Timeline for How to find fundamental matrix based on other fundamental matrix and camera movement?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 7, 2022 at 19:28 | comment | added | Gulzar | I am not sure why the 1st chunk of code works, but it is more or less copy pasting from opencv, and I didn't have time to see why theirs works. I did a small test and that looked fine. The vectorized version is the same, but works for many Fs, which does not save calculations, but instead uses speedup from vectorization. | |
| Jan 6, 2022 at 13:48 | comment | added | Robert Bassett | I'm pessimistic that your ultimate goal is possible, especially in the face of the skew symmetric equation (the second one), which seems to thoroughly mix up the $F$ with each $P$. | |
| Jan 6, 2022 at 13:41 | comment | added | Robert Bassett | @Gulzar. I used this property to derive $F$ from scratch. I believe this approach will be faster than the method you are currently using because you don't have to calculate so many determinants (also I don't understand how/why your code works, because it doesn't seem to match what is in the links you provide). But this version doesn't achieve all of your goals either, because it's not clear how you can use this approach to speed up the calculation of new $F$s. | |
| Jan 6, 2022 at 13:32 | comment | added | Gulzar |
I only now have some time to figure out what you did here. This is the first I hear about the Kronecker product, so thanks :) Still, I am failing to understand why this uses a known result of F to obtain the next F? How do I go from the final equation (in P1, P2, F(P1, P2)) to say, F(P1, P3)?
|
|
| Jan 3, 2022 at 23:17 | history | edited | Robert Bassett | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 3, 2022 at 20:08 | history | answered | Robert Bassett | CC BY-SA 4.0 |