Subject:
|
Re: Vision command + linux
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:16:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1116 times
|
| |
|
|
PeterBalch wrote:
> Makes sense.
>
> If you convert the image into (straight or curved) line segments then its
> easier and cheaper to match "corresponding" segments between images.
>
> My guess is that "Snakes" would help here. I used Snakes for an "AI" vision
> project last year (analysing medical ultrasonic images) and was very
> impressed with how well they coped with noisy blurred images. Their
> "capture distance" is far better than the 4 pixels you're working with.
> They're easy to implement too.
>
> If you can somehow get snakes fitted to various features on one image (e.g.
> by dropping random snakes on the first image and attracting them to
> features) then apply the same snakes to the next image and see how they
> move, you should get a good estimate of what the camera did.
>
> If the image is mainly of straight-edged geometic objects then there's a
> very old technique called "Shape Attractor" that's very quick at finding
> how to map one scene onto another.
>
>
>
Can you explicit your method, give us some reference ? I really want to
try it !
nanobapt
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Vision command + linux
|
| Steve (...) That must be fairly costly if you want bigger offsets and probably fails during a zoom or roll of the camera. (...) Makes sense. If you convert the image into (straight or curved) line segments then its easier and cheaper to match (...) (21 years ago, 14-Dec-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
