982367268031
-0.666308558758964 0.0658603659069099 -0.742761951588233]
t = [-0.940150699101422
0.320030970080146
0.117033504470591]
I know there should be 4 possible solutions, however, my computed 3D coordinates seemed to be not correct.
I used the camera to take pictures of a FLAT object with marked points. I matched the points by hand (which means there should not be obvious mistake exists about the raw material). But the result turned out to be a surface with a little bit banding.
I guess this might be due to the reason pictures did not processed with distortions (but actually I remember I did).
I just want to know whether this method to solve the 3D reconstruction issue right? Especially when we already know the camera intrinsic matrix.
Edit by JCraft at Aug.4: I have redone the process and got some pictures showing the problem, I will write another question with detail then post the link.
Edit by JCraft at Aug.4: I have posted a new question: Calibrated camera get matched points for 3D reconstruction, ideal test failed. And #Schorsch really appreciate your help formatting my question. I will try to learn how to do inputs in SO and also try to improve my gramma. Thanks!
If you only have the fundamental matrix and the intrinsics, you can only get a reconstruction up to scale. That is your translation vector t is in some unknown units. You can get the 3D points in real units in several ways:
You need to have some reference points in the world with known distances between them. This way you can compute their coordinates in your unknown units and calculate the scale factor to convert your unknown units into real units.
You need to know the extrinsics of each camera relative to a common coordinate system. For example, you can have a checkerboard calibration pattern somewhere in your scene that you can detect and compute extrinsics from. See this example. By the way, if you know the extrinsics, you can compute the Fundamental matrix and the camera projection matrices directly, without having to match points.
You can do stereo calibration to estimate the R and the t between the cameras, which would also give you the Fundamental and the Essential matrices. See this example.
Flat objects are critical surfaces, not possible to achive your goal from them. try adding two (or more) points off the plane (see Hartley and Zisserman or other text on the matter if still interested)
So, this is going to be pretty hard for me to explain, or try to detail out since I only think I know what I'm asking, but I could be asking it with bad wording, so please bear with me and ask questions if need-be.
Currently I have a 3D vector field that's being plotted which corresponds to 40 levels of wind vectors in a 3D space (obviously). These are plotted in 3D levels and then stacked on top of each other using a dummy altitude for now (we're debating how to go about pressure altitude conversion most accurately--not to worry here). The goal is to start at a point within the vector space, modeling that point as a particle that can experience physics, and iteratively go through the vector field reacting to the forces, thus creating a trajectory of sorts through the vector field.
Currently what I'm trying to do is whip up code that would allow me to to start a point within this field and calculate the forces that the particle would feel at that point and then establish a resultant force vector that would indicate the next path of movement throughout the vector space.
Right now I'm stuck in the theoretical aspects of the code, as I'm trying to think through how the particle would feel vectors at a distance.
Any suggestions on ways to attack this problem within MatLab or relevant equations to use?
In order to run my code, you'll need read_grib.r4 and to compile that mex file here is a link to a zip with the code and the required files.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uodvixdff764frq/WindSim_StackOverflow_Files.zip
I would try to interpolate the wind vector from the adjecent ones. You seem to have a regular grid, that should be no problem. (You can use interp3 for this)
Afterwards, you can use any differential-equation solver for your problem, as you have basically a field of gradients and an initial value. Forward euler would be the simplest one but need a small step size. (N.B.: Your field should be a gradient field)
You may read about this in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_field#Flow_curves
In response to comment #1:
Yes. In a regular grid, any (arbitrary chosen) point will have eight neighbors. interp3 will so a trilinear interpolation to determine an interpolated gradient vector.
If you use forward-euler, you will then move a small distance in that direction. There you interpolate a gradient and go a small step into this new direction and so on. What happens are two things:
You get a series of points that lie on a streamline and thus form the trajectory of a particle moving along the field
Get large errors, the further you move and the larger the step size is. Use a small step size or use a better solver (Runge-Kutta comes to my mind)
If all you want is plotting, then the streamline function might help.
When showing the extrinsic parameters of calibration (the 3D model including the camera position and the position of the calibration checkerboards), the toolbox does not include units for the axes. It seemed logical to assume that they are in mm, but the z values displayed can not possibly be correct if they are indeed in mm. I'm assuming that there is some transformation going on, perhaps having to do with optical coordinates and units, but I can't figure it out from the documentation. Has anyone solved this problem?
If you marked the side length of your squares in mm, then the z-distance shown would be in mm.
I know next to nothing about matlabs (not entirely true but i avoid matlab wherever I can, and that would be almost always possible) tracking utilities but here's some general info.
Pixel dimension on the sensor has nothing to do with the size of the pixel on screen, or in model space. For all purposes a camera produces a picture that has no meaningful units. A tracking process is unaware of the scale of the scene. (the perspective projection takes care of that). You can re insert a scale by taking 2 tracked points and measuring the distance between those points. This is the solver spaces distance is pretty much arbitrary. Now if you know the real distance between these points you can get a conversion factor. By doing:
real distance / solver space distance.
There's really now way to knowing this distance form the cameras settings as the camera is unable to differentiate between different scales of scenes. So a perfect 1:100 replica is no different for the solver than the real deal. So you must allays relate to something you can measure separately for each measuring session. The camera always produces something that's relative in nature.