Next Article in Journal
Wireless Sensors for Brain Activity—A Survey
Next Article in Special Issue
Means of IoT and Fuzzy Cognitive Maps in Reactive Navigation of Ubiquitous Robots
Previous Article in Journal
What’s in the Box: Design of an Open Didactic Robot Environment
Previous Article in Special Issue
Deep Learning Models for Automated Diagnosis of Retinopathy of Prematurity in Preterm Infants
Article

A Benchmark of Popular Indoor 3D Reconstruction Technologies: Comparison of ARCore and RTAB-Map

1
Baxalta Innovations GmbH, A-1221 Vienna, Austria
2
Doctoral School of Applied Informatics and Applied Mathematics, Óbuda University, H-1034 Budapest, Hungary
3
Antal Bejczy Center for Intelligent Robotics, Óbuda University, H-1034 Budapest, Hungary
4
Department of Production Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-114 28 Stockholm, Sweden
5
Department of Sustainable Production Development, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-151 36 Södertälje, Sweden
6
Alba Regia Technical Faculty, Óbuda University, H-8000 Székesfehérvár, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Electronics 2020, 9(12), 2091; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9122091
Received: 22 October 2020 / Revised: 30 November 2020 / Accepted: 2 December 2020 / Published: 8 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Computational Cybernetics)
The fast evolution in computational and sensor technologies brings previously niche solutions to a wider userbase. As such, 3D reconstruction technologies are reaching new use-cases in scientific and everyday areas where they were not present before. Cost-effective and easy-to-use solutions include camera-based 3D scanning techniques, such as photogrammetry. This paper provides an overview of the available solutions and discusses in detail the depth-image based Real-time Appearance-based Mapping (RTAB-Map) technique as well as a smartphone-based solution that utilises ARCore, the Augmented Reality (AR) framework of Google. To qualitatively compare the two 3D reconstruction technologies, a simple length measurement-based method was applied with a purpose-designed reference object. The captured data were then analysed by a processing algorithm. In addition to the experimental results, specific case studies are briefly discussed, evaluating the applicability based on the capabilities of the technologies. As such, the paper presents the use-case of interior surveying in an automated laboratory as well as an example for using the discussed techniques for landmark surveying. The major findings are that point clouds created with these technologies provide a direction- and shape-accurate model, but those contain mesh continuity errors, and the estimated scale factor has a large standard deviation. View Full-Text
Keywords: 3D scanning; 3D metrology; 3D reconstruction; ARCore; RTAB-Map 3D scanning; 3D metrology; 3D reconstruction; ARCore; RTAB-Map
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Wolf, Á.; Troll, P.; Romeder-Finger, S.; Archenti, A.; Széll, K.; Galambos, P. A Benchmark of Popular Indoor 3D Reconstruction Technologies: Comparison of ARCore and RTAB-Map. Electronics 2020, 9, 2091. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9122091

AMA Style

Wolf Á, Troll P, Romeder-Finger S, Archenti A, Széll K, Galambos P. A Benchmark of Popular Indoor 3D Reconstruction Technologies: Comparison of ARCore and RTAB-Map. Electronics. 2020; 9(12):2091. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9122091

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wolf, Ádám, Péter Troll, Stefan Romeder-Finger, Andreas Archenti, Károly Széll, and Péter Galambos. 2020. "A Benchmark of Popular Indoor 3D Reconstruction Technologies: Comparison of ARCore and RTAB-Map" Electronics 9, no. 12: 2091. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9122091

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop