Next Article in Journal
Spatial and Temporal Homogeneity of Solar Surface Irradiance across Satellite Generations
Next Article in Special Issue
Figures of Merit for Indirect Time-of-Flight 3D Cameras: Definition and Experimental Evaluation
Previous Article in Journal
Cloud Remote Sensing Using Midwave IR CO2 and N2O Slicing Channels near 4.5 μm
Open AccessArticle

A Comparison of Three Geometric Self-Calibration Methods for Range Cameras

1
Department of Geomatics Engineering, The University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
2
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, 134 Shinchondong, Seodaemungu, Seoul 120-749, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Remote Sens. 2011, 3(5), 1014-1028; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs3051014
Received: 25 March 2011 / Revised: 4 May 2011 / Accepted: 10 May 2011 / Published: 20 May 2011
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Time-of-Flight Range-Imaging Cameras)
Significant instrumental systematic errors are known to exist in data captured with range cameras using lock-in pixel technology. Because they are independent of the imaged object scene structure, these errors can be rigorously estimated in a self-calibrating bundle adjustment procedure. This paper presents a review and a quantitative comparison of three methods for range camera self-calibration in order to determine which, if any, is superior. Two different SwissRanger range cameras have been calibrated using each method. Though differences of up to 2 mm (in object space) in both the observation precision and accuracy measures exist between the methods, they are of little practical consequence when compared to the magnitude of these measures (12 mm to 18 mm). One of the methods was found to underestimate the principal distance but overestimate the rangefinder offset in comparison to the other two methods whose estimates agreed more closely. Strong correlations among the rangefinder offset, periodic error terms and the camera position co-ordinates are indentified and their cause explained in terms of network geometry and observation range. View Full-Text
Keywords: range camera; geometric self-calibration; error modeling; correlation range camera; geometric self-calibration; error modeling; correlation
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Lichti, D.D.; Kim, C. A Comparison of Three Geometric Self-Calibration Methods for Range Cameras. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1014-1028.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Only visits after 24 November 2015 are recorded.
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop