The standard approach for validating the camera calibration is to compute the distance between the detected point and the corresponding world point reprojected in the image, this procedure validates both the intrinsic as extrinsic parameters
Now it is possible to verify the accuracy of the nonlinear distortion parameters by capturing images of lines and then undistorting the images and measuring if the lines are now straight lines.
Is there a way to verify the accuracy of the linear intrinsic parameters (optical center, focal point, skew) separate from the extrinsics?
It's tricky, tending to very tricky if you require high levels of accuracy. The problem is that all intrinsic parameters are coupled in the reprojection error.
To give you an indea of the difficulties involved, consider the case of the principal point. It can be proven that the principal point of a pinhole camera is the baricenter of the triangle formed by three independent vanishing points. This would seem to suggest a procedure for verifying it independently of the other intrinsic parameters: take one or more images collectively showing three or more pencils of parallel lines, detect and model said pencil of lines, estimate their vanishing points, etc. However, to precisely model the detected lines, so you can intersect them to find the vanishing points, you need to accurately undistort the images - and guess what, the center of the nonlinear lens distortion is often approximated by the principal point, so your "verification" procedure ends up using exactly the same estimated parameter you are trying to independently verify.
You could try to work around the above difficulty by using an alternate non-parametric model of the nonlinear distortion - for example a thin-plate spline built off a grid using a cost function that only depends on deviation from linearity - as you suggest. Then again, it's tricky to come up with such a cost function that is unbiased: simple linear-least-squares fitting a straight line won't do, since the distorted images of the line points are in general not i.i.d. with respect to the underlying undistorted line. So you need to use a "local" model for each line, typically a low-order polynomial.
In the end, you are much better off just accepting that the parameters (both intrinsic and extrinsic) are coupled, and simply base your verification on the input-output needs of your actual application: determine what is an acceptable RMS reprojection error over the image area, then use independent sets of images of a known calibration object, one that somehow models the properties of the 3D scene that are important to your application, then reproject its points and verify that the errors you get are acceptable.
Related
I am using OpenCV's triangulatePoints function to determine 3D coordinates of a point imaged by a stereo camera.
I am experiencing that this function gives me different distance to the same point depending on angle of camera to that point.
Here is a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrYBhLJGiE4
In this video, we are tracking the 'X' mark. In the upper left corner info is displayed about the point that is being tracked. (Youtube dropped the quality, the video is normally much sharper. (2x1280) x 720)
In the video, left camera is the origin of 3D coordinate system and it's looking in positive Z direction. Left camera is undergoing some translation, but not nearly as much as the triangulatePoints function leads to believe. (More info is in the video description.)
Metric unit is mm, so the point is initially triangulated at ~1.94m distance from the left camera.
I am aware that insufficiently precise calibration can cause this behaviour. I have ran three independent calibrations using chessboard pattern. The resulting parameters vary too much for my taste. ( Approx +-10% for focal length estimation).
As you can see, the video is not highly distorted. Straight lines appear pretty straight everywhere. So the optimimum camera parameters must be close to the ones I am already using.
My question is, is there anything else that can cause this?
Can a convergence angle between the two stereo cameras can have this effect? Or wrong baseline length?
Of course, there is always a matter of errors in feature detection. Since I am using optical flow to track the 'X' mark, I get subpixel precision which can be mistaken by... I don't know... +-0.2 px?
I am using the Stereolabs ZED stereo camera. I am not accessing the video frames using directly OpenCV. Instead, I have to use the special SDK I acquired when purchasing the camera. It has occured to me that this SDK I am using might be doing some undistortion of its own.
So, now I wonder... If the SDK undistorts an image using incorrect distortion coefficients, can that create an image that is neither barrel-distorted nor pincushion-distorted but something different altogether?
The SDK provided with the ZED Camera performs undistortion and rectification of images. The geometry model is based on the same as openCV :
intrinsic parameters and distortion parameters for both Left and Right cameras.
extrinsic parameters for rotation/translation between Right and Left.
Through one of the tool of the ZED ( ZED Settings App), you can enter your own intrinsic matrix for Left/Right and distortion coeff, and Baseline/Convergence.
To get a precise 3D triangulation, you may need to adjust those parameters since they have a high impact on the disparity you will estimate before converting to depth.
OpenCV gives a good module to calibrate 3D cameras. It does :
-Mono calibration (calibrateCamera) for Left and Right , followed by a stereo calibration (cv::StereoCalibrate()). It will output Intrinsic parameters (focale, optical center (very important)), and extrinsic (Baseline = T[0], Convergence = R[1] if R is a 3x1 matrix). the RMS (return value of stereoCalibrate()) is a good way to see if the calibration has been done correctly.
