I have a video file recorded from the front of a moving vehicle. I am going to use OpenCV for object detection and recognition but I'm stuck on one aspect. How can I determine the distance from a recognized object.
I can know my current speed and real-world GPS position but that is all. I can't make any assumptions about the object I'm tracking. I am planning to use this to track and follow objects without colliding with them. Ideally I would like to use this data to derive the object's real-world position, which I could do if I could determine the distance from the camera to the object.
Your problem's quite standard in the field.
Firstly,
you need to calibrate your camera. This can be done offline (makes life much simpler) or online through self-calibration.
Calibrate it offline - please.
Secondly,
Once you have the calibration matrix of the camera K, determine the projection matrix of the camera in a successive scene (you need to use parallax as mentioned by others). This is described well in this OpenCV tutorial.
You'll have to use the GPS information to find the relative orientation between the cameras in the successive scenes (that might be problematic due to noise inherent in most GPS units), i.e. the R and t mentioned in the tutorial or the rotation and translation between the two cameras.
Once you've resolved all that, you'll have two projection matrices --- representations of the cameras at those successive scenes. Using one of these so-called camera matrices, you can "project" a 3D point M on the scene to the 2D image of the camera on to pixel coordinate m (as in the tutorial).
We will use this to triangulate the real 3D point from 2D points found in your video.
Thirdly,
use an interest point detector to track the same point in your video which lies on the object of interest. There are several detectors available, I recommend SURF since you have OpenCV which also has several other detectors like Shi-Tomasi corners, Harris, etc.
Fourthly,
Once you've tracked points of your object across the sequence and obtained the corresponding 2D pixel coordinates you must triangulate for the best fitting 3D point given your projection matrix and 2D points.
The above image nicely captures the uncertainty and how a best fitting 3D point is computed. Of course in your case, the cameras are probably in front of each other!
Finally,
Once you've obtained the 3D points on the object, you can easily compute the Euclidean distance between the camera center (which is the origin in most cases) and the point.
Note
This is obviously not easy stuff but it's not that hard either. I recommend Hartley and Zisserman's excellent book Multiple View Geometry which has described everything above in explicit detail with MATLAB code to boot.
Have fun and keep asking questions!
When you have moving video, you can use temporal parallax to determine the relative distance of objects. Parallax: (definition).
The effect would be the same we get with our eyes which which can gain depth perception by looking at the same object from slightly different angles. Since you are moving, you can use two successive video frames to get your slightly different angle.
Using parallax calculations, you can determine the relative size and distance of objects (relative to one another). But, if you want the absolute size and distance, you will need a known point of reference.
You will also need to know the speed and direction being traveled (as well as the video frame rate) in order to do the calculations. You might be able to derive the speed of the vehicle using the visual data but that adds another dimension of complexity.
The technology already exists. Satellites determine topographic prominence (height) by comparing multiple images taken over a short period of time. We use parallax to determine the distance of stars by taking photos of night sky at different points in earth's orbit around the sun. I was able to create 3-D images out of an airplane window by taking two photographs within short succession.
The exact technology and calculations (even if I knew them off the top of my head) are way outside the scope of discussing here. If I can find a decent reference, I will post it here.
You need to identify the same points in the same object on two different frames taken a known distance apart. Since you know the location of the camera in each frame, you have a baseline ( the vector between the two camera positions. Construct a triangle from the known baseline and the angles to the identified points. Trigonometry gives you the length of the unknown sides of the traingles for the known length of the baseline and the known angles between the baseline and the unknown sides.
You can use two cameras, or one camera taking successive shots. So, if your vehicle is moving a 1 m/s and you take fames every second, then successibe frames will gibe you a 1m baseline which should be good to measure the distance of objects up to, say, 5m away. If you need to range objects further away than the frames used need to be further apart - however more distant objects will in view for longer.
Observer at F1 sees target at T with angle a1 to velocity vector. Observer moves distance b to F2. Sees target at T with angle a2.
