Pairwise comparison technique: a simple solution for depth reconstruction.

A new technique dramatically simplifies the analysis of matching and depth reconstruction by extracting three-dimensional rigid depth interpretation from pairwise comparisons of weak perspective projections. This method provides a simple linear criterion for testing the correctness of correspondence for a pair of images; the method also provides a description of a one-parameter family of interpretations for each pair of images that satisfies this criterion. We show that if at least three projections of a volumetric object are known, then a three-dimensional (3D) rigid interpretation can be inferred from pairwise comparisons between any one of these images and other images in the set. The 3D interpretation is derived from the intersection of corresponding one-parameter families. The method provides a common computational basis for different processes of depth perception, for example, depth-from-stereo and depth-from-motion. Thus, a single mechanism for these processes in the human visual system would be sufficient. The proposed method does not require information about relative positions of eye(s) or camera(s) for different projections, but this information can be easily incorporated. The method can be applied for pairwise comparison within a single image. If any nontrivial correspondence is found, then several views of the same object are present in the same image. This happens, for example, in views of volumetrically symmetric objects. Symmetry facilitates depth reconstruction; if an object possesses two or more symmetries, its depth can be reconstructed from a single image.

[1]  Thomas S. Huang,et al.  Some Experiments on Estimating the 3-D Motion Parameters of a Rigid Body from Two Consecutive Image Frames , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[2]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Minimum points and views for the recovery of three-dimensional structure. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  L. Kaufman Sight and mind : an introduction to visual perception , 1974 .

[4]  S. Ullman,et al.  The interpretation of visual motion , 1977 .

[5]  Takeo Kanade,et al.  A Paraperspective Factorization Method for Shape and Motion Recovery , 1994, ECCV.

[6]  Jan J. Koenderink,et al.  Local structure of movement parallax of the plane , 1976 .

[7]  R. M. Siegel,et al.  Perception of three-dimensional structure from motion in monkey and man , 1988, Nature.

[8]  E. Johnston Systematic distortions of shape from stereopsis , 1991, Vision Research.

[9]  H. Barlow Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information: David Marr. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982. pp. xvi + 397 , 1983 .

[10]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  An indirect measure of perceived distance from oculomotor cues , 1977 .

[11]  R. Woodham,et al.  Determining the movement of objects from a sequence of images , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[12]  S Ullman,et al.  Maximizing Rigidity: The Incremental Recovery of 3-D Structure from Rigid and Nonrigid Motion , 1984, Perception.

[13]  Thomas S. Huang,et al.  Finding point correspondences and determining motion of a rigid object from two weak perspective views , 1988, Proceedings CVPR '88: The Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[14]  Andrea J. van Doorn,et al.  Invariant Properties of the Motion Parallax Field due to the Movement of Rigid Bodies Relative to an Observer , 1975 .

[15]  Jake K. Aggarwal,et al.  Visually Interpreting the Motion of Objects in Space , 1981, Computer.

[16]  H. C. Longuet-Higgins The Role of the Vertical Dimension in Stereoscopic Vision , 1982, Perception.

[17]  N M Grzywacz,et al.  Massively parallel implementations of theories for apparent motion. , 1988, Spatial vision.

[18]  D D Hoffman,et al.  Structure from two orthographic views of rigid motion. , 1989, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[19]  H C Longuet-Higgins,et al.  The visual ambiguity of a moving plane , 1984, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[20]  Rama Chellappa,et al.  Estimating the Kinematics and Structure of a Rigid Object from a Sequence of Monocular Images , 1991, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[21]  London,et al.  The Ames Demonstrations in Perception , 1953 .

[22]  W F Clocksin,et al.  Perception of Surface Slant and Edge Labels from Optical Flow: A Computational Approach , 1980, Perception.

[23]  Richard H. Stark A Language for Algorithms , 1971, Comput. J..

[24]  Allen M. Waxman,et al.  Contour Evolution, Neighborhood Deformation, and Global Image Flow: Planar Surfaces in Motion , 1985 .

[25]  I. Biederman,et al.  Shape constancy and a perceptual bias towards symmetry , 1976 .

[26]  H. C. Longuet-Higgins,et al.  A computer algorithm for reconstructing a scene from two projections , 1981, Nature.

[27]  J T Todd,et al.  The perception of three-dimensional structure from rigid and nonrigid motion , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.