| Literature DB >> 35890793 |
Qiang Wang1,2, Liuyang Jiang1,3, Xuebin Sun4, Jingbo Zhao1, Zhaopeng Deng1, Shizhong Yang1.
Abstract
In this article, we present an efficient coding scheme for LiDAR point cloud maps. As a point cloud map consists of numerous single scans spliced together, by recording the time stamp and quaternion matrix of each scan during map building, we cast the point cloud map compression into the point cloud sequence compression problem. The coding architecture includes two techniques: intra-coding and inter-coding. For intra-frames, a segmentation-based intra-prediction technique is developed. For inter-frames, an interpolation-based inter-frame coding network is explored to remove temporal redundancy by generating virtual point clouds based on the decoded frames. We only need to code the difference between the original LiDAR data and the intra/inter-predicted point cloud data. The point cloud map can be reconstructed according to the decoded point cloud sequence and quaternion matrices. Experiments on the KITTI dataset show that the proposed coding scheme can largely eliminate the temporal and spatial redundancies. The point cloud map can be encoded to 1/24 of its original size with 2 mm-level precision. Our algorithm also obtains better coding performance compared with the octree and Google Draco algorithms.Entities:
Keywords: LiDAR; coding; interpolation; point cloud map; segmentation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35890793 PMCID: PMC9323153 DOI: 10.3390/s22145108
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1System architecture of our LiDAR point cloud map encoder.
Figure 2Intra-prediction technique based on segmentation.
Figure 3Inter-frame point cloud inserting network.
Figure 4Qualitative results: (a) campus; (b) city; (c) road; (d) residential (Best viewed by zooming in).
Figure 5CR of different lossless coding schemes: (a) campus; (b) city; (c) road; (d) residential.
Comparison ratio results with the Draco and Octree methods.
| Inter-Inserting Method | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Campus | 3.09 | 2.49 | 2.01 | 21.27 | 8.05 | 5.75 | 11.87 | 7.75 | 5.47 |
| City | 3.90 | 3.38 | 2.83 | 23.98 | 10.76 | 8.40 | 12.52 | 8.38 | 6.49 |
| Road | 3.16 | 0.26 | 2.12 | 23.56 | 10.35 | 7.99 | 12.31 | 8.35 | 6.59 |
| Residential | 4.29 | 3.68 | 3.16 | 22.94 | 9.72 | 7.37 | 12.66 | 8.59 | 6.33 |
| Average | 3.61 | 3.03 | 2.53 | 20.23 | 9.72 | 7.29 | 12.34 | 8.27 | 6.22 |
Figure 6- curves of our method in compared to Google Draco [28], MPEG TMC13 [20] and Tu’s method [26]: (a) campus, (b) city, (c) road, and (d) residential.