Semi-autonomous 3D tracking
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18537/mskn.03.01.06Keywords:
tracking, epipolar, wide baseline matching, triangulation, camera calibrationAbstract
A 3D tracking system that works with a minimum of two cameras has been implemented. The proposed system consists of two main processes: a calibration process followed by a 3D tracking one. The calibration process is done only when the system is installed; but, should be repeated if camera parameters, either internal or external, are changed. Internal calibration was conducted based on the cameras’ final locations; therefore, internal parameters include operating conditions. The adopted Wide Baseline Matching (WBM) scheme provides feature descriptors with high distinctiveness. Matching is achieved by using a voting algorithm based on a similarity transform and the robust Random Sample Consensus (RANSAC) statistical method that enforces the epipolar constraints. The implemented WBM procedure provides feature correspondences between the image planes of the two cameras used for the external calibration. The 3D tracking process corresponds to the normal operation of the system after the calibration process. The proposed 3D tracking scheme which combines 2D tracking data from each camera is based on a triangulation method and the determined internal and external camera calibration parameters.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Agapito, L., E. Hayman, L. Reid, 2001. Self-Calibration of Rotating and Zooming Cameras. Int. J. Comput. Vision, 45(2), 1-23.
Baumberg, A., 2000. Reliable feature matching across widely separated views. Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p. 774-781.
Bouguet, J.Y. (n.d.). Camera calibration toolbox for Matlab. Retrieved the 15th of October 2004 from http://www.vision.caltech.edu/bouguetj/calib_doc/.
Canny, J., 1986. A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, p. 679-698.
Collins, R., A. Lipton, T. Kanade, H. Fujiyoshi, D. Duggins, T. Tsin, D. Tolliver, N. Enomoto, O. Hasegawa, P. Burt, L. Wixson, 2000. A System for Video Surveillance and Monitoring: VSAM. Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Final Report, 69 pp.
Cottier, J.C., 1994. Extraction et appariements robustes des points d’intérèt de deux images non étalonnées. Internal Report, LIFIA-IMAG-INRIA, Rhône-Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Crowley, J., R. Stern, 1982. Fast computation of the difference of low-pass transform. Robotics Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 42 pp.
Dufournaud, Y., D. Schmid, R. Horaud, 2000. Matching images with different resolutions. Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p. 612-618.
Elgammal, A., R. Duraiswami, D. Harwood, L.S. Davis, 2002. Background and foreground modeling using nonparametric kernel density estimation for visual surveillance. Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p. 1151-1163.
Faugeras, O., Q. Loung, S. Maybank, 1992. Camera self-calibration: Theory and experiments. Proc. 2nd European Conf. on Computer Vision, pp. 321-334.
Fischler, A., R. Bolles, 1981. Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Commun. ACM, 381-395.
Freeman, W., E. Adelson, 1991. The design and use of steerable filters. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, p. 891-906.
Harris, C., M. Stephens, 1988. A combined corner detector. 4th Alvey Vision Conf., p. 147-151.
Hartley, R., 1994. Self-calibration from multiple views with a rotating camera. Proc. 3rd European Conf. on Computer Vision, p. 471-478.
Hartley, R., 1997. In defense of the eight-point algorithm. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, p. 580-593.
Hartley, R., P. Sturm, 1995. Triangulation. 6th Int. Conf. on Computer Analysis of Images and Patterns, p. 190-197.
Hartley, R., A. Zisserman, 2003. Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 655 pp.
Hartley, R., R. Gupta, T. Chang, 1992. Stereo from uncalibrated images. Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p. 761-764.
Heitger, F., L. Rosenthaler, R. Von Der Heydt, E. Peterhans, O. Kuebler, 1992. imulation of neural contour mechanism: From simple to end-stopped cells. Vision Res., 963-981.
Horaud, R., T. Skordas, F. Veillon, 1990. Finding geometric and relational structures in an image. Proc. 1st European Conf. on Computer Vision, p. 374-384.
Jiangjian, X., M. Shah, 2003. Two frame wide baseline matching. 9th IEEE Int. Conf. on Computer Vision, p. 603-609.
Ke, Y., R. Sukthankar, 2004. PCA-SIFT: a more distinctive representation for local image descriptors. Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p. 506-513.
Kim, H., K.S. Hong, 2000. A practical self-calibration method of rotating and zooming cameras. 15th Internat. Conf. on Pattern Recognition, p. 354-357.
Koenderink, J., A. Van Doorn, 1987. Representation of local geometry in the visual system. Biol. Cybern., 367-375.
Lee, L., R. Romano, G. Stein, 2000. Monitoring activities from multiple video streams: Establishing a common coordinate Frame. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, p. 758-767.
Lindeberg, T., 1993. Scale-Space Theory in Computer Vision. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 423 pp.
Liu, J.S., R. Chen, 1998. Sequential monte carlo methods for dynamic systems. J. Am. Statistic Assoc., 1032-1044.
Lo, B., S. Velastin, 2001. Automatic congestion detection system for underground platforms. Intern. Symp. on Intelligent Multimedia, Video and Speech Processing, p. 158-161.
Lowe, D., 1990. Object recognition from local scale-invariant features. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computer Vision, p. 1150.
Lowe, D., 2001. Local feature view clustering for 3D object recognition. Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p. 682-688.
Lowe, D., 2004. Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int. J. Comput. Vision, 91-110.
Ma, Y., S. Soatto, J. Kosecka, S. Shankar, 2004. An invitation to 3-D vision from images to geometric models. Springer-Verlag, NY, USA, 526 pp.
Mikolajczyk, K., S. Schmid, 2003. A performance evaluation of local descriptors. Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p. 257-263.
Mikolajczyk, K., S. Schmid, 2004. Scale & affine invariant interest point detectors. Int. J. Comput. Vision, 63-86.
Mikolajczyk, K., S. Schmid, 2011. Indexing based on scale invariant interest point detector. Proc. 8th IEEE Int. Conf. on Computer Vision, p. 525-531.
Pritchett, P., A. Zisserman, 1998. Wide baseline stereo matching. Int. Conf. on Computer Vision, p. 754-760.
Qian, G., R. Chellappa, 2004. Structure from motion using sequential Monte Carlo methods. Int. J. Comput. Vision, 5-31.
Schaffalitzky, F., A. Zisserman, 2002. Multi-view matching for unordered image sets. Proc. European Conf. on Computer Vision, p. 414-431.
Schmid, C., R. Mohr, C. Bauckhage, 2002. Evaluation of interest point detectors. Int. J. Comput. Vision, 37(2), 151-172.
Stauffer, C., W. Grimson, 1999. Adaptive background mixture of models for real-time tracking. Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p. 246-252.
Van Gool, L., T. Moons, D. Ungureanu, 1996. Affine / photometric invariants for planar intensity patterns. Proc. European Conf. on Computer Vision, p. 642-651.
Wren, C., A. Azarbayejani, T. Darrell, P. Pentland, 1997. Pfinder: Real-time tracking of the human body. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 6 pp.
Zitova, B., J. Flusser, 2003. Image registration methods: a survey. Image Vision Comput., 977-1000.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright © Autors. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. for any article submitted from 6 June 2017 onwards. For manuscripts submitted before, the CC BY 3.0 License was used.
You are free to:
 |
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format |
 |
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. |
Under the following conditions:
 |
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licenser endorses you or your use. |
| No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the licence permits. |