Required to find r1, range from target at F1
The trigonometric identity for cosine gives
Cos( 90 – a1 ) = x / r1 = c1
Cos( 90 - a2 ) = x / r2 = c2
Cos( a1 ) = (b + z) / r1 = c3
Cos( a2 ) = z / r2 = c4
x is distance to target orthogonal to observer’s velocity vector
z is distance from F2 to intersection with x
Solving for r1
r1 = b / ( c3 – c1 . c4 / c2 )
Two cameras so you can detect parallax. It's what humans do.
edit
Please see ravenspoint's answer for more detail. Also, keep in mind that a single camera with a splitter would probably suffice.
use stereo disparity maps. lots of implementations are afloat, here are some links:
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/CVonline/LOCAL_COPIES/OWENS/LECT11/node4.html
http://www.ece.ucsb.edu/~manj/ece181bS04/L14(morestereo).pdf
In you case you don't have stereo camera, but depth can be evaluated using video
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g0n11713444148l2/
I think the above will be what might help you the most.
research has progressed so far that depth can be evaluated ( though not to a satisfactory extend) from a single monocular image
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~asaxena/learningdepth/
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if you're going to simply use a single camera and simply relying on a software solution, any processing you might do would be prone to false positives. I highly doubt that there is any processing that could tell the difference between objects that really are at the perceived distance and those which only appear to be at that distance (like the "forced perspective") in movies.
Any chance you could add an ultrasonic sensor?
first, you should calibrate your camera so you can get the relation between the objects positions in the camera plan and their positions in the real world plan, if you are using a single camera you can use the "optical flow technic"
if you are using two cameras you can use the triangulation method to find the real position (it will be easy to find the distance of the objects) but the probem with the second method is the matching, which means how can you find the position of an object 'x' in camera 2 if you already know its position in camera 1, and here you can use the 'SIFT' algorithme.
i just gave you some keywords wish it could help you.
Put and object of known size in the cameras field of view. That way you can have a more objective metric to measure angular distances. Without a second viewpoint/camera you'll be limited to estimating size/distance but at least it won't be a complete guess.
Related
Is it possible to calibrate the camera using a cube with a length of 1cm on each side? It is obvious that we need to find 6 point correspondence taking into consideration that the shouldn't be on same plane and on same line. The first part can be easily handled but my problem is that how we can ensure that none of the points or on the same line?
Rather vague question. My answers:
Yes, it is possible to calibrate a pinhole model by matching the 3D location of the visible vertices of a cube in general position to their projections in one image. Four points on one face define a homography which can be decomposed using Zhang's method to recover the focal length. The extra visible points can be used to tighten the estimate.
Whether 1cm side length is adequate depends entirely on the actual lens used and the cube's distance from it. Accuracy will degrade the as the portion of the image covered by the cube is reduced.
Calibrating the nonlinear lens distortion will be almost impossible. The only information the cube provides is the orthogonality and length of the sides, i.e. few data points. Unless you take lots of images you won't have enough effective constraints.
Your cube had better be machined very accurately, if you hope for any precision.
A dodecahedron makes for a much better rig, if you really want to use a 3D one.
I realize there are many cans of worms related to what I'm asking, but I have to start somewhere. Basically, what I'm asking is:
Given two photos of a scene, taken with unknown cameras, to what extent can I determine the (relative) warping between the photos?
Below are two images of the 1904 World's Fair. They were taken at different levels on the wireless telegraph tower, so the cameras are more or less vertically in line. My goal is to create a model of the area (in Blender, if it matters) from these and other photos. I'm not looking for a fully automated solution, e.g., I have no problem with manually picking points and features.
Over the past month, I've taught myself what I can about projective transformations and epipolar geometry. For some pairs of photos, I can do pretty well by finding the fundamental matrix F from point correspondences. But the two below are causing me problems. I suspect that there's some sort of warping - maybe just an aspect ratio change, maybe more than that.
My process is as follows:
I find correspondences between the two photos (the red jagged lines seen below).
I run the point pairs through Matlab (actually Octave) to find the epipoles. Currently, I'm using Peter Kovesi's
Peter's Functions for Computer Vision.
In Blender, I set up two cameras with the images overlaid. I orient the first camera based on the vanishing points. I also determine the focal lengths from the vanishing points. I orient the second camera relative to the first using the epipoles and one of the point pairs (below, the point at the top of the bandstand).