The important thing is that you need to do this calibration on raw images, not by using images provided with the ZED SDK. Since the ZED is a standard UVC Camera, you can use opencv to get the side by side raw images (cv::videoCapture with the correct device number) and extract Left and RIght native images.
You can then enter those calibration parameters in the tool. The ZED SDK will then perform the undistortion/rectification and provide the corrected images. The new camera matrix is provided in the getParameters(). You need to take those values when you triangulate, since images are corrected as if they were taken from this "ideal" camera.
hope this helps.
/OB/
There are 3 points I can think of and probably can help you.
Probably the least important, but from your description you have separately calibrated the cameras and then the stereo system. Running an overall optimization should improve the reconstruction accuracy, as some "less accurate" parameters compensate for the other "less accurate" parameters.
If the accuracy of reconstruction is important to you, you need to have a systematic approach to reducing it. Building an uncertainty model, thanks to the mathematical model, is easy and can write a few lines of code to build that for you. Say you want to see if the 3d point is 2 meters away, at a particular angle to the camera system, and you have a specific uncertainty on the 2d projections of the 3d point, it's easy to backproject the uncertainty to the 3d space around your 3d point. By adding uncertainty to the other parameters of the system then you can see which ones are more important and need to have lower uncertainty.
This inaccuracy is inherent in the problem and the method you're using.
First if you model the uncertainty you will see the reconstructed 3d points further away from the center of cameras have a much higher uncertainty. The reason is that the angle <left-camera, 3d-point, right-camera> is narrower. I remember the MVG book had a good description of this with a figure.
Second, if you look at the implementation of triangulatePoints you see that the pseudo-inverse method is implemented using SVD to construct the 3d point. That can lead to many issues, which you probably remember from linear algebra.
Update:
But I consistently get larger distance near edges and several times
the magnitude of the uncertainty caused by the angle.
That's the result of using pseudo-inverse, a numerical method. You can replace that with a geometrical method. One easy method is to back-project the 2d-projections to get 2 rays in 3d space. Then you want to find where the intersect, which doesn't happen due to the inaccuracies. Instead you want to find the point where the 2 rays have the least distance. Without considering the uncertainty you will consistently favor a point from the set of feasible solutions. That's why with pseudo inverse you don't see any fluctuation but a gross error.
Regarding the general optimization, yes, you can run an iterative LM optimization on all the parameters. This is the method used in applications like SLAM for autonomous vehicles where accuracy is very important. You can find some papers by googling bundle adjustment slam.
I have to do camera calibration. I understand the general concept and I have it working, but in many guides it says to use many images or at the very least two with different orientation. Why exactly is this necessary? I seem to be getting reasonably good results with a single image of 14x14 points:
I find the points with cv::findCirclesGrid and use cv::calibrateCamera to find the extrinsic and intrinsic parameters. Intrinsic guess is set to false. Principal point and aspect ratio are not fixed while tangential distortion is fixed to zero.
I then use cv::getOptimalNewCameraMatrix, cv::initUndistortRectifyMap and cv::remap to restore the image.
It seems to me the result is pretty good, but am I missing something? Is it actually wrong and just waiting to cause problems for me later?
Also before you ask why I don't just use multiple images to be sure; the software I am writing will be used with a semi-fixed camera stand to calibrate several cameras one at a time. So first off the stand would need to be modified in order to position the pattern at an angle or off centre, as currently it can only be moved closer or further away. Secondly the process should not be unnecessarily slowed down by having to capture more images.
Edit: To Micka asking "what happens if your viewing angle isnt 90° on the pattern? Can you try to rotate the pattern away from the camera?". I get a somewhat similar result, although it finds less distortion. From looking at the borders with a ruler it seems that the calibration from 90° is better, but it is really hard to tell.
Having more patterns in different orientations is necessary to avoid the situation where the instrinsic parameters are very inaccurate but the pixel reprojection error of the undistortion is still low because different errors compensate.
To illustrate this point: if you only have one image taken at 90 degree viewing angle, then a change in horizontal focal length can be poorly distinguished from viewing the pattern a little bit from the side. The only clue that sets the two parameters apart is the tapering of the lines, but that measurement is very noisy. Hence you need multiple views at significant angles to separate this aspect of the pose from the intrinsic parameters.
If you know your image is viewed at 90 degrees, you can use this to your advantage but it requires modification of the opencv algorithm. If you are certain that all images will be captured from the same pose as your calibration image, then it does not really matter as the undistortion will be good even if the individual calibration parameters are inaccurate but compensating (i.e. they compensate well for this specific pose, but poorly for other poses).
As stated here, the circle pattern (in theory) gets along quite well with only a single image. The reason that you would need multiple images is the noise present in the input data.
My suggestions would be to compare the results of different input images. If the error is low, you will probably be able to get away with one sample.
i check the paper , which opencv method using...that is zhangzhengyou's method.
that is n=1 , you can only get the focus .
in the paper , he says "
If n 3, we will have in general a unique solution b defined up to a
scale factor. If n à 2, we can impose the skewless constraint à 0,
i.e., â0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0äb à 0, which is added as an additional
equation to (9). (If n à 1, we can only solve two camera intrinsic
parameters, e.g., and , assuming u0 and v0 are known (e.g., at the
image center) and à 0, and that is indeed what we did in [19] for
head pose determination based on the fact that eyes and mouth are
reasonably coplanar. In fact, Tsai [23] already mentions that focal
length from one plane is possible, but incorrectly says that aspect
ratio is not.) "
We have pictures taken from a plane flying over an area with 50% overlap and is using the OpenCV stitching algorithm to stitch them together. This works fine for our version 1. In our next iteration we want to look into a few extra things that I could use a few comments on.
Currently the stitching algorithm estimates the camera parameters. We do have camera parameters and a lot of information available from the plane about camera angle, position (GPS) etc. Would we be able to benefit anything from this information in contrast to just let the algorithm estimate everything based on matched feature points?
These images are taken in high resolution and the algorithm takes up quite amount of RAM at this point, not a big problem as we just spin large machines up in the cloud. But I would like to in our next iteration to get out the homography from down sampled images and apply it to the large images later. This will also give us more options to manipulate and visualize other information on the original images and be able to go back and forward between original and stitched images.
If we in question 1 is going to take apart the stitching algorithm to put in the known information, is it just using the findHomography method to get the info or is there better alternatives to create the homography when we actually know the plane position and angles and the camera parameters.
I got a basic understanding of opencv and is fine with c++ programming so its not a problem to write our own customized stitcher, but the theory is a bit rusty here.
Since you are using homographies to warp your imagery, I assume you are capturing areas small enough that you don't have to worry about Earth curvature effects. Also, I assume you don't use an elevation model.
Generally speaking, you will always want to tighten your (homography) model using matched image points, since your final output is a stitched image. If you have the RAM and CPU budget, you could refine your linear model using a max likelihood estimator.
Having a prior motion model (e.g. from GPS + IMU) could be used to initialize the feature search and match. With a good enough initial estimation of the feature apparent motion, you could dispense with expensive feature descriptor computation and storage, and just go with normalized crosscorrelation.
If I understand correctly, the images are taken vertically and overlap by a known amount of pixels, in that case calculating homography is a bit overkill: you're just talking about a translation matrix, and using more powerful algorithms can only give you bad conditioned matrixes.
In 2D, if H is a generalised homography matrix representing a perspective transformation,
H=[[a1 a2 a3] [a4 a5 a6] [a7 a8 a9]]
then the submatrixes R and T represent rotation and translation, respectively, if a9==1.
R= [[a1 a2] [a4 a5]], T=[[a3] [a6]]
while [a7 a8] represents the stretching of each axis. (All of this is a bit approximate since when all effects are present they'll influence each other).
So, if you known the lateral displacement, you can create a 3x3 matrix having just a3, a6 and a9=1 and pass it to cv::warpPerspective or cv::warpAffine.
As a criteria of matching correctness you can, f.e., calculate a normalized diff between pixels.
I need to find intrinsic calibration parameters of a single. To do this I take several images of checkerboard patten from different angles and then use calibration software.
To make the calibration pattern as flat as possible, I print it on a paper and cover with a 3mm glass. Obviously image of the pattern is modified by glass, because it has a different refraction coefficient compared to air.
Extrinsic parameters will be distorted by the glass. This is because checkerboard is not in place we see it in. However, if thickness of the glass and refraction coefficients of glass and air are known, it seems to be possible to recover extrinsic parameters.
So, the questions are:
Can extrinsic parameters be calculated, and if yes, then how? (This is not necessary right now, just an interesting theoretical question)
Are intrinsic calibration parameters obtained from these images equivalent to ones obtained from a usual calibration procedure (without cover glass)?
