I'm receiving depth images of a tof camera via MATLAB. the delivered drivers of the tof camera to compute x,y,z coordinates out of the depth image are using openCV function, which are implemented in MATLAB via mex-files.
But later on I can't use those drivers anymore nor use openCV functions, therefore I need to implement the 2d to 3d mapping on my own including the compensation of radial distortion. I already got hold of the camera parameters and the computation of the x,y,z coordinates of each pixel of the depth image is working. Until now I am solving the implicit equations of the undistortion via the newton method (which isn't really fast...). But I want to implement the undistortion of the openCV function.
... and there is my problem: I dont really understand it and I hope you can help me out there. how is it actually working? I tried to search through the forum, but havent found any useful threads concerning this case.
greetings!
The equations of the projection of a 3D point [X; Y; Z] to a 2D image point [u; v] are provided on the documentation page related to camera calibration :
(source: opencv.org)
In the case of lens distortion, the equations are non-linear and depend on 3 to 8 parameters (k1 to k6, p1 and p2). Hence, it would normally require a non-linear solving algorithm (e.g. Newton's method, Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm, etc) to inverse such a model and estimate the undistorted coordinates from the distorted ones. And this is what is used behind function undistortPoints, with tuned parameters making the optimization fast but a little inaccurate.
However, in the particular case of image lens correction (as opposed to point correction), there is a much more efficient approach based on a well-known image re-sampling trick. This trick is that, in order to obtain a valid intensity for each pixel of your destination image, you have to transform coordinates in the destination image into coordinates in the source image, and not the opposite as one would intuitively expect. In the case of lens distortion correction, this means that you actually do not have to inverse the non-linear model, but just apply it.
Basically, the algorithm behind function undistort is the following. For each pixel of the destination lens-corrected image do:
Convert the pixel coordinates (u_dst, v_dst) to normalized coordinates (x', y') using the inverse of the calibration matrix K,
Apply the lens-distortion model, as displayed above, to obtain the distorted normalized coordinates (x'', y''),
Convert (x'', y'') to distorted pixel coordinates (u_src, v_src) using the calibration matrix K,
Use the interpolation method of your choice to find the intensity/depth associated with the pixel coordinates (u_src, v_src) in the source image, and assign this intensity/depth to the current destination pixel.
Note that if you are interested in undistorting the depthmap image, you should use a nearest-neighbor interpolation, otherwise you will almost certainly interpolate depth values at object boundaries, resulting in unwanted artifacts.
The above answer is correct, but do note that UV coordinates are in screen space and centered around (0,0) instead of "real" UV coordinates.
Source: own re-implementation using Python/OpenGL. Code:
def correct_pt(uv, K, Kinv, ds):
uv_3=np.stack((uv[:,0],uv[:,1],np.ones(uv.shape[0]),),axis=-1)
xy_=uv_3#Kinv.T
r=np.linalg.norm(xy_,axis=-1)
coeff=(1+ds[0]*(r**2)+ds[1]*(r**4)+ds[4]*(r**6));
xy__=xy_*coeff[:,np.newaxis]
return (xy__#K.T)[:,0:2]
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'm trying to make a 3D reconstruction from a set of uncalibrated photographs in MATLAB. I use SIFT to detect feature points and matches between images. I want to make a projective reconstruction first and then update this to a metric one using auto-calibration.
I know how to estimate the 3D points from 2 images by computing the fundamental matrix, camera matrices and triangulation. Now say I have 3 images, a, b and c. I compute the camera matrices and 3D points for image a and b. Now I want to update the structure by adding image c. I estimate the camera matrix by using known 3D points (calculated from a and b) that match with 2D points in image c, since:
However when I reconstruct the 3D points between b and c they don't add up with the existing 3D points from a and b. I'm assuming this is because I don't know the correct depth estimates of the points (depicted by s in above formula).
With the factorization method of Sturm and Triggs I can estimate the depths and find the structure and motion. However in order to do this, all points have to be visible in all views, which is not the case for my images. How can I estimate the depths for points not visible in all views?
This is not a question about Matlab. It is about an algorithm.
