Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byIngrid Belson Modified over 3 years ago

1
**Multi-View Stereo for Community Photo Collections**

Michael Goesele, Noah Snavely, Brian Curless, Hugues Hoppe, Steven M. Seitz

2
photos varies substantially in lighting, foreground clutter, scale due to various cameras, time, weather

3
**Images of Notre Dame (a variation in sampling rate of more than 1,000)**

4
**Images taken in the wild—wide variety**

Lots of photographers Different cameras Sampling rates Occlusion Different time of day, weather Post processing

5
**The problem statement Design an adaptive view selection process**

Given the massive number of images, find a compatible subset Multi View Stereo (MVS) Reconstruct robust & accurate depth maps from this subset

6
Previous work Global View Selection assume a relatively uniform viewpoint distribution and simply choose the k nearest images from each reference view Local View Selection use shiftable windows in time to adaptively choose frames to match

7
**CPC non-uniformly distributed in 7D viewpoint**

(translation, rotation, focal length) space represents an extreme case of unorganized images sets Algorithm overview: - Calibrating Internet Photos - Global View Selection - Local View Selection - Multi-View Stereo Reconstruction

8
**Calibrating Internet Photos**

PTLens extracts camera and lens information and corrects for radial distortion based on a database of camera and lens properties Discard images cannot be corrected Remaining images entered into a robust, metric structure-from-motion (SfM) system (uses SIFT feature detector) - generate a sparse scene reconstruction from the matched features - list of images where feature was detected Remove Radiometric Distortions - all input images into a linear radiometric space (sRGB color space)

9
Global View Selection For each reference view R, global view selection seeks a set N of neighboring views that are good candidates for stereo matching in terms of scene content, appearance, and scale SIFT selects features with similar appearance - Shared feature points: collocation problem - Scale invariance: stereo matching problem need a measurement to deal these two problems !

10
**Global score gR for each view V within a candidate neighborhood N (which includes R)**

FV: set of feature points in View V FV ∩ FR: common feature points of View V and R wN(f): measure angular separation of two views, the larger, the more separated in angulation ws(f): measures similarity in scale of two views, the larger, the more similar in scale

11
**Calculating wN(f) αmax set to 10 degrees**

α is the angle between the lines of sight from Vi and Vj to f αmax set to 10 degrees

12
**Calculating ws(f) r = sR(f) / sV(f)**

sR(f): diameter of a sphere centered at f whose projected diameter in view V equals the pixel spacing in V - favors the case 1 ≤ r <2

13
**Add scores of all feature points for all view V and select top N Rescaling views **

If scaleR(Vmin) is smaller than 0.6 (threshold), which means 5x5 R vs 3x3 V, need rescale Find lowest resolution view Vmin, resample R Resample view whose scaleR(V) > 1.2 to match the scale of R

14
Local View Selection Global view selection determines a set N of good matching candidates for a reference view R Select a smaller set A∈N (|A|=4) of active views for stereo matching at a particular location in the reference view

16
**Stereo Matching Use nxn window centered on point in R**

Goal: To maximize photometric consistency of this patch to its projections into the neighboring views Scene Geometry Model Photometric Model

17
**Scene Geometry Model Window centered at pixel (s, t)**

oR is the center of projection of view R rR(s,t) is the normalized ray direction through the pixel Reference view corresponds to a point xR(s,t) at a distance h(s,t) along the viewing ray rR(s,t)

19
Photometric Model Simple model for reflectance effects—a color scale factor ck for each patch projected into the k-th neighboring view Models Lambertian reflectance for constant illumination over planar surfaces Fails for shadow boundaries, caustics, specular highlights, bumpy surfaces

25
Results Several Internet CPCs gather from Flickr varying widely in terms of size, number of photographers and scale

26
Output

29
Video demo

31
Thank you!

32
**Reconstructing Building Interiors from Images**

Yasutaka Furukawa Brian Curless Steven M. Seitz University of Washington, Seattle, USA Richard Szeliski Microsoft Research, Redmond, USA

33
**Reconstruction & Visualization of Architectural Scenes**

Manual (semi-automatic) Google Earth & Virtual Earth Façade [Debevec et al., 1996] CityEngine [Müller et al., 2006, 2007] Automatic Ground-level images [Cornelis et al., 2008, Pollefeys et al., 2008] Aerial images [Zebedin et al., 2008] Google Earth Virtual Earth Müller et al. Zebedin et al.

34
**Reconstruction & Visualization of Architectural Scenes**

Manual (semi-automatic) Google Earth & Virtual Earth Façade [Debevec et al., 1996] CityEngine [Müller et al., 2006, 2007] Automatic Ground-level images [Cornelis et al., 2008, Pollefeys et al., 2008] Aerial images [Zebedin et al., 2008] Google Earth Virtual Earth Müller et al. Zebedin et al.

35
**Reconstruction & Visualization of Architectural Scenes**

Little attention paid to indoor scenes Google Earth Virtual Earth Müller et al. Zebedin et al.

36
**Our Goal Fully automatic system for indoors/outdoors**

Reconstructs a simple 3D model from images Provides real-time interactive visualization

37
**Challenges - Reconstruction**

Multi-view stereo (MVS) typically produces a dense model We want the model to be Simple for real-time interactive visualization of a large scene (e.g., a whole house) Accurate for high-quality image-based rendering

38
**Challenges – Indoor Reconstruction**

Texture-poor surfaces Complicated visibility Texture-poor surfaces: hard for MVS; Complicated visibility: Blockage, depthmap Prevalence of thin structures (doors, walls, tables)

39
**Outline System pipeline (system contribution)**

Algorithmic details (technical contribution) Experimental results Conclusion and future work

40
System pipeline Images Images

41
**System pipeline Structure-from-Motion Images Bundler by Noah Snavely**

Structure from Motion for unordered image collections Images

42
**System pipeline Multi-view Stereo Images SFM**

PMVS by Yasutaka Furukawa and Jean Ponce Patch-based Multi-View Stereo Software Images SFM

43
**Manhattan-world Stereo**

System pipeline Manhattan-world Stereo [Furukawa et al., CVPR 2009] Images SFM MVS

44
**Manhattan-world Stereo**

System pipeline Manhattan-world Stereo [Furukawa et al., CVPR 2009] Images SFM MVS

45
**Manhattan-world Stereo**

System pipeline Manhattan-world Stereo [Furukawa et al., CVPR 2009] Images SFM MVS

46
**Manhattan-world Stereo**

System pipeline Manhattan-world Stereo [Furukawa et al., CVPR 2009] Images SFM MVS

47
**Manhattan-world Stereo**

System pipeline Manhattan-world Stereo [Furukawa et al., CVPR 2009] Images SFM MVS

48
**Axis-aligned depth map merging**

System pipeline Axis-aligned depth map merging (our contribution) Images SFM MVS MWS

49
**Rendering: simple view-dependent texture mapping**

System pipeline Rendering: simple view-dependent texture mapping Images SFM MVS MWS Merging

50
**Outline System pipeline (system contribution)**

Algorithmic details (technical contribution) Experimental results Conclusion and future work

51
**Axis-aligned Depth-map Merging**

Basic framework is similar to volumetric MRF [Vogiatzis 2005, Sinha 2007, Zach 2007, Hernández 2007] First explain the algorithm then differences from competing approaches.

52
**Axis-aligned Depth-map Merging**

Basic framework is similar to volumetric MRF [Vogiatzis 2005, Sinha 2007, Zach 2007, Hernández 2007] First explain the algorithm then differences from competing approaches.

53
**Axis-aligned Depth-map Merging**

Basic framework is similar to volumetric MRF [Vogiatzis 2005, Sinha 2007, Zach 2007, Hernández 2007] First explain the algorithm then differences from competing approaches.