By using a glass, calibration parameters as reported by GML Camera Calibration Toolbox (based on OpenCV), become much more accurate. (Does it make any sense at all?) But this approach has a little drawback - unwanted reflections, especially from light sources.
I commend you on choosing a very flat support (which is what I recommend myself here). But, forgive me for asking the obvious question, why did you cover the pattern with the glass?
Since the point of the exercise is to ensure the target's planarity and nothing else, you might as well glue the side opposite to the pattern of the paper sheet and avoid all this trouble. Yes, in time the pattern will get dirty and worn and need replacement. So you just scrape it off and replace it: printing checkerboards is cheap.
If, for whatever reasons, you are stuck with the glass in the front, I recommend doing first a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the expected ray deflection due to the glass refraction, and check if it is actually measurable by your apparatus. Given the nominal focal length in mm of the lens you are using and the physical width and pixel density of the sensor, you can easily work it out at the image center, assuming an "extreme" angle of rotation of the target w.r.t the focal axis (say, 45 deg), and a nominal distance. To a first approximation, you may model the pattern as "painted" on the glass, and so ignore the first refraction and only consider the glass-to-air one.
If the above calculation suggests that the effect is measurable (deflection >= 1 pixel), you will need to add the glass to your scene model and solve for its parameters in the bundle adjustment phase, along with the intrinsics and extrinsics. To begin with, I'd use two parameters, thickness and refraction coefficient, and assume both faces are really planar and parallel. It will just make the computation of the corner projections in the cost function a little more complicated, as you'll have to take the ray deflection into account.
Given the extra complexity of the cost function, I'd definitely write the model's code to use Automatic Differentiation (AD).
If you really want to go through this exercise, I'd recommend writing the solver on top of Google Ceres bundle adjuster, which supports AD, among many nice things.
How to find shift and rotation between same two images using programming languages vb.net or C++ or C#?
The problem you state is called motion detection (or motion compensation) and is one of the most important problems in image and video processing at the moment. No easy "here are ten lines of code that will do it" solution exists except for some really trivial cases.
Even your seemingly trivial case is quite a difficult one because a rotation by an unknown angle could cause slight pixel-by-pixel changes that can't be easily detected without specifically tailored algorithms used for motion detection.
If the images are very similar such that the camera is only slightly moved and rotated then the problem could be solved without using highly complex techniques.
What I would do, in that case, is use a motion tracking algorithm to get the optical flow of the image sequence which is a "map" which approximates how a pixel has "moved" from image A to B. OpenCV which is indeed a very good library has functions that does this: CalcOpticalFlowLK and CalcOpticalFlowPyrLK.
The tricky bit is going from the optical flow to total rotation of the image. I would start by heavily low pass filter the optical flow to get a smoother map to work with.
Then you need to use some logic to test if the image is only shifted or rotated. If it is only shifted then the entire map should be one "color", i.e. all flow vectors point in the same direction.
If there has been a rotation then the vectors will point in different direction depending on the rotation.
If the input images are not as nice as the above method requires, then I would look into feature descriptors to find how a specific object in the first image is located within the second. This will however be much harder.
There is no short answer. You could try to use free OpenCV library for finding relationship between two images.
The two operations, rotation and translation can be determined in either order. It's far easier to first detect rotation, because you can then compensate for that. Once both images are oriented the same, the translation becomes a matter of simmple correlation.
Finding the relative rotation of an image is best done by determining the local gradients. For every neighborhood (e.g. 3x3 pixels), treat the greyvalue as a function z(x,y), fit a plane through the 9 pixels, and determine the slope or gradient of that plane. Now average the gradient you found over the entire image, or at least the center of it. Your two images will produce different averages. Part of that is because for non-90 degree rotations the images won't overlap fully, but in general the difference in average gradients is the rotation between the two.
Once you've rotated back one image, you can determine a correlation. This is a fairly standard operation; you're essentially determining for each possible offset how well the two images overlap. This will give you an estimate for the shift.
Once you've got both, you can refine your rotation angle estimate by rotating back the translation, shifting the second image, and determining the average gradient only over the pixels common to both images.
If the images are exactly the same, it should be fairly easy to extract some feature points - for example using SIFT - and match the features of both images. You can then use any two of the matching features to find the rotation and translation. The translation is just the difference between two matching feature points. The you compensate for the translation in one image and get the rotation angle as the angle formed by the three remaining points.