skip to main content
10.1145/1791212.1791220acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescpsweekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Information processing for live photo mosaic with a group of wireless image sensors

Published:12 April 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Photo tourism [11] is a platform that allows users to transform unstructured online digital photos into a 3D experience. Nowadays, image sensors are being extensively used to allow images to be taken automatically and remotely, which facilitates the opportunity for live update of photo mosaics. In this paper, we present a novel framework for live photo mosaic with a group of wireless image sensor nodes, where the image data aggregation is accomplished in an efficient and distributed way. Essentially, we propose to conduct clustering and data compression at wireless image sensor network level while conserving the completeness of the feature point information [9] for reconstruction. Toward the realization of the whole system, we have built image sensor prototypes with commodity cameras and we validated our approach by indepth analysis, extensive simulations and field experiments.

References

  1. T. Cover and J. Thomas. Elements of information theory. John Wiley and Sons, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. D. Estrin, R. Govindan, J. Heidemann, and S. Kuman. Next century challenges: Scalable coordination in sensor networks. Proc. of ACM Mobicom, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan. Energy-efficient communication protocol for wireless microsensor networks. Proc. of IEEE HICSS, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. F. Li. A networking perspective of cooperative spectrum sharing in wireless networks: Analysis and experiments. Proc. of IEEE WTS, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. F. Li and I. Nikolaidis. On minimum-energy broadcasting in all-wireless networks. Proc. of IEEE LCN, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. X. Li, C. Wu, C. Zach, S. Lazebnik, and J. Frahm. Modeling and recognition of landmark image collections using iconic scene graph. Proc. of IEEE ECCV, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. C. Liu, J. Yuen, A. Torralba, J. Sivic, and W. Freeman. Sift flow: dense correspondence across different scene. Proc. of IEEE ECCV, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S. Lloyd. Least square quantization in pcm. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 1982.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. D. Lowe. Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. IJCV, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. V. Shnayder, M. Hempstead, B. Chen, G. Allen, and M. Welsh. Simulating the power consumption of large-scale sensor network applications. Proc. of ACM SenSys, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. N. Snavely, S. Seitz, and R. Szeliski. Photo tourism: Exploring image collection in 3d. Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. N. Snavely, S. Seitz, and R. Szeliski. Skeletal graphs for efficient structure from motion. Proc. of IEEE CVPR, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. T. Stoyanova, F. Kerasiotis, A. Prayati, and G. Papadopoulos. Evaluation of impact factors on rss accuracy for localization and tracking applications. Proc. of ACM MobiWac, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Tumblin, A. Agrawal, and R. Raskar. Why i want a gradient camera. Proc. of IEEE CVPR, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. Vuran, O. Akan, and I. Akyildiz. Spatio-temporal correlation: Theory and application for wireless sensor networks. Computer Networks, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. C. Wu, B. Clipp, X. Li, J. Frahm, and M. Pollefeys. 3d model matching with viewpoint invariant patches (vips). Proc. of IEEE CVPR, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. K. Wu, Y. Jiang, and G. Hu. A calculus for information-driven networks. Proc. of IEEE IWQoS, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. X. Ning and C. Cassandras. Optimal cluster-head deployment in wireless sensor networks with redundant link requirements. Valuetools, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Information processing for live photo mosaic with a group of wireless image sensors

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            IPSN '10: Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks
            April 2010
            460 pages
            ISBN:9781605589886
            DOI:10.1145/1791212

            Copyright © 2010 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 12 April 2010

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate143of593submissions,24%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader