- •CONTENTS
- •PREFACE
- •Abstract
- •1. Introduction
- •2.1. Differential Geometry of Space Curves
- •2.2. Inverse Problem Formulation
- •2.3. Reconstruction of Unique Space Curves
- •3. Rigid Motion Estimation by Tracking the Space Curves
- •4. Motion Estimation Using Double Stereo Rigs
- •4.1. Single Stereo Rig
- •4.2. Double Stereo Rigs
- •5.1. Space-Time or Virtual Camera Generation
- •5.2. Visual Hull Reconstruction from Silhouettes of Multiple Views
- •5.2.1. Volume Based Visual Hull
- •5.2.1.1. Intersection Test in Octree Cubes
- •5.2.1.2. Synthetic Model Results
- •5.2.2. Edge Base Visual Hull
- •5.2.2.1. Synthetic Model Results
- •Implementation and Exprimental Results
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgment
- •References
- •Abstract
- •Introduction: Ocular Dominance
- •Demography of Ocular Dominance
- •A Taxonomy of Ocular Dominance
- •Is Ocular Dominance Test Specific?
- •I. Tests of Rivalry
- •II. Tests of Asymmetry
- •III. Sighting Tests
- •Some Misconceptions
- •Resolving the Paradox of Ocular Dominance
- •Some Clinical Implications of Ocular Dominance
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Abstract
- •1. Introduction
- •2. Basic Teory
- •3. Bezier Networks for Surface Contouring
- •4. Parameter of the Vision System
- •5. Experimental Results
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Terminology (Definitions)
- •Clinical Assessment
- •Examination Techniques: Motility
- •Ocular Motility Recordings
- •Semiautomatic Analysis of Eye Movement Recordings
- •Slow Eye Movements in Congenital Nystagmus
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •EVOLUTION OF COMPUTER VISION SYSTEMS
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Present-Day Level of CVS Development
- •Full-Scale Universal CVS
- •Integration of CVS and AI Control System
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •1. Advantages of Binocular Vision
- •2. Foundations of Binocular Vision
- •3. Stereopsis as the Highest Level of Binocular Vision
- •4. Binocular Viewing Conditions on Pupil Near Responses
- •5. Development of Binocular Vision
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Methods
- •Results
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Abstract
- •1. Preferential Processing of Emotional Stimuli
- •1.1. Two Pathways for the Processing of Emotional Stimuli
- •1.2. Intensive Processing of Negative Valence or of Arousal?
- •2. "Blind" in One Eye: Binocular Rivalry
- •2.1. What Helmholtz Knew Already
- •2.3. Possible Influences from Non-visual Neuronal Circuits
- •3.1. Significance and Predominance
- •3.2. Emotional Discrepancy and Binocular Rivalry
- •4. Binocular Rivalry Experiments at Our Lab
- •4.1. Predominance of Emotional Scenes
- •4.1.1. Possible Confounds
- •4.2. Dominance of Emotional Facial Expressions
- •4.3. Inter-Individual Differences: Phobic Stimuli
- •4.4. Controlling for Physical Properties of Stimuli
- •4.5. Validation of Self-report
- •4.6. Summary
- •References
- •Abstract
- •1. Introduction
- •2. Algorithm Overview
- •3. Road Surface Estimation
- •3.1. 3D Data Point Projection and Cell Selection
- •3.2. Road Plane Fitting
- •3.2.1. Dominant 2D Straight Line Parametrisation
- •3.2.2. Road Plane Parametrisation
- •4. Road Scanning
- •5. Candidate Filtering
- •6. Experimental Results
- •7. Conclusions
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •DEVELOPMENT OF SACCADE CONTROL
- •Abstract
- •1. Introduction
- •2. Fixation and Fixation Stability
- •2.1. Monocular Instability
- •2.2. Binocular Instability
- •2.3. Eye Dominance in Binocular Instability
- •3. Development of Saccade Control
- •3.1. The Optomotor Cycle and the Components of Saccade Control
- •3.4. Antisaccades: Voluntary Saccade Control
- •3.5. The Age Curves of Saccade Control
- •3.6. Left – Right Asymmetries
- •3.7. Correlations and Independence
- •References
- •OCULAR DOMINANCE
- •INDEX
New Trends in Surface Reconstruction Using Space-Time Cameras |
19 |
|
|
curve on surface of the object, and range of depth-variation across the curves, the representative curve length may be varied.
