Rajiv Gupta
Abstract
Modeling and analyzing pushbroom sensors commonly used in satellite imagery is difficult and computationally intensive due to the motion of an orbiting satellite with respect to the rotating earth, and the nonlinearity of the mathematical model involving orbital dynamics. In this paper, a simplified model of a pushbroom sensor (the linear pushbroom model) is introduced. It has the advantage of computational simplicity while at the same time giving very accurate results compared with the full orbiting pushbroom model. Besides remote sensing, the linear pushbroom model is also useful in many other imaging applications. Simple noniterative methods are given for solving the major standard photogrammetric problems for the linear pushbroom model: computation of the model parameters from ground-control points; determination of relative model parameters from image correspondences between two images; and scene reconstruction given image correspondences and ground-control points. The linear pushbroom model leads to theoretical insights that are approximately valid for the full model as well. The epipolar geometry of linear pushbroom cameras in investigated and shown to be totally different from that of a perspective camera. Nevertheless, a matrix analogous to the fundamental matrix of perspective cameras is shown to exist for linear pushbroom sensors. From this it is shown that a scene is determined up to an affine transformation from two views with linear pushbroom cameras.
- A. Noble, R. Hartley, J. Mundy, and J. Farley, "X-Ray Metrology for Quality Assurance," Proc. IEEE Robotics and Automation Conf., 1994.Google Scholar
- Nature, vol. 293, pp. 133-135, Sept. 1981.Google Scholar
- R.I. Hartley, "Estimation of Relative Camera Positions for Uncalibrated Cameras," Computer Vision—ECCV '92, LNCS series vol. 588. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992, pp. 579-587.Google Scholar
- Proc. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 761-764, June 1992.Google Scholar
- O.D. Faugeras, "What Can Be Seen in Three Dimensions With an Uncalibrated Stereo Rig?" Computer Vision—ECCV '92, LNCS series vol. 588. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992, pp. 563-578.Google Scholar
- Proc. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1993, pp. 549-555.Google Scholar
- I.E. Sutherland, "Three Dimensional Data Input by Tablet," Proc. IEEE, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 453-461, Apr. 1974.Google ScholarCross Ref
- O. Faugeras, Three Dimensional Computer Vision: A Geometric Viewpoint.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993.Google Scholar
- S. Ganapathy, "Decomposition of Transformation Matrices for Robot Vision," Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 2, pp. 410-412, 1989.Google Scholar
- T.M. Strat, "Recovering the Camera Parameters From a Transformation Matrix," Readings in Computer Vision, M.A. Fischler and O. Firschein, eds. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1987, pp. 93-100.Google Scholar
- G.H. Golub and C.F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations, 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1989.Google Scholar
- Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 2,475-2,480, Peking, Oct. 1996.Google Scholar
- IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 451-476, May 1989. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R.Y. Tsai and T.S. Huang, "Uniqueness and Estimation of Three Dimensional Motion Parameters of Rigid Objects With Curved Surfaces," IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 6, pp. 13-27, 1984.Google ScholarDigital Library
- B.K.P. Horn, "Relative Orientation Revisited," J. Optical Soc. Amer., A, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 1,630-1,638, 1991.Google ScholarCross Ref
- IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 959-964, Sept. 1992. Google ScholarDigital Library
- O.D. Faugeras, Q.-T. Luong, and S.J. Maybank, "Camera Self-Calibration: Theory and Experiments," Computer Vision—ECCV '92, LNCS series vol. 588. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992, pp. 321-334.Google Scholar
- Proc. Fifth Int'l Conf. Computer Vision, pp. 1,064-1,070, June 1995.Google Scholar
- Proc. Int'l Conf. Computer Vision, pp. 951-956, 1995.Google Scholar
- S. Wolfram, Mathematica: A System for Doing Mathematics by Computer.Redwood City, Calif.: Addison-Wesley, 1988.Google Scholar
- Int'l J. Computer Vision, vol. 4, pp. 59-78, 1990.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Gupta and R. Hartley, "Camera Estimation for Orbiting Pushbrooms," Proc. Second Asian Conf. Computer Vision,Singapore, Dec 1995.Google Scholar
- A.P. Tam, "Terrain Elevation Extraction From Digital SPOT Satellite Imagery," PhD thesis, master's thesis, Dept. of Surveying Eng., Calgary, Alberta, Canada, July 1990.Google Scholar
- SPOT User's Handbook, SPOT Image Corporation, 1897 Preston White Dr., Reston, VA 22091-4368, 1990.Google Scholar
- M.J. Hannah, "Bootstrap Stereo," Proc. Image Understanding Workshop, pp. 210-208,College Park, Md., Apr. 1980.Google Scholar
Index Terms
Linear Pushbroom Cameras
Recommendations
General Imaging Geometry for Central Catadioptric Cameras
Computer Vision – ECCV 2008AbstractCatadioptric cameras are a popular type of omnidirectional imaging system. Their imaging and multi-view geometry has been extensively studied; epipolar geometry for instance, is geometrically speaking, well understood. However, the existence of a ...
A Unified Theory of Uncalibrated Stereo for Both Perspective and Affine Cameras
This paper addresses the recovery of structure and motion from uncalibrated images of a scene under full perspective or under affine projection. Particular emphasis is placed on the configuration of two views, while the extension to $N$ views is given in ...
Mixing Catadioptric and Perspective Cameras
OMNIVIS '02: Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Omnidirectional VisionWe analyze relations that exist between multiple views of a static scene, where the views can be taken by any mixture of para-catadioptric, perspective or affine cameras. Concretely, we introduce the notion of fundamental matrix, trifocal and ...
Comments