Abstract
Given that errors in the estimates for the intrinsic and extrinsic camera parameters are inevitable, it is important to understand the behaviour of the resultant distortion in depth recovered under different motion-scene configurations. The main interest in this study is to look for generic motion type that can render depth recovery more robust and reliable. To this end, lateral and forward motions are compared both under calibrated and uncalibrated scenarios. For lateral motion, we found that although Euclidean reconstruction is difficult, ordinal depth information is obtainable; while for forward motion, depth information (even partial one) is difficult to recover. In the uncalibrated case, with fixed intrinsic parameters, the preceding statements still hold. However, if intrinsic parameter variations are allowed, then for lateral motion, depth relief can only be preserved locally. In general, lateral motion yields a distortion relationship that belongs to the projective transformation of a very simple type, while the distortion transformations for general motions including forward motion belong to the Cremona transformation. As an aside, we also provide an analysis of the distortion in the depth recovered using the least square procedure as compared to the epipolar reconstruction approach.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adiv, G. 1989. Inherent ambiguities in recovering 3-D motion and structure from a noisy flow field. IEEE Trans. PAMI, 11:477-489.
Bougnoux, S. 1998. From projective to Euclidean space under any practical situation, a criticism of self-calibration. In Proc. Sixth Int. Conf. on Computer Vision, pp. 790-796.
Chaumette, F., Boukir, S., Bouthemy, P., and Juvin, D. 1994. Optimal estimation of 3D structures using visual servoing. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 347-354.
Cheong, L.-F., FermÜller, C., and Aloimonos, Y. 1998. Effects of errors in the viewing geometry on shape estimation. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 71(3):356-372.
Cheong, L.-F. and Ng, K. 1999. Geometry of distorted visual space and Cremona transformation. International Journal of Computer Vision, 32(2):195-212.
Cheong, L.-F. and Peh, C.H. 2000. Characterizing depth distortion due to calibration uncertainty. Accepted by Sixth European Conf. on Computer Vision, Dublin, Ireland.
Coombs, D. and Roberts, K. 1993. Centering behaviour using peripheral vision. In Proc. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 440-445.
Daniilidis, K. and Spetsakis, M.E. 1995. Understanding noise sensitivity in structure from motion. In Visual Navigation: From Biological Systems to Unmanned Ground Vehicles, Y. Aloimonos (Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Pub.: New Jersey.
Darrell, T. and Pentland, A. 1991. Robust estimation of a multilayered motion representation. In Proc. IEEE Workshop on Visual Motion, pp. 173-178.
Dutta, R. and Snyder, M.A. 1990. Robustness of correspondencebased structure from motion. In Proc. Int'l Conf. on Computer Vision, pp. 106-110.
FermÜller, C. 1995. Passive navigation as a pattern recognition problem. Int'l Journal of Computer Vision, 14:147-158.
Grossmann, E. and Victor, J.S. 2000. Uncertainty analysis of 3D reconstruction from uncalibrated views. Image Vision Computing, 18(9):686-696.
Horn, B.K.P. 1987. Motion fields are hardly ever ambiguous. Int'l Journal of Computer Vision, 1:259-274.
Kahl, F. 1995. Critical motions and ambiguous Euclidean reconstructions in auto-calibration. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Computer Vision, pp. 469-475.
Koenderink, J.J. and van Doorn, A.J. 1995. Relief: Pictorial and otherwise. Image and Vision Computing, 13(5):321-334.
Longuet-Higgins, H.C. 1981. A computer algorithm for reconstruction of a scene from two projections. Nature, 293:133-135.
Lucas, B.D. 1984. Generalized image matching by the method of differences. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University. Negahdaripour, S. Critical surface pairs and triplets. Int'l Journal of Computer Vision, 3:293-312.
Oliensis, J. 1999. A new structure-from-motion ambiguity. In Proc. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 185-191.
Oliensis, J. 2000. A critique of structure-from-motion algorithms. NECI Technical Report, April 1997. Updated February 2000.http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/oliensis/Critique.html.
Santos-Victor, J., Sandini, G., Curotto, F., and Caribaldi, S. 1993. Divergent stereo for robot navigation: Learning from bees. In Proc. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, New York, pp. 434-439.
Soatto, S. and Brockett, R. 1998. Optimal structure from motion: Local ambiguities and global estimates. In Proc. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 282-288.
Sturm, P. 1997. Critical motion sequences for monocular selfcalibration and uncalibrated Euclidean reconstruction. In Proc. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1100-1105.
Szeliski, R. and Kang, S.B. 1997. Shape ambiguities in structure from motion. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 19(5):506-512.
Thomas, J.I., Hanson, A., and Oliensis, J. 1993. Understanding noise: The critical role of motion error in scene reconstruction. In Proc. DARPA Image Understanding Workshop, pp. 691-695.
Todd, J.T. and Reichel, F.D. 1989. Ordinal structure in the visual perception and cognition of smoothly curved surfaces. Psychological Review, 96(4):643-657.
Ullman, S. 1979. The Interpretation of Visual Motion. MIT Press: Cambridge and London.
Weng, J., Huang, T.S., and Ahuja, N. 1991. Motion and Structure from Image Sequences. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.
Young, G.S. and Chellapa, R. 1992. Statistical analysis of inherent ambiguities in recovering 3-D motion from a noisy flow field. IEEE Trans. PAMI, 14:995-1013.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cheong, LF., Xiang, T. Characterizing Depth Distortion under Different Generic Motions. International Journal of Computer Vision 44, 199–217 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012224215211
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012224215211