54
**Key Feature 1 - Penalty terms**

55
**Key Feature 1 - Penalty terms**

Binary penalty Binary encodes smoothness & data Unary is often constant (inflation)

56
**Key Feature 1 - Penalty terms**

Binary penalty Binary encodes smoothness & data Unary is often constant (inflation)

57
**Key Feature 1 - Penalty terms**

Binary penalty Binary encodes smoothness & data Unary is often constant (inflation)

58
**Key Feature 1 - Penalty terms**

Binary is smoothness defined as neighboring voxels having the same label Binary penalty Binary encodes smoothness & data Unary is often constant (inflation) Binary is smoothness Unary encodes data

59
**Axis-aligned Depth-map Merging**

Align voxel grid with the dominant axes Data term (unary) Put here how typical approaches do, and why they do not work Talk about 4d neighborhood, Put texts at the bottom of the figures

60
**Axis-aligned Depth-map Merging**

Align voxel grid with the dominant axes Data term (unary) Smoothness (binary) Put here how typical approaches do, and why they do not work Talk about 4d neighborhood, Put texts at the bottom of the figures

61
**Axis-aligned Depth-map Merging**

Align voxel grid with the dominant axes Data term (unary) Smoothness (binary) Put here how typical approaches do, and why they do not work Talk about 4d neighborhood, Put texts at the bottom of the figures

62
**Axis-aligned Depth-map Merging**

Align voxel grid with the dominant axes Data term (unary) Smoothness (binary) Graph-cuts Put here how typical approaches do, and why they do not work Talk about 4d neighborhood, Put texts at the bottom of the figures

63
**Outline System pipeline (system contribution)**

Algorithmic details (technical contribution) Experimental results Conclusion and future work

64
Kitchen - 22 images 1364 triangles hall - 97 images 3344 triangles house images 8196 triangles gallery images 8302 triangles

65
Demo

66
**Conclusion & Future Work**

Fully automated 3D reconstruction/visualization system for architectural scenes Novel depth-map merging to produce piece-wise planar axis-aligned model with sub-voxel accuracy Future work Relax Manhattan-world assumption Larger scenes (e.g., a whole building)

67
Any Questions? Images SFM MVS MWS Merging

68
**KinectFusion: Real-time 3D Reconstruction and Interaction Using a Moving Depth Camera**

69
[0] KinectFusion: Real-time 3D Reconstruction and Interaction Using a Moving Depth Camera*, 1Microsoft Research

70
**A) Depth Map Conversion**

Reduce noise and calibrate with the inferred camera intrinsic matrix to get the point cloud position in camera coordinate. [1] C.Tomasi, R. Manduchi, "Bilateral Filtering for gray and color images", Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision, pp , New Delhi, India, 1998.

71
**B) Camera Tracking(ICP)**

[2] Zhang, Zhengyou (1994). "Iterative point matching for registration of free-form curves and surfaces". International Journal of Computer Vision (Springer)

72
**C) Volumetric Integration**

Signed distance field: divided the world into voxels, each one saves the nearest distance to a surface. 2D example [3] B. Curless and M. Levoy. A volumetric method for building complex models from range images. ACM Trans. Graph., 1996.

73
3D example

74
D) Ray Casting

75
Demonstration

76
Building Rome in a Day Paper Summary

77
Outcome A system that can reconstruct 3D geometry from large, unorganized collections of photographs Uses new distributed computer vision algorithms for image matching and 3D reconstruction Algorithms designed to maximize parallelism at each state of the pipeline Algorithms designed to scale well with size of problem Algorithms designed to scale well with amount of available computation.

