What accuracy should I expect from basic opencv ortho-rectification algorithms? - c++

Question

So, I'm taking over the work on an ortho-rectification algorithm that is intended to produce "accurate" results. I'm running into trouble trying to increase the accuracy and could use a little help.
Here is the basic approach.
Extract a calibration pattern from an image that was taken from a mobile phone.
Rectify the image based on a calibration pattern in the image
Scale the image to get the real world size of the scene around the pattern.
The calibration pattern is held against a flat surface, like a wall, counter, table, floor and the user takes a picture. With that picture, we want to measure artifacts on the same surface as the calibration pattern. We have tried this with calibration patterns ranging from the size of a credit card to a sheet of paper (8.5" x 11")
Here is an example input picture
With this resulting output image
Right now our measurements are usually within 1-2% of what we expect. This is sufficient for small areas (less than 25cm away from the calibration pattern. However, we'd like the algorithm to scale so that we can accurately measure a 2x2 meter area. However, at that size, the current error is too much (2-4 cm).
Here is the algorithm we are following.
// convert original image to grayscale and perform morphological dilation to reduce false matches when finding circle grid
Mat imgGray;
cvtColor(imgOriginal, imgGray, CV_BGR2GRAY);
// find calibration pattern in original image
Size patternSize(4, 11);
vector <Point2f> circleCenters_OriginalImage;
if (!findCirclesGrid(imgGray, patternSize, circleCenters_OriginalImage, CALIB_CB_ASYMMETRIC_GRID))
{
return false;
}
Point2f inputQuad[4];
inputQuad[0] = Point2f(circleCenters_OriginalImage[0].x, circleCenters_OriginalImage[0].y);
inputQuad[1] = Point2f(circleCenters_OriginalImage[3].x, circleCenters_OriginalImage[3].y);
inputQuad[2] = Point2f(circleCenters_OriginalImage[43].x, circleCenters_OriginalImage[43].y);
inputQuad[3] = Point2f(circleCenters_OriginalImage[40].x, circleCenters_OriginalImage[40].y);
// create model points for calibration pattern
vector <Point2f> circleCenters_ObjectSpace = GeneratePatternPointsInObjectSpace(circleCenters_OriginalImage[0], Distance(circleCenters_OriginalImage[0], circleCenters_OriginalImage[1]) / 2.0f, ioData.marker_up);
Point2f outputQuad[4];
outputQuad[0] = Point2f(circleCenters_ObjectSpace[0].x, circleCenters_ObjectSpace[0].y);
outputQuad[1] = Point2f(circleCenters_ObjectSpace[3].x, circleCenters_ObjectSpace[3].y);
outputQuad[2] = Point2f(circleCenters_ObjectSpace[43].x, circleCenters_ObjectSpace[43].y);
outputQuad[3] = Point2f(circleCenters_ObjectSpace[40].x, circleCenters_ObjectSpace[40].y);
Mat lambda(2,4,CV_32FC1);
lambda = Mat::zeros(imgOriginal.rows, imgOriginal.cols, imgOriginal.type());
lambda = getPerspectiveTransform(inputQuad, outputQuad);
warpPerspective(imgOriginal, imgOrthorectified, lambda, imgOrthorectified.size());
...
My Questions:
Is it reasonable to shoot for error < 0.25%? Is there a different algorithm that would yield more accurate results? What are the most valuable sources of error to identify and resolve?
As I've worked on this, I've also looked at removing pincushion / barrel distortions, and trying homographies to find the perspective transform. The best approaches I have found so far remain in the 1-2% error.
Any suggestions of where to go next would be really helpful