3. Rigid Motion Estimation by Tracking the Space Curves
The movement of a rigid object in space, can be expressed as the six rotation and translation parameters. Now, suppose that we have extracted a set of points on the surface of an object and the goal is to estimate 3D motion of the object across time. To estimate the motion parameters, an error function, which describes the difference of points before and after motion, should be minimized. To get rid of photometric information, we define the error function as a distance of unique points from the nearby curves after movement. To explain the problem mathematically, suppose that Wi is the ith unique point, Nu is the total number of
unique points, Pk (R Wi + T) is projection of Wi in camera plane k after movement, and contourk(m) is the curve number m in camera plane k. To estimate
the motion matrix, i.e. R and T, the error component for each unique point in each projected camera image is defined as the minimum distance of that point from nearby curves in that camera. The total error is also calculated by summing error components over all unique points and all cameras.
eik = minm |
{distance (Pk (R Wi |
+ T),contourk(m ) )} |
(22) |
|
|
|
e = ∑iNu=1 ∑Kk =1eik ; R,T = arg min{e}
Where K is the total number of cameras (K=2, for single stereo rig). To find the minimum distance of each point from nearby curve in the camera image, we use a circle based search area with increasing radius (figure 7). Therefore, the minimum distance is determined as the radius of the first osculating circle with
adjacent curves. R and T are parameterized as |
|
|
where |
Θ = ϕx ,ϕy |
,ϕz ,tx ,ty ,tz |
||
ϕx ,ϕy ,ϕz are the Euler angles of rotation |
and tx ,ty ,tz |
are the x, y, z |
|
components of translation vector. The total error function defined in Eq.22 can be minimized by an iterative method similar to the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm [8]:
20 |
Hossein Ebrahimnezhad and Hassan Ghassemian |
|
|
Figure 7. To find the minimum distance of point from the adjacent curves in the camera image, a circle based search window, with increasing radius, is considered. The minimum distance is determined as the radius of the first touching circle with adjacent curves.
1. With an initial estimate Θˆ , calculate the Hessian matrix H and the difference vector d as:
|
|
|
∂eik |
|
|
|
|
∂φx |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
∂e k |
|
|
|
|
|
i |
|
|
|
∂φy |
|
|
|
|
∂eik |
|
|
|
|
||
H |
|
|
∂φ |
|
|
= |
|
z |
|
|
ik |
|
∂e k |
|
|
|
|
|
i |
|
|
|
∂tx |
|
|
|
|
∂eik |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
∂t |
y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∂eik |
|
|
|
|
∂tz |
|
|
|
|
||
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|||||||||
i |
|
|
i |
i |
|
|
i |
i |
|
i |
|
i |
|
i |
|
i |
||||||||
|
∂φx |
|
∂φx |
|
∂φy |
|
∂φx |
|
∂φz |
∂φx |
|
∂t x |
∂φx |
|
∂t y |
|||||||||
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|||||||||
i |
|
|
i |
i |
|
|
i |
i |
|
i |
|
i |
|
i |
|
i |
||||||||
|
∂φx |
|
∂φy |
|
∂φy |
|
∂φy |
|
∂φz |
∂φy |
|
∂t x |
∂φy |
|
∂t y |
|||||||||
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|||||||||
i |
|
|
i |
i |
|
|
i |
i |
|
i |
|
i |
|
i |
|
i |
||||||||
∂φ |
x |
|
∂φ |
∂φ |
y |
|
∂φ |
z |
∂φ |
z |
∂φ |
z |
∂t |
x |
∂φ |
z |
∂t |
y |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
z |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|||||||||