For each point pair, I project a ray from each camera through its sample point, and mark the closest covergence of the pair (in light yellow below). I realize that this leaves out information from the fundamental matrix - see below.
As you can see, the points don't converge very well. The ones from the left spread out the further you go horizontally from the bandstand point. I'm guessing that this shows differences in the camera intrinsics. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to find the intrinsics from an F derived from point correspondences.
In the end, I don't think I care about the individual intrinsics per se. What I really need is a way to apply the intrinsics to "correct" the images so that I can use them as overlays to manually refine the model.
Is this possible? Do I need other information? Obviously, I have little hope of finding anything about the camera intrinsics. There is some obvious structural info though, such as which features are orthogonal. I saw a hint somewhere that the vanishing points can be used to further refine or upgrade the transformations, but I couldn't find anything specific.
Update 1
I may have found a solution, but I'd like someone with some knowledge of the subject to weigh in before I post it as an answer. It turns out that Peter's Functions for Computer Vision has a function for doing a RANSAC estimate of the homography from the sample points. Using m2 = H*m1, I should be able to plot the mapping of m1 -> m2 over top of the actual m2 points on the second image.
The only problem is, I'm not sure I believe what I'm seeing. Even on an image pair that lines up pretty well using the epipoles from F, the mapping from the homography looks pretty bad.
I'll try to capture an understandable image, but is there anything wrong with my reasoning?
A couple answers and suggestions (in no particular order):
A homography will only correctly map between point correspondences when either (a) the camera undergoes a pure rotation (no translation) or (b) the corresponding points are all co-planar.
The fundamental matrix only relates uncalibrated cameras. The process of recovering a camera's calibration parameters (intrinsics) from unknown scenes, known as "auto-calibration" is a rather difficult problem. You'd need these parameters (focal length, principal point) to correctly reconstruct the scene.
If you have (many) more images of this scene, you could try using a system such as Visual SFM: http://ccwu.me/vsfm/ It will attempt to automatically solve the Structure From Motion problem, including point matching, auto-calibration and sparse 3D reconstruction.
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.
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 am currently researching the use of a low resolution camera facing vertically at the ground (fixed height) to measure the speed (speed of the camera passing over the surface). Using OpenCV 2.1 with C++.
Since the entire background will be constantly moving, translating and/or rotating between consequtive frames, what would be the most suitable method in determining the displacement of the frames in a 'useable value' form? (Function that returns frame displacement?) Then based on the height of the camera and the frame area captured (dimensions of the frame in real world), I would be able to calculate the displacement in the real world based on the frame displacement, then calculating the speed for a measured time interval.
Trying to determine my method of approach or if any example code is available, converting a frame displacement (or displacement of a set of pixels) into a distance displacement based on the height of the camera.
Thanks,
Josh.
It depends on your knowledge in computer vision. For the start, I would use what opencv can offer. please have a look at the feature2d module.
What you need is to first extract feature points (e.g. sift or surf), then use its build in matching algorithms to match points extracted from two frames. Each match will give you some constraints, and you will end up solving a over-saturated Ax=B.
Of course, do your experiments offline, i.e. shooting a video first and then operate on the single images.
UPDATE:
In case of mulit-camera calibration, your goal is to determine the 3D location of each camera, which is exactly what you have. Imagine instead of moving your single camera around, you have as many cameras as the number of images in the video captured by your single camera and you want to know the 3D location of each camera location, which represent the location of each image being taken by your single moving camera.
There is a matrix where you can map any 3D point in the world to a 2D point on your image see wiki. The camera matrix consists of 2 parts, intrinsic and extrinsic parameters. I (maybe inexactly) referred intrinsic parameter as the internal matrix. The intrinsic parameters consists of static parameters for a single camera (e.g. focal length), while the extrinsic ones consists of the location and rotation of your camera.
Now, once you have the intrinsic parameters of your camera and the matched points, you can then stack a lot of those projection equations on top of each other and solve the system for both the actual 3D location of all your matched points and all the extrinsic parameters.
Given interest points as described above, you can find the translational transformation with opevcv's findHomography.
Also, if you can assume that transformations will be somewhat small and near-linear, you can just compare image pixels of two consecutive frames to find the best match. With enough downsampling, this doesn't take too long, and from my experience works rather well.
Good luck!