Gauge invariance in projective 3D reconstruction

Bundle adjustment is a standard photogrammetric technique for optimizing the 3D reconstruction of a scene from multiple images. There is an inherent gauge (coordinate frame) ambiguity in 3D reconstruction that can seriously affect the convergence of bundle adjustment algorithms. We address this issue and show that a simple pre-conditioning step removes the effect of the choice of coordinate frame, and together with a set of enforced constraints on the reconstruction, achieves along with this invariance greatly increased convergence speed over existing methods. The new approach applies to all the well-known 3D reconstruction models: projective, affine and Euclidean. We develop the idea for projective reconstruction. The normalization stage partially removes the gauge freedom, reducing the coordinate frame choice from a general 3D homography to an orthogonal transformation; then constraints are incorporated in the bundle adjustment iterations that enforce the normalisation condition to first order. In the projective case the approach relies on a currently unproven matrix conjecture, which we nevertheless strongly believe to be correct, based on extensive experimental evidence.

[1]  Editors , 1986, Brain Research Bulletin.

[2]  H. M. Karara,et al.  Non-topographic photogrammetry , 1989 .

[3]  Richard I. Hartley,et al.  Euclidean Reconstruction from Uncalibrated Views , 1993, Applications of Invariance in Computer Vision.

[4]  Richard I. Hartley,et al.  Projective Reconstruction and Invariants from Multiple Images , 1994, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[5]  Thierry Viéville,et al.  Canonic Representations for the Geometries of Multiple Projective Views , 1994, ECCV.

[6]  David W. Murray,et al.  A unifying framework for structure and motion recovery from image sequences , 1995, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision.

[7]  Richard I. Hartley,et al.  In defence of the 8-point algorithm , 1995, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision.

[8]  B. Triggs A Fully Projective Error Model for Visual Reconstruction , 1995 .

[9]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Recursive Estimation of Motion, Structure, and Focal Length , 1995, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[10]  David W. Murray,et al.  Active Camera Calibration for a Head-Eye Platform Using the Variable State-Dimension Filter , 1996, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[11]  Peter F. Sturm,et al.  A Factorization Based Algorithm for Multi-Image Projective Structure and Motion , 1996, ECCV.

[12]  Anders Heyden,et al.  Recursive structure and motion from image sequences using shape and depth spaces , 1997, Proceedings of IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[13]  T. Kanade,et al.  Affine structure from line correspondences with uncalibrated affine cameras , 1997, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[14]  Andrew W. Fitzgibbon,et al.  Automatic Camera Recovery for Closed or Open Image Sequences , 1998, ECCV.

[15]  Bill Triggs Optimal Estimation of Matching Constraints , 1998, SMILE.

[16]  Takeo Kanade,et al.  A unified factorization algorithm for points, line segments and planes with uncertainty models , 1998, Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision (IEEE Cat. No.98CH36271).

[17]  Adrian Hilton,et al.  Surface-Based Structure-from-Motion using Feature Groupings , 2000 .