78
**Challenges Images collected from photo sharing websites**

Images are unstructured Images taken in no specific order no control over distributions of camera viewpoints Images are uncalibrated Different photographers Different cameras Little knowledge of camera settings for each image Scale of project 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than used with prior methods Algorithms must be fast to complete reconstruction in one day

79
**Applications Government sector uses city models**

Urban planning and visualization Academic disciplines use city models History Archeology Geography Consumer mapping technology Google Earth GPS navigation systems Online Map sites

80
**Recover 3D Geometry (x, y, z) = (x/z, y/z)**

Given scene geometry and camera geometry, we can predict where the 2D projections of each point should be in each image. Compare these projections to the original measurements. Scene geometry represented as 3D points Camera geometry represented as 3D position and orientation for each camera Equations: (x, y, z) = (x/z, y/z)

81
**Correspondence Problem**

Definition: Automatically estimate 2D correspondence between input images Detect most distinctive, repeatable features in each image Match features across image pairs by finding similar looking features using approximate nearest neighbors search For each pair of images, insert the features of one image into a k-d tree Use features from second image as queries. For each query, if the nearest neighbor is sufficiently far away from the next nearest neighbor, declare a match. Clean up matches Rigid scenes have strong geometric constrains on the locations of matching features 3x3 Fundamental Matrix, F, such that corresponding points xij, xik from images j and k satisfy:

82
City Scale Matching Goal: Find correspondence spanning entire collection Solve using graph estimation problem “Match Graph” Graph vertices = images Graph edge exists between two vertices iff they are looking at the same part of the scene and have a sufficient number of feature matches Multiround scheme In each round, propose a set of edges in the match graph Whole Image Similarity Query Expansion Verify each edge through feature matching

83
**City Scale Matching: Whole Image Similarity**

Used for first round edge proposal Metric to compute overall similarity of two images Cluster features into visual words Visual words weighted using Term Frequency Inverse Document Frequency method Apply document retrieval algorithms to match data sets Each photo represented as sparse histogram of visual words Compare histograms by taking inner product For each image, determine k1 + k2 most similar images Verify top k1 images Result: sparsely connected match graph Goal: minimize connected components For each image, consider next k2 images and verify pairs which straddle different connected components

84
**City Scale Matching: Query Expansion**

Result from first round: sparse match graph, insufficiently dense to produce good reconstruction Definition, Query Expansion: find all vertices within two steps of the query vertex If vertices i and k connected to j, propose i and k also connected Verify edge (i, k)

85
**City Scale Matching: Implementation**

Pre-processing Verification Track Generation System runs on cluster of computers (“nodes”) “Master node” makes job scheduling decisions

86
**Implementation: Pre-processing**

Images distributed to cluster nodes in chunks of fixed size Node down-samples images to fixed size Node extracts features

87
**Implementation: Verification**

Use whole image similarity for first two rounds Use query expansion for remaining rounds Solve with greedy bin-packing algorithm Bin = set of jobs sent to a node Drawback: requires multiple sweeps over remaining image pairs Solution: consider only fixed sized subset of image pairs for scheduling

88
**Implementation: Track Generation**

Definition: A group of features corresponding to a single 3D point Combine all pairwise matching information to generate consistent tracks across images Solved by finding connected components in a graph Vertex = features in images Edge = connect matching features

89
Recover camera poses Find and reconstruct skeletal set, minimal subset of photographs capturing essential geometry of a scene Add remaining images to the scene by estimating each camera’s pose with respect to known 3D points matched to the image

90
**Multiview Stereo Estimate depths for every pixel in every image**

Merge resulting 3D points into a single model Scale exceeds MVS algorithms ability Group photos into clusters that each reconstruct part of the scene

91
Results

Similar presentations

OK

Wheres Waldo: Matching People in Images of Crowds Rahul GargDeva RamananSteven M. Seitz Noah Snavely Problem Definition University of Washington University.

Wheres Waldo: Matching People in Images of Crowds Rahul GargDeva RamananSteven M. Seitz Noah Snavely Problem Definition University of Washington University.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on switching network environment Ppt on motivation in management Ppt on aravind eye care system Ppt on online banking in java Ppt on the road not taken audio Ppt online shopping system Ppt on vegetarian and non vegetarian relationships Ppt on tata trucks new Ppt on cnc wire cut machine One act play ppt on tv