Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Camera calibration by using weighted differential evolution algorithm: a comparative study with ABC, PSO, COBIDE, DE, CS, GWO, TLBO, MVMO, FOA, LSHADE, ZHANG and BOUGUET

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Camera calibration is an avoidable process for computational vision applications, such as 3D reverse engineering, industrial robot calibration, optic-pattern recognition, simultaneous localization and mapping, autonomous visual-driving and photogrammetric vision. The camera calibration problem is too complex, nonlinear and multimodal. Traditional camera calibration methods using gradient-based optimization often trap to one of the many local solutions available. Accurate computation ability of traditional camera calibration methods is limited since they use gradient-based optimization methods. Since evolutionary computing algorithms can avoid local solutions of numerical problems, they have the potential to accurately compute the required camera calibration parameters for high-precision computational vision applications. In this paper, the camera calibration parameters are computed by using 11 evolutionary computing algorithms, i.e., WDE, ABC, PSO, COBIDE, DE, CS, GWO, TLBO, MVMO, FOA and LSHADE. In order to make unbiased evaluation of the camera calibration results provided by the related evolutionary computing algorithms, two gradient-based traditional camera calibration methods, i.e., Zhang and Bouguet, have been used in the conducted experiments in this paper. The camera calibration results of the related methods were used to model a 3D physical test scene by using Structure from Motion photogrammetry method. The reference data set of the related 3D physical scene has been captured by using a 3D terrestrial laser scanner. Statistical comparison of the camera calibration results exposed that WDE supplies statistically better results than other comparison algorithms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Markov BN, Konov SG, Loginov AA (2012) Calibration of cameras of photogrammetric measuring systems with the use of a genetic solution search algorithm. Meas Tech 55(5):551–554

    Google Scholar 

  2. Westoby MJ, Brasington J, Glasser NF et al (2012) Structure-from-motion photogrammetry: a low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179:300–314

    Google Scholar 

  3. Qi W, Li, F, Zhenzhong L (2010). Review on camera calibration. In: IEEE Chinese conference in control and decision. An 11403827

  4. Wang L, Wu F, Hu Z (2007) Multi-camera calibration with one-dimensional object under general motions. In: IEEE 11th international conference on computer vision, pp 1–7

  5. Fuhr G, Jung CR (2017) Camera self-calibration based on nonlinear optimization and applications in surveillance systems. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 27(5):1132–1142

    Google Scholar 

  6. Weng J, Cohen P, Herniou M (1992) Camera calibration with distortion models and accuracy evaluation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal 1992(10):965–980

    Google Scholar 

  7. Abdel-Aziz YI (1974) Photogrammetric potential of non metric cameras. Ph.D. thesis, Illinois University, Champaign

  8. Li J, Liu Z (2018) Efficient camera self-calibration method for remote sensing photogrammetry. Opt Express 26(11):14213–14231

    Google Scholar 

  9. Li W, Bertin S, Friedrich H (2018) Combining structure from motion and close-range stereo photogrammetry to obtain scaled gravel bar DEMs. Int J Remote Sens 39(23):9269–9293

    Google Scholar 

  10. Abdel-Aziz Y, Karara H, Hauck M (2015) Direct linear transformation from comparator coordinates into object space coordinates in close-range photogrammetry. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 81(2):103–107

    Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang Z (2000) A flexible new technique for camera calibration. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 22(11):1330–1334

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang Z (1999) Flexible camera calibration by viewing a plane from unknown orientations. In: Proceedings of the seventh IEEE international conference on computer vision, AN: 6365272

  13. Zhang Z (2014) Camera calibration. In: Szeliski R (ed) Computer vision. Springer, New York, pp 76–77

    Google Scholar 

  14. Zhang Z et al (2018) A single-image linear calibration method for camera. Measurement 130:298–305

    Google Scholar 

  15. Civicioglu P, Besdok E (2006) Implicit camera calibration by using resilient neural networks. LNCS 4233:632–640

    Google Scholar 

  16. Horaud R, Mohr R, Lorecki B (1992). Linear camera calibration. In: Proceedings 1992 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. AN: 4377425

  17. Ismail K, Sayed T, Saunier N (2013) A methodology for precise camera calibration for data collection applications in urban traffic scenes. Can J Civ Eng 40(1):57–67

    Google Scholar 

  18. Douskos V, Kalisperakis I, Karras G, Petsa E (2008) Fully automatic camera calibration using regular planar patterns. In: International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information science, vol XXXVII, no. Part B5, pp 21–26

