3 ms·
Mrcal was written and verified for more difficult stereo tracking than that, approximately by a 10-15x factor (in, say, fisher information sense). It's a shame
by jvanderbot 2y ago
Mrcal was written and verified for more difficult stereo tracking than that, approximately by a 10-15x factor (in, say, fisher information sense). It's a shame it doesn't have a better data set for verification but I expect there are reasons for that as well. Not to say that other tools are completely inappropriate for this domain, obviously, or denigrate anything or anyone.
- midjji 2y agoSounds like a paper, link?
- midjji 2y agoFor you to say that you would have needed the image res 2MPixel, but ignoring that, it should have been a paper I knew about if true. So I checked. mrcal is providing the same lens models as opencv, and it looks like its using opencv to do the estimate. For higher perf calibration checkout https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02908 https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02908
- jvanderbot 2y agoI thought the thread here was re: Interrogating the model and improving its calibration, as well as using different models. I know from working down the hall from Dima for a few years that mrcal has done both, and in domains beyond and more challenging than those described in this thread. So I mentioned it, that's all. Nothing to say beyond that, but I wish I had more to contribute.
- dima55 2y agoThat paper describes a rich splined model, very similar to the one used in mrcal. mrcal models projection (instead of unprojection like the paper does), which is better in a practical sense. Both work well to fit every lens. https://mrcal.secretsauce.net/splined-models.html https://mrcal.secretsauce.net/splined-models.html