A Comparative Analysis of Depth-Discontinuity and Mixed-Pixel Detection Algorithms

Laser scanner measurements are corrupted by noise and artifacts that can undermine the performance of registration, segmentation, surface reconstruction, recognition, and other algorithms operating on the data. While much research has addressed laser scanner noise models, comparatively little is known about other artifacts, such as the mixed pixel effect, color-dependent range biases, and specular reflection effects. This paper focuses on the mixed pixel effect and the related challenge of detecting depth discontinuities in 3D data. While a number of algorithms have been proposed for detecting mixed pixels and depth discontinuities, there is no consensus on how well such algorithms perform or which algorithm performs best. This paper presents a comparative analysis of five mixed-pixel/discontinuity detection algorithms on real data sets. We find that an algorithm based on the surface normal angle has the best overall performance, but that no algorithm performs exceptionally well. Factors influencing algorithm performance are also discussed.

[1]  Martial Hebert,et al.  3-D measurements from imaging laser radars: how good are they? , 1991, Proceedings IROS '91:IEEE/RSJ International Workshop on Intelligent Robots and Systems '91.

[2]  Penny Probert Smith,et al.  The Interpretation of Phase and Intensity Data from AMCW Light Detection Sensors for Reliable Ranging , 1996, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[3]  Burcu Akinci,et al.  Combining Reality Capture Technologies for Construction Defect Detection: A Case Study , 2003 .

[4]  Michel Devy,et al.  Fast range image segmentation by an edge detection strategy , 2001, Proceedings Third International Conference on 3-D Digital Imaging and Modeling.

[5]  Martial Hebert,et al.  Fully automatic registration of multiple 3D data sets , 2003, Image Vis. Comput..

[6]  Andrew W. Fitzgibbon,et al.  An Experimental Comparison of Range Image Segmentation Algorithms , 1996, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[7]  H. Sternberg Th. Kersten FIRST EXPERIENCES WITH TERRESTRIAL LASER SCANNING FOR INDOOR CULTURAL HERITAGE APPLICATIONS USING TWO DIFFERENT SCANNING SYSTEMS , 2005 .

[8]  Cang Ye,et al.  Characterization of a 2D laser scanner for mobile robot obstacle negotiation , 2002, Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.02CH37292).

[9]  Bingbing Liu,et al.  Range error detection caused by occlusion in non-coaxial LADARs for scene interpretation , 2005 .

[10]  Martial Hebert,et al.  Analysis and Removal of Artifacts in 3-D LADAR Data , 2005, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[11]  Wolfgang Boehler,et al.  Investigating Laser Scanner Accuracy , 2005 .

[12]  Alan M. Lytle,et al.  ASTM E57 3D imaging systems committee: an update on the standards development effort , 2007, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[13]  Peter K. Allen,et al.  3-D Modeling from Range Imagery: An Incremental Method with a Planning Component , 1999, Image Vis. Comput..