  19. Kang DJ, Ha JE, Jeong MH (2008) Detection of calibration patterns for camera calibration with irregular lighting and complicated backgrounds. Int J Control Autom 6(5):746–754

    Google Scholar 

  20. Maybank SJ, Faugeras OD (1992) A theory of self-calibration of a moving camera. Int J Comput Vis 8(2):123–151

    Google Scholar 

  21. Armstrong M, Zisserman A, Hartley R (1996) Self-calibration from image triplets. LNCS 1064:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sturm P, Maybank SJ (1999) On plane-based camera calibration: a general algorithm, singularities, applications. In: IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 432–437

  23. Tsai R (1987) A versatile camera calibration technique for high-accuracy 3D machine vision metrology using off-the-shelf TV cameras and lenses. IEEE Trans Robot 3(4):323–344

    Google Scholar 

  24. Deng L et al (2016) A novel camera calibration technique based on differential evolution particle swarm optimization algorithm. Neurocomputing 174:456–465

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bouguet JY (2019) Camera calibration toolbox for Matlab. http://www.vision.caltech.edu/bouguetj/calib_doc/. Accessed 29 Dec 2019

  26. Zhang WM, Zhong YX (2004) Camera calibration based on improved differential evolution algorithm. Opt Tech 30(6):720–723

    Google Scholar 

  27. Deep K et al (2013) Stereo camera calibration using particle swarm optimization. Appl Artif Intell 27(7):618–634

    Google Scholar 

  28. Liu X, Qi D (2016) Camera calibration based on self-adaptive cuckoo search algorithm. In: 2016 IEEE 8th international conference on intelligent human-machine systems and cybernetics, vol 2, pp 95–98

  29. Ji Q, Zhang Y (2001) Camera calibration with genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A 31(2):120–130

    Google Scholar 

  30. Koch A, Bourgeois-Republique C, Dipanda A (2015) Evolutionary algorithms for a mixed stereovision uncalibrated 3D reconstruction. Multimed Tools Appl 74(19):8703–8721

    Google Scholar 

  31. Yang Z et al (2012) A novel camera calibration method based on genetic algorithm. In: 3rd IEEE conference on industrial electronics and applications, pp 2222–2227

  32. Civicioglu P et al (2018) Weighted differential evolution algorithm for numerical function optimization: a comparative study with cuckoo search, artificial bee colony, adaptive differential evolution, and backtracking search optimization algorithms. Neural Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3822-5:1-15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Karaboga D, Akay B (2009) A comparative study of artificial bee colony algorithm. Appl Math Comput 214(1):108–132

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Clerc M (2012) Beyond standard particle swarm optimisation. Innov Dev Swarm Intell Appl 1(4):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wang Y et al (2014) Differential evolution based on covariance matrix learning and bimodal distribution parameter setting. Appl Soft Comput 18:232–247

    Google Scholar 

  36. Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim 11(4):341–359

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Gandomi AH, Yang X-S, Alavi AH (2013) Cuckoo search algorithm: a metaheuristic approach to solve structural optimization problems. Eng Comput 29(1):17–35

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mirjalili S et al (2016) Multi-objective grey wolf optimizer: a novel algorithm for multi-criterion optimization. Expert Syst Appl 47:106–119

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Vakharia D (2011) Teaching–learning-based optimization: a novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems. Comput Aided Des 43(3):303–315

    Google Scholar 

  40. Erlich I et al (2014) Evaluating the mean-variance mapping optimization on the IEEE-CEC 2014 test suite. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), pp 1625–1632

  41. Pan WT (2012) A new fruit fly optimization algorithm: taking the financial distress model as an example. Knowl Based Syst 26:69–74

    Google Scholar 

  42. Awad NH et al (2016) An ensemble sinusoidal parameter adaptation incorporated with L-SHADE for solving CEC2014 benchmark problems. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), pp 2958–2965

  43. Song X et al (2009) Camera calibration based on particle swarm optimization. In: 2nd international congress on image and signal processing, pp 1–5

  44. de la Fraga LG, Schütze O (2009) Direct calibration by fitting of cuboids to a single image using differential evolution. Int J Comput Vis 81(2):119–127

    Google Scholar 

  45. de la Fraga LG, Silva IV (2008) Direct 3D metric reconstruction from two views using differential evolution. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (IEEE world congress on computational intelligence), pp 3266–3273

  46. Civicioglu P, Besdok E (2019) Bernstain-search differential evolution algorithm for numerical function optimization. Expert Syst Appl 138:112831

    Google Scholar 

  47. Civicioglu P, Besdok E (2018) A plus evolutionary search algorithm and QR decomposition based rotation invariant crossover operator. Expert Syst Appl 103:49–62

    Google Scholar 

  48. Gunen MA, Atasever UH, Taskanat T, Besdok E (2019) Usage of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in determining drainage networks. Nat Sci 14:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  49. Jiang J, Cheng J, Chen XJN (2009) Registration for 3-D point cloud using angular-invariant feature. Neurocomputing 72(16–18):3839–3844

    Google Scholar 

  50. Aspert N, Santa-Cruz D, Ebrahimi T (2002) Mesh: measuring errors between surfaces using the hausdorff distance. In: 2002 IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo. AN: 7540733

  51. Wang L et al (2016) A convex relaxation optimization algorithm for multi-camera calibration with 1D objects. Neurocomputing 215:82–89

    Google Scholar 

  52. Gunen MA, Atasever UH, Besdok E (2017) A novel edge detection approach based on backtracking search optimization algorithm (BSA) clustering. In: IEEE 8th international conference on information technology (ICIT). AN 17285591

  53. Kriegman D (2007) Homography estimation. Lecture computer vision I, CSE a, p 252

  54. Kang L et al (2014) A highly accurate dense approach for homography estimation using modified differential evolution. Eng Appl Artif Intell 31:68–77

    Google Scholar 

  55. Karolczak M et al (2001) Implementation of a cone-beam reconstruction algorithm for the single-circle source orbit with embedded misalignment correction using homogeneous coordinates. Med Phys 28(10):2050–2069

    Google Scholar 

  56. Guan B, Shang Y, Yu Q (2017) Planar self-calibration for stereo cameras with radial distortion. Appl Opt 56(33):9257–9267

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wu J, Liu G (2012) Noniterative calibration of a camera lens with radial distortion. Meas Sci Technol 23(10):105013

    Google Scholar 

  58. Garg V, Deep K (2016) Performance of Laplacian Biogeography-Based Optimization Algorithm on CEC 2014 continuous optimization benchmarks and camera calibration problem. Swarm Evol Comput 27:132–144

    Google Scholar 

  59. QiShen L, LiCai L, ZeTao J (2009) A camera self-calibration method based on hybrid optimization algorithm. In: Second international symposium on electronic commerce and security, pp 60–64

  60. Espiau B (1994) Effect of camera calibration errors on visual servoing in robotics. In: Yoshikawa Tsuneo, Miyazaki Fumio (eds) Experimental robotics III. Springer, New York, pp 182–192

    Google Scholar 

  61. Matsumoto M, Nishimura T (1998) Mersenne twister: a 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudo-random number generator. ACM Trans Model Comput Simal 8(1):3–30

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  62. Navidi WC (2008) Statistics for engineers and scientists. McGraw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  63. Reyes-Acosta AV et al (2019) 3D pipe reconstruction employing video information from mobile robots. Appl Soft Comput 75:562–574

    Google Scholar 

  64. Gunen MA (2017) Comparison of point cloud filtering algorithms. In: Geomatics engineering. 2017, master thesis, Institute of Science, Erciyes University

  65. Nguyen HL et al (2017) A comparative study of automatic plane fitting registration for MLS sparse point clouds with different plane segmentation methods. In: ISPRS annals of photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences, vol IV-2/W4, pp 115–122

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geomatics Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Erciyes University, 38039, Kayseri, Turkey

    Mehmet Akif Gunen, Erkan Besdok & Umit Haluk Atasever

  2. Department of Aircraft Electrics and Electronics, Faculty, Aeronautics and Astronautics, Erciyes University, 38039, Kayseri, Turkey

    Pinar Civicioglu

Authors
  1. Mehmet Akif Gunen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erkan Besdok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pinar Civicioglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Umit Haluk Atasever
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Akif Gunen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gunen, M.A., Besdok, E., Civicioglu, P. et al. Camera calibration by using weighted differential evolution algorithm: a comparative study with ABC, PSO, COBIDE, DE, CS, GWO, TLBO, MVMO, FOA, LSHADE, ZHANG and BOUGUET. Neural Comput & Applic 32, 17681–17701 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-04944-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-04944-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation