Ask Your Question
0

Inconsistent results from SolvePnp

asked 2013-04-26 12:57:47 -0500

percepticat gravatar image

I run SolvePnp with 4 points, on very similar input and get different output. Here's my code snippet with explanation inline:

=============================================================

const Mat ML = cameras.getLeftCameraMatrix();

Mat rvecL;

Mat_<float> tvecL;

Mat rauxL, tauxL;

pattern3D.push_back(Point3f(0, 0, 0));

Pattern3D.push_back(Point3f(99.5, 0));

pattern3D.push_back(Point3f(0, 99.5, 0));

pattern3D.push_back(Point3f(148.5, 99.5, 0));

vector<point2f> points2D;

INPUT OPTION1: points2D.push_back(Point2f(251.2490, 226.5540)); points2D.push_back(Point2f(330.2810, 231.8510)); points2D.push_back(Point2f(246.1260, 304.0430)); points2D.push_back(Point2f(363.5740, 310.1830));

INPUT OPTION2: points2D.push_back(Point2f(251.3380, 226.5890)); points2D.push_back(Point2f(330.2660, 231.8370)); points2D.push_back(Point2f(245.9680, 304.0390)); points2D.push_back(Point2f(363.5830, 310.1890));

INPUT OPTION3: points2D.push_back(Point2f(251.2710, 226.5610)); points2D.push_back(Point2f(330.2800, 231.8220)); points2D.push_back(Point2f(246.0760, 304.0240)); points2D.push_back(Point2f(363.3580, 310.1760));

solvePnP(pattern3D, points2D, ML, Mat(), rauxL, tauxL);

rauxL.convertTo(rvecL, CV_32F); tauxL.convertTo(tvecL, CV_32F); Mat_<float> rotMat(3,3); Rodrigues(rvecL, rotMat);

float tx = tvecL.at<float>(0); float ty = tvecL.at<float>(1); float tz = tvecL.at<float>(2); float rx = rvecL.at<float>(0); float ry = rvecL.at<float>(1); float rz = rvecL.at<float>(2);

Mat_<float> pt(3,4); for(int i=0; i<4; i++){ pt.at<float>(0,i) = pattern3D[i].x; pt.at<float>(1,i) = pattern3D[i].y; pt.at<float>(2,i) = pattern3D[i].z; }

positions = rotMat*pt; for(int i=0; i<4; i++){ positions.at<float>(0,i) += tx; positions.at<float>(1,i) += ty; positions.at<float>(2,i) += tz; } cout<<positions&lt;<endl; }<="" p="">

===========================================================================

And the three respective outputs:

[-93.012138, 6.0772247, -100.11108, 47.77607; -23.703554, -17.838806, 73.649681, 82.402596; 1379.6711, 1386.538, 1398.9637, 1409.2122]

[-94.372253, 4.9526367, -100.26565, 47.973022; -24.142147, -18.317234, 73.015259, 81.708725; 1413.5717, 1412.6304, 1392.933, 1391.5281]

[-92.997803, 6.0429764, -100.23169, 47.582932; -23.737469, -17.849192, 73.660095, 82.44812; 1380.3485, 1387.8654, 1399.3652, 1410.5839]

As you can see, the reconstructed set of 3D points is similar for the 1st and 3rd example and very different for the middle one (everything is in milimeters) BUT the input is almost identical (less than 0.5 pixel)

Any thoughts? Suggestions on how to solve this?

edit retag flag offensive close merge delete

Comments

This may be a local minimum in which the iterative method get stuck. Could you try with P3P and EPNP flags ?

Guido gravatar imageGuido ( 2013-12-05 08:33:40 -0500 )edit

1 answer

Sort by ยป oldest newest most voted
1

answered 2014-04-07 23:24:24 -0500

iVlad gravatar image

updated 2014-04-07 23:26:46 -0500

with default set of parameters (flag CV_ITERATIVE) you need min 6 points. 4 points will work only with CV_EPNP, CV_P3P flags. I am not sure why, but I got this from practical experimentation.

edit flag offensive delete link more
Login/Signup to Answer

Question Tools

Stats

Asked: 2013-04-26 12:57:47 -0500

Seen: 1,400 times

Last updated: Apr 07 '14