Next Article in Journal
A Real-Time Method to Detect and Track Moving Objects (DATMO) from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) Using a Single Camera
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamics of a Coupled System: Multi-Resolution Remote Sensing in Assessing Social-Ecological Responses during 25 Years of Gas Field Development in Arctic Russia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Beyond Range: Innovating Fluorescence Microscopy
Remote Sens. 2012, 4(4), 1069-1089; doi:10.3390/rs4041069
Article

SR-4000 and CamCube3.0 Time of Flight (ToF) Cameras: Tests and Comparison

*  and
Received: 9 February 2012; in revised form: 9 April 2012 / Accepted: 10 April 2012 / Published: 18 April 2012
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Time-of-Flight Range-Imaging Cameras)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [1869 KB, uploaded 19 June 2014]   |   Browse Figures
Abstract: In this paper experimental comparisons between two Time-of-Flight (ToF) cameras are reported in order to test their performance and to give some procedures for testing data delivered by this kind of technology. In particular, the SR-4000 camera by Mesa Imaging AG and the CamCube3.0 by PMD Technologies have been evaluated since they have good performances and are well known to researchers dealing with Time-of-Flight (ToF) cameras. After a brief overview of commercial ToF cameras available on the market and the main specifications of the tested devices, two topics are presented in this paper. First, the influence of camera warm-up on distance measurement is analyzed: a warm-up of 40 minutes is suggested to obtain the measurement stability, especially in the case of the CamCube3.0 camera, that exhibits distance measurement variations of several centimeters. Secondly, the variation of distance measurement precision variation over integration time is presented: distance measurement precisions of some millimeters are obtained in both cases. Finally, a comparison between the two cameras based on the experiments and some information about future work on evaluation of sunlight influence on distance measurements are reported.
Keywords: Time-of-Flight; SwissRanger; PMD; warm up; measurement precision; sunlight influence Time-of-Flight; SwissRanger; PMD; warm up; measurement precision; sunlight influence
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Export to BibTeX |
EndNote


MDPI and ACS Style

Piatti, D.; Rinaudo, F. SR-4000 and CamCube3.0 Time of Flight (ToF) Cameras: Tests and Comparison. Remote Sens. 2012, 4, 1069-1089.

AMA Style

Piatti D, Rinaudo F. SR-4000 and CamCube3.0 Time of Flight (ToF) Cameras: Tests and Comparison. Remote Sensing. 2012; 4(4):1069-1089.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Piatti, Dario; Rinaudo, Fulvio. 2012. "SR-4000 and CamCube3.0 Time of Flight (ToF) Cameras: Tests and Comparison." Remote Sens. 4, no. 4: 1069-1089.


Remote Sens. EISSN 2072-4292 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert