| Literature DB >> 28346366 |
Lei Tan1, Yaonan Wang2,3, Hongshan Yu4, Jiang Zhu5.
Abstract
Camera calibration plays a critical role in 3D computer vision tasks. The most commonly used calibration method utilizes a planar checkerboard and can be done nearly fully automatically. However, it requires the user to move either the camera or the checkerboard during the capture step. This manual operation is time consuming and makes the calibration results unstable. In order to solve the above problems caused by manual operation, this paper presents a full-automatic camera calibration method using a virtual pattern instead of a physical one. The virtual pattern is actively transformed and displayed on a screen so that the control points of the pattern can be uniformly observed in the camera view. The proposed method estimates the camera parameters from point correspondences between 2D image points and the virtual pattern. The camera and the screen are fixed during the whole process; therefore, the proposed method does not require any manual operations. Performance of the proposed method is evaluated through experiments on both synthetic and real data. Experimental results show that the proposed method can achieve stable results and its accuracy is comparable to the standard method by Zhang.Entities:
Keywords: 2D pattern; active display; camera calibration; closed-form solution; lens distortion; maximum likelihood estimation
Year: 2017 PMID: 28346366 PMCID: PMC5419798 DOI: 10.3390/s17040685
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Distribution of Detected Points. (a) Detected points are distributed uniformly across the image; (b) Detected points are mainly located at the center part of the image.
Figure 2Overview of the conventional method and the proposed method. (a) The conventional method; (b) The proposed method.
Figure 3Errors regarding the noise level of the image points. (a) Relative error for focal length; (b) Absolute error for principal point.
Figure 4Errors regarding the number of the calibration pattern. (a) Relative error for focal length; (b) Absolute error for principal point.
Figure 5Setup of the real experiment.
Figure 6Two calibration images captured in real experiment. (a) Image of a virtual checkerboard shown on screen; (b) Image of a physical checkerboard.
Calibration result for real images using the proposed method.
| RMSE | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1050.2120 | 1045.9939 | 957.1198 | 519.4579 | 0.0448 | −0.0468 | 0.1502 | |
| 1052.1709 | 1047.9542 | 957.1122 | 519.7247 | 0.0456 | −0.0494 | 0.2021 | |
| 1048.5039 | 1044.3648 | 956.7213 | 519.2291 | 0.0442 | −0.0462 | 0.2061 | |
| 1051.0054 | 1046.8187 | 956.8339 | 519.2194 | 0.0455 | −0.0486 | 0.1756 | |
| 1050.8918 | 1046.7329 | 956.8582 | 519.4178 | 0.0460 | −0.0498 | 0.1944 | |
| 1051.2977 | 1047.1457 | 956.8358 | 519.4241 | 0.0454 | −0.0481 | ||
| 1050.4691 | 1046.3180 | 956.5077 | 519.6354 | 0.0446 | −0.0467 | 0.1699 | |
| 1052.8643 | 1048.7560 | 956.4323 | 519.5267 | 0.0452 | −0.0473 | 0.2077 | |
| 1051.0076 | 1046.8497 | 956.9606 | 519.6325 | 0.0461 | −0.0489 | 0.1952 | |
| 1049.4690 | 1045.3789 | 956.4628 | 519.2602 | 0.0460 | −0.0494 | 0.2076 | |
| 1050.7892 | 1046.6313 | 956.7845 | 519.4528 | 0.0453 | −0.0481 | 0.1855 | |
| 1.2463 | 1.2397 | 0.2515 | 0.1791 | 0.0006 | 0.0013 | 0.0236 |
Calibration result for real images using the conventional method.
| RMSE | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1048.0347 | 1044.0247 | 956.8945 | 519.3556 | 0.0438 | −0.0464 | 0.2595 | |
| 1047.9891 | 1043.7756 | 956.6410 | 519.7846 | 0.0458 | −0.0485 | 0.2153 | |
| 1051.6414 | 1047.3967 | 957.3807 | 519.6939 | 0.0458 | −0.0486 | 0.2029 | |
| 1052.1863 | 1048.0365 | 957.2387 | 519.3653 | 0.0454 | −0.0470 | 0.2948 | |
| 1050.3806 | 1046.1871 | 956.9527 | 519.0593 | 0.0446 | −0.0452 | 0.2469 | |
| 1049.6929 | 1045.5486 | 956.8276 | 519.5737 | 0.0451 | −0.0475 | 0.2210 | |
| 1048.9989 | 1044.8639 | 956.8082 | 519.3750 | 0.0449 | −0.0465 | ||
| 1050.1785 | 1046.0461 | 956.7260 | 519.5743 | 0.0439 | −0.0457 | 0.2672 | |
| 1050.3922 | 1046.2240 | 956.5963 | 519.5850 | 0.0437 | −0.0445 | 0.1787 | |
| 1051.6436 | 1047.4263 | 956.8238 | 519.8481 | 0.0450 | −0.0459 | 0.2757 | |
| 1050.1138 | 1045.9530 | 956.8889 | 519.5215 | 0.0448 | −0.0466 | 0.2337 | |
| 1.4674 | 1.4353 | 0.2487 | 0.2362 | 0.0008 | 0.0014 | 0.0414 |
Figure 7Scatter plots for the RMSE between the detected corner points and the re-projected ones with the estimated calibration parameters. (a) Localization errors by the proposed method; (b) Localization errors by the conventional method.
Figure 8A blurry image captured in real experiment.