1 / 16

Visualization of Scene Structure Uncertainty in a Multi-View Reconstruction Pipeline

Visualization of Scene Structure Uncertainty in a Multi-View Reconstruction Pipeline. Shawn Recker 1 , Mauricio Hess-Flores 1 , Mark A. Duchaineau 2 , and Kenneth I. Joy 1. 1 University of California, Davis, USA, { strecker , mhessf , joy}@ucdavis.edu

spencer
Download Presentation

Visualization of Scene Structure Uncertainty in a Multi-View Reconstruction Pipeline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Visualization of Scene Structure Uncertainty in a Multi-View Reconstruction Pipeline Shawn Recker1, Mauricio Hess-Flores1, Mark A. Duchaineau2, and Kenneth I. Joy1 1University of California, Davis, USA, {strecker, mhessf, joy}@ucdavis.edu 2 Lawrence Livermore National Labs. duchaineau@cognigraph.com Vision, Modeling, and Visualization (VMV) Workshop 2012 Magdeburg, Germany 12 -14 November 2012

  2. Multi-View Reconstruction Bundle Adjustment ‘dinosaur’ dataset images from [1].

  3. Structural Uncertainty Visualization

  4. Volume Visualization Techniques 5 6 4 Volume Rendering 5 3 4 2 3 4 4 5 3 4 2 3 1 2 3 3 4 2 Contouring 3 1 2 1 2 0

  5. Procedure …

  6. Evaluated Test Cases • Frame decimation simulation • Feature matching inaccuracy • Self calibration tests

  7. Frame Decimation Graphs

  8. Frame Decimation Results 10 cameras 15 cameras 30 cameras 8 cameras 4 cameras 2 cameras

  9. Feature Tracking Graphs

  10. Feature Tracking Inaccuracy Results 1% Error 0% Error 2% Error 5% Error 10% Error 20% Error

  11. Self-Calibration Graphs

  12. Self-Calibration Results Principal Point Variation 0% 1% 20% 2% 5% 10% Focal Length Decrease

  13. Conclusions and Future Work • Presentation of a structural uncertainty visualization tool • Continued visualization of computer vision • Investigation of our cost function • Scene structure computation • Camera pose estimation

  14. Acknowledgements • This work was supported in part by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the National Nuclear Security Agency through Contract No. DE-FG52-09NA29355

  15. References [1] Oxford Visual Geometry Group, “Multi-view and Oxford Colleges building reconstruction,” August 2009. [2] V. Rodehorst, M. Heinrichs, and O. Hellwich, “Evaluation of relative pose estimation methods for multi-camera setups,” in International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS ’08), (Beijing, China), pp. 135–140, 2008. [3] D. Knoblauch, M. Hess-Flores, M. A. Duchaineau, and F. Kuester, “Factorization of correspondence and camera error for unconstrained dense correspondence applications,” in 5th International Symposium on Visual Computing, pp. 720–729, 2009. [4] T. Torsney-Weir, A. Saad, T. M´’oller, H.-C. Hege, B. Weber, and J.-M. Verbavatz, “Tuner: Principledparameterfindingforimagesegmentationalgorithmsusing visual response surfaceexploration,” IEEE Trans. OnVisualizationand ComputerGraphics, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1892–1901, 2011. [5] A. Saad, T. M´’oller, and G. Hamarneh, “Probexplorer: Uncertaintyguidedexplorationand editing of probabilistic medical imagesegmentation,” Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1113–1122, 2010.

  16. Reprojection Error versus Angular Error ReprojectionError Scalar Field Average Scalar Field

More Related