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
Related
I am writing a program that captures real time images from a scene by two calibrated cameras (so the internal parameters of the cameras are known to us). Using two view geometry, I can find the essential matrix and use OpenCV or MATLAB to find the relative position and orientation of one camera with respect to another. Having the essential matrix, it is shown in Hartley and Zisserman's Multiple View Geometry that one can reconstruct the scene using triangulation up to scale. Now I want to use a reference length to determine the scale of reconstruction and resolve ambiguity.
I know the height of the front wall and I want to use it for determining the scale of reconstruction to measure other objects and their dimensions or their distance from the center of my first camera. How can it be done in practice?
Thanks in advance.
Edit: To add more information, I have already done linear trianglation (minimizing the algebraic error) but I am not sure if it is any useful because there is still a scale ambiguity that I don't know how to get rid of it. My ultimate goal is to recognize an object (like a Pepsi can) and separate it in a rectangular area (which is going to be written as a separate module by someone else) and then find the distance of each pixel in this rectangular area, i.e. the region of interest, to the camera. Then the distance from the camera to the object will be the minimum of the distances from the camera to the 3D coordinates of the pixels in the region of interest.
Might be a bit late, but at least for someone struggling with the same staff.
As far as I remember it is actually linear problem. You got essential matrix, which gives you rotation matrix and normalized translation vector specifying relative position of cameras. If you followed Hartley and Zissermanm you probably chose one of the cameras as origin of world coordinate system. Meaning all your triangulated points are in normalized distance from this origin. What is important is, that the direction of every triangulated point is correct.
If you have some reference in the scene (lets say height of the wall), then you just have to find this reference (2 points are enough - so opposite ends of the wall) and calculate "normalization coefficient" (sorry for terminology) as
coeff = realWorldDistanceOf2Points / distanceOfTriangulatedPoints
Once you have this coeff, just mulptiply all your triangulated points with it and you got real world points.
Example:
you know that opposite corners of the wall are 5m from each other. you find these corners in both images, triangulate them (lets call triangulated points c1 and c2), calculate their distance in the "normalized" world as ||c1 - c2|| and get the
coeff = 5 / ||c1 - c2||
and you get real 3d world points as triangulatedPoint*coeff.
Maybe easier option is to have both cameras in fixed relative position and calibrate them together by stereoCalibrate openCV/Matlab function (there is actually pretty nice GUI in Matlab for that) - it returns not just intrinsic params, but also extrinsic. But I don't know if this is your case.
TL;DR - How do I only analyse the surface data points for surface estimation?
I have a 3D object, and I would like to estimate the surface shape.
The problem is: MATLAB curve fitting toolbox takes into account all the data points of the object. See the example of a cylinder and it's approximated polynomial. MATLAB is taking into account all the data points for surface estimation, what can I do to over come this?
Assuming that the outer and inner surface have identical shape, you can first do an imfill to make the object solid and then use morphological skeleton, bwmorph(BW,'skel',Inf) to turn it into a single line, which you then can approximate the shape from.
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.
Basically, I have a many irregular circle on the ground in the form of x,y,z coordinates (of 200*3 matrix). but I want to fix a best circle in to the data of x,y,z coordinates (of 200*3 matrix).
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
I would try using the RANSAC algorithm which finds the parameters of your model (in your case a circle) given noisy data. The algorithm is quite easy to understand and robust against outliers.
The wikipedia article has a Matlab example for fitting a line but it shouldn't be too hard to adapt it to fit a circle.
These slides give a good introduction to the RANSAC algorithm (starting from page 42). They even show examples for fitting a circle.
Though this answer is late, I hope this helps others
To fit a circle to 3d points
Find the centroid of the 3d points (nx3 matrix)
Subtract the centroid from the 3D points.
Using RANSAC, fit a plane to the 3D points. You can refer here for the function to fit plane using RANSAC
Apply SVD to the 3d points (nx3 matrix) and get the v matrix
Generate the axes along the RANSAC plane using the axes from SVD. For example, if the plane norm is along the z-direction, then cross product between the 1st column of v matrix and the plane norm will generate the vector along the y-direction, then the cross product between the generated y-vector and plane norm will generate a vector along the x-direction. Using the generated vectors, form a Rotation matrix [x_vector y_vector z_vector]
Multiply the Rotation matrix with the centroid subtracted 3d points so that the points will be parallel to the XY plane.
Project the points to XY plane by simply removing the Z-axes from the 3d points
fit a circle using Least squares circle fit
Rotate the center of the circle using the inverse of the rotation matrix obtained from step 5
Translate back the center to the original location using the centroid
The circle in 3D will have the center, the radius will be the same as the 2D circle we obtained from step 8, the circle plane will be the RANSAC plane we obtained from step 3
stereoParameters takes two extrinsic parameters: RotationOfCamera2 and TranslationOfCamera2.
The problem is that the documentation is a not very detailed about what RotationOfCamera2 really means, it only says: Rotation of camera 2 relative to camera 1, specified as a 3-by-3 matrix.
What is the coordinate system in this case ?
A rotation matrix can be specified in any coordinate system.
What does it exactly mean "the coordinate system of Camera 1" ? What are its x,y,z axes ?
In other words, if I calculate the Essential Matrix, how can I get the corresponding RotationOfCamera2 and TranslationOfCamera2 from the Essential Matrix ?
RotationOfCamera2 and TranslationOfCamera2 describe the transformation from camera1's coordinates into camera2's coordinates. A camera's coordinate system has its origin at the camera's optical center. Its X and Y-axes are in the image plane, and its Z-axis points out along the optical axis.
Equivalently, the extrinsics of camera 1 are identity rotation and zero translation, while the extrinsics of camera 2 are RotationOfCamera2 and TranslationOfCamera2.
If you have the Essential matrix, you can decompose it into the rotation and a translation. Two things to keep in mind. First, the translation is up to scale, so t will be a unit vector. Second, the rotation matrix will be a transpose of what you get from estimateCameraParameters, because of the difference in the vector-matrix multiplication conventions.
Out of curiosity, what is it that you are trying to accomplish? Are you working with a single moving camera? Otherwise, why not use the Stereo Camera Calibrator app to calibrate your cameras, and get rotation and translation for free?
Suppose for left camera's 1st checkerboard (or to any world reference) rotation is R1 and translation is T1, right camera's 1st checkerboard rotation is R2 and translation is T2, then you can calculate them as follows;
RotationOfCamera2 = R2*R1';
TranslationOfCamera2= T2-RotationOfCamera2*T1
But please note that this calculations are just for one identical checkerboard reference. Inside matlab these two parameters are calculated by all given pair of checkerboard images and calculate median values as initial guess. Later these parameters will be refine by nonlinear optimization. So after median calculations they might be sigtly differ. But if you have just one reference point tranfomation for both two camera, you should use above formula. Note Dima told, matlab's rotation matrix is transpose of normal usage. So I wrote it as how the literature tells not matlab's style.