skip to main content
10.1145/2683405.2683416acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesivcnzConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Case deletion for fundamental matrix computation

Published:19 November 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper reevaluates the case deletion algorithm for fundamental matrix computation and compares it against two RANSAC variants. The case deletion algorithm has several advantages for use in low-power devices in real-time applications including guaranteed time performance and excellent accuracy. This paper shows that case deletion can be just as accurate, but much more efficient than RANSAC when the ratio of outliers is large.

References

  1. H. Bay, T. Tuytelaars, and L. Van Gool. Surf: Speeded up robust features. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2006, pages 404--417. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. D. P. Capel. An effective bail-out test for ransac consensus scoring. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference, pages 629--638, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. O. Chum and J. Matas. Randomized ransac with td,d test. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference, volume 2, pages 448--457, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. O. Chum and J. Matas. Matching with prosac-progressive sample consensus. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2005. CVPR 2005. IEEE Computer Society Conference on, volume 1, pages 220--226. IEEE, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. O. Chum and J. Matas. Optimal randomized ransac. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 30(8):1472--1482, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles. Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Communications of the ACM, 24(6):381--395, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. Guaglitz, T. Hollerer, and M. Turk. Evaluation of interest point detectors and feature descriptors for visual tracking. International Journal of Computer Vision, 94:i335--360, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. R. Hartley and A. Zisserman. Multiple view geometry in computer vision. Cambridge university press, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. N. Khan, B. McCane, and S. Mills. Feature set reduction for image matching in large scale environments. In Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Image and Vision Computing New Zealand, pages 67--72. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. H. C. Longuet-Higgins. A computer algorithm for reconstructing a scene from two projections. Readings in Computer Vision: Issues, Problems, Principles, and Paradigms, MA Fischler and O. Firschein, eds, pages 61--62, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. D. G. Lowe. Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. International journal of computer vision, 60(2):91--110, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. Matas and O. Chum. Randomized ransac with td,d test. Image and Vision Computing, 22(10):837--842, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. D. R. Musser. Introspective sorting and selection algorithms. Softw., Pract. Exper., 27(8):983--993, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. D. Nistér. Preemptive ransac for live structure and motion estimation. Machine Vision and Applications, 16(5):321--329, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R. Raguram, O. Chum, M. Pollefeys, J. Matas, and J. Frahm. Usac: A universal framework for random sample consensus. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 35(8):2022--2038, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. R. Raguram, J.-M. Frahm, and M. Pollefeys. A comparative analysis of ransac techniques leading to adaptive real-time random sample consensus. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 500--513. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. P. Torr and D. Murray. The development and comparison of robust methods for estimating the fundamental matrix. International Journal of Computer Vision, 24(3):271--300, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. P. H. Torr and D. W. Murray. The development and comparison of robust methods for estimating the fundamental matrix. International journal of computer vision, 24(3):271--300, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. E. Vincent and R. Laganiere. Matching feature points in stereo pairs: A comparative study of some matching strategies. Machine Graphics and Vision, 10(3):237--260, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Case deletion for fundamental matrix computation

      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 Other conferences
        IVCNZ '14: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Image and Vision Computing New Zealand
        November 2014
        298 pages
        ISBN:9781450331845
        DOI:10.1145/2683405

        Copyright © 2014 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 the author(s) 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: 19 November 2014

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        IVCNZ '14 Paper Acceptance Rate55of74submissions,74%Overall Acceptance Rate55of74submissions,74%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader