Abstract
3D sensors are used for many different applications, e.g., scene reconstruction, object detection, and mobile robots, etc. Several studies on usability and accuracy have been done for different sensors. However, all these studies have used different settings for the different sensors. For this reason we compare five 3D sensors, including the structured light sensors Microsoft Kinect and ASUS Xtion Pro Live, and the time of flight sensors Fotonic E70P, IFM O3D200 and Nippon Signal FX6, using the same settings. The sensor noise, absolute error, and point detection rates are compared for different depth values, environmental illumination, and different surfaces. Also, simple models of the noise depending on the measured depth are proposed. It is found that structured light sensors are very accurate for close ranges. The time of flight sensors have more noise, but the noise does not increase as strongly with the measured distance. Further, it is found that these sensors can be used for outdoor applications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
D. D. Chow, Jacky C. K. and Lichti, “A study of systematic errors in the PMD CamBoard nano,” Proc. SPIE, vol. 8791, pp. 87 910X–87 910X–10, May 2013.
G. M. Mutto, Carlo Dal and Zanuttigh, Pietro and Cortelazzo, “Time-of-Flight Cameras and Microsoft Kinect (TM)”. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2012.
J. Boehm, “Accuracy Investigation for Natural User Interface Sensors,” in Low-Cost 3D - Sensoren, Algorithmen, Anwendungen, Berlin, Berlin, 2011.
S. Laible, Y. N. Khan, K. Bohlmann, and A. Zell, “3D LIDAR- and Camera-BasedTerrain Classification Under Different Lighting Conditions,” in Autonomous Mobile Systems 2012, ser. Informatik aktuell. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 21–29.
R. Klose, J. Penlington, and A. Ruckelshausen, “Usability study of 3D Time-of-Flight cameras for automatic plant phenotyping,” Applied Sciences, vol. 69, pp. 93–105, 2009.
K. Khoshelham and S. O. Elberink, “Accuracy and resolution of Kinect depth data for indoor mapping applications.” Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1437–54, Jan. 2012.
J. Weingarten, G. Gruener, and R. Siegwart, “A state-of-the-art 3D sensor for robot navigation,” in IROS 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566), vol. 3, no. 2, 2004, pp. 2155–2160.
C. K. Molnár, B; Toth, “Accuracy Test of Microsoft Kinect for Human Morphologic Measurements,” vol. XXXIX, no. September, pp. 543–547, 2012.
K. Bohlmann, A. Beck-greinwald, S. Buck, H. Marks, and A. Zell, “Autonomous Person Following with 3D LIDAR in Outdoor Environments,” in 1st International Workshop on Perception for Mobile Robots Autonomy (PEMRA 2012), 2012.
T. Stoyanov, R. Mojtahedzadeh, H. Andreasson, and A. J. Lilienthal, “Comparative evaluation of range sensor accuracy for indoor mobile robotics and automated logistics applications,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 1094–1105, 2013.
U. Wong, A. Morris, C. Lea, J. Lee, C. Whittaker, B. Garney, and R. Whittaker, “Comparative evaluation of range sensing technologies for underground void modeling,” in Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, Sept. 2011, pp. 3816–3823.
F. Chiabrando, R. Chiabrando, D. Piatti, and F. Rinaudo, “Sensors for 3D Imaging: Metric Evaluation and Calibration of a CCD/CMOS Time-of-Flight Camera,” Sensors, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 10 080–10 096, 2009.
P. Biber, U. Weiss, M. Dorna, and A. Albert, “Navigation System of the Autonomous Agricultural Robot “BoniRob”,” cs.cmu.edu, 2010.
K. May, S. and Werner, B. and Surmann, H. and Pervolz, “3D time-of-flight cameras for mobile robotics,” Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pp. 790–795, 2006.
S. O. Peter Einramhof and M. Vincze, “Experimental Evaluation of State of the Art 3D-Sensors,” OGAM Annual Workshop of the Austrian Association for Pattern Recognition (OAGM 07), Krumbach; 05/2007; in: "Proceedings OAGM07", (2007), 8 S., 2007.
S. A. Scherer, D. Dube, and A. Zell, “Using depth in visual simultaneous localisation and mapping,” 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 5216–5221, May 2012.
H. Gonzalez-Jorge, B. Riveiro, E. Vazquez-Fernandez, J. Martínez-Sánchez, and P. Arias, “Metrological evaluation of Microsoft Kinect and Asus Xtion sensors,” Measurement, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 1800–1806, July 2013.
Ifm, “O3D200 data sheet.” [Online]. Available: http://www.ifm.com/products/us/ds/O3D200.htm
FOTONIC, “FOTONIC E40/70 data sheet,” pp. 3–6. [Online]. Available: http://www.fotonic.com/assets/documents/fotonic_E40-70_high.pdf
S. Thrun, “Probabilistic Robotics,” pp. 1999–2000, 2000.
R. B. Rusu and S. Cousins, “3D is here: Point Cloud Library (PCL),” 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1–4, May 2011.
Acknowledgments
This work is funded by the Germany Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF Grant 01IM12005B). The authors are responsible for the content of this publication. Further, we thank Jan Leininger for assisting us with all the measurements.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Rauscher, G., Dube, D., Zell, A. (2016). A Comparison of 3D Sensors for Wheeled Mobile Robots. In: Menegatti, E., Michael, N., Berns, K., Yamaguchi, H. (eds) Intelligent Autonomous Systems 13. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 302. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08338-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08338-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08337-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08338-4
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)