It is not mathematically possible to estimate the position of a 3D point in an image when you don't see an observation of the point in said image.
There are extensions for factorization to work with missing data. However, the field seems to have converged to Bundle Adjustment as the Gold Standard.
An excellent tutorial on how to achieve what you want can be found here, which is a culmination of several years of research into a working application. Starting from projective reconstruction up to the metric upgrade.
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)
I am using Camera Calibration Toolbox for Matlab. After calibration I have intrinsic and extrinsic parameters of stereo camera system. Next, I would like to determine the distance between the camera system and the object. To get this information, I used the function stereo_triangulation which is included in the Toolbox. Input are two matrixes including pixel coordinates of correspondences in the left and right image.
I tried to get coordinates of correspondences with using of Basic Block Matching method which is described in Matlab's help for Stereo Vision.
Resolution of my pictures is 1280x960 pixels. I know that the biggest disparity is around 520 pixels. I set the maximum of disparity range to 520. But then determine the coordinates takes ages. It is not possible use in practice. Calculating of disparity map is much faster with using of Matlab's function disparity(). But I want the step before - coordinates of correspondences.
Please can you suggest how can I effectively get the coordinates with Matlab?
Disparity and 3D are related by simple formulas (see below) so the time for calculating 3D data and disparity map should be the same. The notation is
f - focal length in pixels,
B - separation between cameras,
u, v - row and column in the system centered on the middle of the image,
d-disparity,
x, y, z - 3D coordinates.
z=f*B/d;
x=z*u/f;
y=z*v/f;
1280x960 is too large resolution for any correlation stereo to work in real time. Think about it: you have to loop over a 2d image, over 2d correlation window and over the range of disparities. This means 5 embedded loops! I don't work with Matlab anymore but I know that it is quite slow.
I have N 3D observations taken from an optical motion capture system in XYZ form.
The motion that was captured was just a simple circle arc, derived from a rigid body with fixed axis of rotation.
I used the princomp function in matlab to get all marker points on the same plane i.e. the plane on which the motion has been done.
(See a pic representing 3D data on the plane that was found, below)
What i want to do after the previous step is to look the fitted data on the plane that was found and get the curve of the captured motion in 2D.
In the princomp how to, it is said that
The first two coordinates of the principal component scores give the
projection of each point onto the plane, in the coordinate system of
the plane.
(from "Fitting an Orthogonal Regression Using Principal Components Analysis" article on mathworks help site)
So i thought that if i just plot those pc scores -plot(score(:,1),score(:,2))- i'll get the motion curve. Instead what i got is this.
(See a pic representing curve data in 2D derived from pc scores, below)
The 2d curve seems stretched and nonlinear (different y values for same x values) when it shouldn't be. The curve that i am looking for, should be interpolated by just using simple polynomial (polyfit) or circle fit in matlab.
Is this happening because the plane that was found looks like rhombus relative to the original coordinate system and the pc axes are rotated with respect to the basis of plane in such way that produce this stretch?
Then i thought that, this is happening because of the different coordinate systems of optical system and Matlab. Optical system's (ie cameras) co.sys. is XZY oriented and Matlab's default (i think) co.sys is XYZ oriented. I transformed my data to correspond to Matlab's co.sys through a rotation matrix, run again princomp but i got the same stretch in the 2D curve (the new curve just had different orientation now).
Somewhere else i read that
Principal Components Analysis chooses the first PCA axis as that line
that goes through the centroid, but also minimizes the square of the
distance of each point to that line. Thus, in some sense, the line is
as close to all of the data as possible. Equivalently, the line goes
through the maximum variation in the data. The second PCA axis also
must go through the centroid, and also goes through the maximum
variation in the data, but with a certain constraint: It must be
completely uncorrelated (i.e. at right angles, or "orthogonal") to PCA
axis 1.
I know that i am missing something but i have a problem understanding why i get a stretched curve. What i have to do so i can get the curve right?
Thanks in advance.
EDIT: Here is a sample data file (3 columns XYZ coords for 2 markers)
w w w.sendspace.com/file/2hiezc