Title |
Performance analysis of different surface reconstruction algorithms for 3D reconstruction of outdoor objects from their digital images
|
---|---|
Published in |
SpringerPlus, June 2016
|
DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-2425-9 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Abhik Maiti, Debashish Chakravarty |
Abstract |
3D reconstruction of geo-objects from their digital images is a time-efficient and convenient way of studying the structural features of the object being modelled. This paper presents a 3D reconstruction methodology which can be used to generate photo-realistic 3D watertight surface of different irregular shaped objects, from digital image sequences of the objects. The 3D reconstruction approach described here is robust, simplistic and can be readily used in reconstructing watertight 3D surface of any object from its digital image sequence. Here, digital images of different objects are used to build sparse, followed by dense 3D point clouds of the objects. These image-obtained point clouds are then used for generation of photo-realistic 3D surfaces, using different surface reconstruction algorithms such as Poisson reconstruction and Ball-pivoting algorithm. Different control parameters of these algorithms are identified, which affect the quality and computation time of the reconstructed 3D surface. The effects of these control parameters in generation of 3D surface from point clouds of different density are studied. It is shown that the reconstructed surface quality of Poisson reconstruction depends on Samples per node (SN) significantly, greater SN values resulting in better quality surfaces. Also, the quality of the 3D surface generated using Ball-Pivoting algorithm is found to be highly depend upon Clustering radius and Angle threshold values. The results obtained from this study give the readers of the article a valuable insight into the effects of different control parameters on determining the reconstructed surface quality. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 24% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
Researcher | 4 | 5% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 5% |
Other | 8 | 11% |
Unknown | 28 | 38% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Engineering | 18 | 24% |
Computer Science | 15 | 20% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 3% |
Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 3% |
Other | 7 | 9% |
Unknown | 28 | 38% |