Skip to main content
Log in

Optimization Criteria and Geometric Algorithms for Motion and Structure Estimation

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Vision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prevailing efforts to study the standard formulation of motion and structure recovery have recently been focused on issues of sensitivity and robustness of existing techniques. While many cogent observations have been made and verified experimentally, many statements do not hold in general settings and make a comparison of existing techniques difficult. With an ultimate goal of clarifying these issues, we study the main aspects of motion and structure recovery: the choice of objective function, optimization techniques and sensitivity and robustness issues in the presence of noise.

We clearly reveal the relationship among different objective functions, such as “(normalized) epipolar constraints,” “reprojection error” or “triangulation,” all of which can be unified in a new “optimal triangulation” procedure. Regardless of various choices of the objective function, the optimization problems all inherit the same unknown parameter space, the so-called “essential manifold.” Based on recent developments of optimization techniques on Riemannian manifolds, in particular on Stiefel or Grassmann manifolds, we propose a Riemannian Newton algorithm to solve the motion and structure recovery problem, making use of the natural differential geometric structure of the essential manifold.

We provide a clear account of sensitivity and robustness of the proposed linear and nonlinear optimization techniques and study the analytical and practical equivalence of different objective functions. The geometric characterization of critical points and the simulation results clarify the difference between the effect of bas-relief ambiguity, rotation and translation confounding and other types of local minima. This leads to consistent interpretations of simulation results over a large range of signal-to-noise ratio and variety of configurations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adiv, G. 1989. Inherent ambiguities in recovering 3-D motion and structure from a noisy flow field. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 11(5):477-489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boothby, W.M. 1986. An Introduction to Differential Manifolds and Riemannian Geometry. 2nd edn. Academic Press: San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danilidis, K. 1997. Visual Navigation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Danilidis, K. and Nagel, H.-H. 1990. Analytical results on error sensitivity of motion estimation from two views. Image and Vision Computing, 8:297-303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, A., Arias, T., and Smith, S.T. 1998. The geometry of algorithms with orthogonality constraints. SIAM J. Matrix Analysis Applications, 20(2):303-353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faugeras, O. 1993. Three-dimensional Computer Vision: A Geometric Viewpoint. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, R. and Sturm, P. 1997. Triangulation. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 68(2):146-157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, B. 1990. Relative orientation. International Journal of Computer Vision, 4:59-78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jepson, A.D. and Heeger, D.J. 1993. Spatial Vision in Humans and Robots. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. pp. 39-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanatani, K. 1993. Geometric Computation for Machine Vision. Oxford Science Publications: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi, S. and Nomizu, T. 1996. Foundations of Differential Geometry: Volume I. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longuet-Higgins, H.C. 1981. A computer algorithm for reconstructing a scene from two projections. Nature, 293:133-135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luong, Q.-T. and Faugeras, O. 1996. The fundamental matrix: Theory, algorithms, and stability analysis. International Journal of Computer Vision, 17(1):43-75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Y., Košeckà, J., and Sastry, S. 1998. A mathematical theory of camera self-calibration. Electronic Research Laboratory Memorandum, UC Berkeley, UCB/ERL M98/64.

  • Ma, Y., Košeckà, J., and Sastry, S. 2000. Linear differential algorithm for motion recovery: A geometric approach. IJCV, 36(1):71-89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maybank, S. 1993. Theory of Reconstruction from Image Motion. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milnor, J. 1969. Morse Theory. Annals of Mathematics Studies no. 51. Princeton University Press: Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, R.M., Li, Z., and Sastry, S.S. 1994. A Mathematical Introduction to Robotic Manipulation. CRC press Inc.: Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliensis, J. 1999. A new structure from motion ambiguity. In IEEE Proceedings from CVPR, pp. 185-191.

  • Sastry, S.S. 1999. Nonlinear Systems: Analysis, Stability and Control. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S.T. 1993. Geometric optimization methods for adaptive filtering. Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

  • Soatto, S. and Brockett, R. 1998. Optimal and suboptimal structure from motion. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

  • Soatto, S. and Perona, P. 1996. Motion estimation via dynamic vision. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 41(3):393-413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spetsakis, M. 1994. Models of statistical visual motion estimation. CVIPG: Image Understanding, 60(3):300-312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivak, M. 1979. A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry: 2nd ed. Publish or Perish, Inc. Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C.J. and Kriegman, D.J. 1995. Structure and motion from line segments in multiple images. IEEE Transactions on PAMI, 17(11):1021-1032.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, I. and Simoncelli, E. 1995. Linear structure from motion. Ms-cis-94-61, Grasp Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Tian, T.Y., Tomasi, C., and Heeger, D. 1996. Comparison of approaches to egomotion computation. In CVPR.

  • Weng, J., Huang, T.S., and Ahuja, N. 1989. Motion and structure from two perspective views: Algorithms, error analysis, and error estimation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 11(5):451-475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weng, J., Huang, T.S., and Ahuja, N. 1993a. Motion and Structure from Image Sequences. Springer Verlag: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weng, J., Huang, T.S., and Ahuja, N. 1993b. Optimal motion and structure estimation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 15(9):864-884.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, T. and Tomasi, C. 1999. Fast, robust and consistent camera motion estimation. In Proceedings of CVPR.

  • Zhang, Z. 1998. Understanding the relationship between the optimization criteria in two-view motion analysis. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Vision, Bombay, India, pp. 772-777.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ma, Y., Košecká, J. & Sastry, S. Optimization Criteria and Geometric Algorithms for Motion and Structure Estimation. International Journal of Computer Vision 44, 219–249 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012276232049

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012276232049

Navigation