Comparison of Three Off-the-Shelf Visual Odometry Systems
1
Alexandra Institute, Njalsgade 76, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
2
Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, Diplomvej 371, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Robotics 2020, 9(3), 56; https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics9030056
Received: 11 May 2020
/
Revised: 6 July 2020
/
Accepted: 13 July 2020
/
Published: 21 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Sensors and Control in Robotics)
Positioning is an essential aspect of robot navigation, and visual odometry an important technique for continuous updating the internal information about robot position, especially indoors without GPS (Global Positioning System). Visual odometry is using one or more cameras to find visual clues and estimate robot movements in 3D relatively. Recent progress has been made, especially with fully integrated systems such as the RealSense T265 from Intel, which is the focus of this article. We compare between each other three visual odometry systems (and one wheel odometry, as a known baseline), on a ground robot. We do so in eight scenarios, varying the speed, the number of visual features, and with or without humans walking in the field of view. We continuously measure the position error in translation and rotation thanks to a ground truth positioning system. Our result shows that all odometry systems are challenged, but in different ways. The RealSense T265 and the ZED Mini have comparable performance, better than our baseline ORB-SLAM2 (mono-lens without inertial measurement unit (IMU)) but not excellent. In conclusion, a single odometry system might still not be sufficient, so using multiple instances and sensor fusion approaches are necessary while waiting for additional research and further improved products.
View Full-Text
Keywords:
odometry; camera; positioning; navigation; indoor; robot
▼
Show Figures
Figure 1
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
-
Externally hosted supplementary file 1
Link: https://github.com/DTU-R3/visual_odometry_comparison
Description: Source code, and links to download experimental data.
MDPI and ACS Style
Alapetite, A.; Wang, Z.; Hansen, J.P.; Zajączkowski, M.; Patalan, M. Comparison of Three Off-the-Shelf Visual Odometry Systems. Robotics 2020, 9, 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics9030056
AMA Style
Alapetite A, Wang Z, Hansen JP, Zajączkowski M, Patalan M. Comparison of Three Off-the-Shelf Visual Odometry Systems. Robotics. 2020; 9(3):56. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics9030056
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlapetite, Alexandre, Zhongyu Wang, John P. Hansen, Marcin Zajączkowski, and Mikołaj Patalan. 2020. "Comparison of Three Off-the-Shelf Visual Odometry Systems" Robotics 9, no. 3: 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics9030056
Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
