Abstract
Projective homography sits at the heart of many problems in image registration. In addition to many methods for estimating the homography parameters [5], analytical expressions to assess the accuracy of the transformation parameters have been proposed [4]. We show that these expressions provide less accurate bounds than those based on the earlier results of Weng et al. [7]. The discrepancy becomes more critical in applications involving the integration of frame-to-frame homographies and their uncertainties, as in the reconstruction of terrain mosaics and the camera trajectory from flyover imagery. We demonstrate these issues through selected examples.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing, ICIP |
| Pages | 1089-1092 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Volume | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Dec 1 2005 |
| Event | IEEE International Conference on Image Processing 2005, ICIP 2005 - Genova, Italy Duration: Sep 11 2005 → Sep 14 2005 |
Other
| Other | IEEE International Conference on Image Processing 2005, ICIP 2005 |
|---|---|
| Country | Italy |
| City | Genova |
| Period | 9/11/05 → 9/14/05 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Engineering(all)
Cite this
Planar homography : Accuracy analysis and applications. / Negahdaripour, Shahriar; Prados, Ricard; Garcia, Rafael.
Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing, ICIP. Vol. 1 2005. p. 1089-1092 1529944.Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution
}
TY - GEN
T1 - Planar homography
T2 - Accuracy analysis and applications
AU - Negahdaripour, Shahriar
AU - Prados, Ricard
AU - Garcia, Rafael
PY - 2005/12/1
Y1 - 2005/12/1
N2 - Projective homography sits at the heart of many problems in image registration. In addition to many methods for estimating the homography parameters [5], analytical expressions to assess the accuracy of the transformation parameters have been proposed [4]. We show that these expressions provide less accurate bounds than those based on the earlier results of Weng et al. [7]. The discrepancy becomes more critical in applications involving the integration of frame-to-frame homographies and their uncertainties, as in the reconstruction of terrain mosaics and the camera trajectory from flyover imagery. We demonstrate these issues through selected examples.
AB - Projective homography sits at the heart of many problems in image registration. In addition to many methods for estimating the homography parameters [5], analytical expressions to assess the accuracy of the transformation parameters have been proposed [4]. We show that these expressions provide less accurate bounds than those based on the earlier results of Weng et al. [7]. The discrepancy becomes more critical in applications involving the integration of frame-to-frame homographies and their uncertainties, as in the reconstruction of terrain mosaics and the camera trajectory from flyover imagery. We demonstrate these issues through selected examples.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33749647011&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33749647011&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/ICIP.2005.1529944
DO - 10.1109/ICIP.2005.1529944
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:33749647011
SN - 0780391349
SN - 9780780391345
VL - 1
SP - 1089
EP - 1092
BT - Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing, ICIP
ER -