i |
|
|
i |
i |
|
|
i |
i |
|
i |
|
i |
|
i |
|
i |
||||||||
∂φx |
|
∂tx |
∂φy |
|
∂tx |
∂φz |
∂tx |
∂tx |
∂tx |
∂t y |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|||||||||
i |
|
|
i |
i |
|
|
i |
i |
|
i |
|
i |
|
i |
|
i |
||||||||
∂φ |
x |
|
∂t |
y |
∂φ |
y |
|
∂t |
y |
∂φ ∂t |
y |
∂t |
x |
∂t |
y |
∂t |
y |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
z |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
|||||||||
i |
|
∂t |
i |
i |
|
∂t |
i |
i |
∂t |
i |
∂t |
i |
∂t |
i |
∂t |
i |
||||||||
|
∂φ |
x |
|
z |
|
∂φ |
y |
|
z |
|
∂φ |
z |
z |
|
x |
z |
|
y |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
∂eik ∂φx
∂eik ∂φy
∂eik
∂φz
∂eik
∂tx
∂eik ∂t y
∂eik ∂tz
|
|
k |
|
∂ei |
|
||
|
∂t z |
|
|
|
∂e k |
|
|
|
|
i |
|
∂t z |
|
||
|
∂eik |
|
|
|
|
||
∂t |
z |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∂e k |
|
|
|
i |
|
|
|
∂tz |
|
|
|
∂eik |
|
|
|
|
||
∂t |
z |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
k |
|
∂ei |
|
||
|
∂tz |
|
|
New Trends in Surface Reconstruction Using Space-Time Cameras |
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H =∑iNu=1∑kK=1Hik |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
d |
|
|
∂e k |
,e k |
|
∂e k |
|
∂e k |
,e k |
∂e k |
|
|
∂e k |
,e k |
∂e k t |
||||
|
= e k |
i |
|
i |
,e k |
i |
i |
,e k |
i |
i |
|
||||||||
|
ik |
i |
∂φx |
i |
|
∂φy |
|
i |
∂φz |
i |
∂tx |
|
i |
|
∂t y |
i |
∂tz |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
d = −2 ∑iNu=1∑kK=1dik |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
2. Update the parameter |
ˆ |
|
|
|
|
|
Θ : |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Θ by an amount |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
ˆ |
(n +1) |
|
|
ˆ |
(n ) |
|
|
ˆ (n ) |
|
1 |
|
−1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Θ |
= |
Θ |
|
+ |
Θ = Θ |
+ |
|
H |
|
d |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
λ |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Where λ is a time-varying stabilization parameter.
(23)
(24)
(25)
3. Go back to step1 until the estimate of Θˆ converges.
Unless the object has periodic edge curves, the error function in Eq.22 usually has one minimum and convergence of the algorithm will be guaranteed. Outlier points have destructive effect on convergence of the algorithm. Naturally, projection of the outlier point in the camera planes will not be close to the tracking curves. As a result, minimization of the error function cannot be accomplished accurately. To explain the problem mathematically, consider the unique points in two groups, i.e. inliers and outliers. The error function can be rearranged as:
|
e =∑iN=inlier1 ei +∑Nj =outlier1 e j |
where : |
N inlier +N outlier =N u |
(26) |
|||
In the |
provision that Noutlier is |
very |
small |
than Ninlier, |
the |
error |
component |
∑Nj=outlier1 |
ej has negligible effect |
compared to ∑iN=1inlier ei |
and |
estimation of the |
|||
motion will go in the true way. However, the unique points will not join to the tracking curves during convergence. To make the algorithm more efficient, the minimum distance of each unique point from nearby curve is checked after adequate number of iterations. The points that their distance is very greater than the average distance (i.e. ei >>e
N u ), are distinguished as outliers. Such points
are excluded in calculation of the error function and hence the closer unique
