Adaptive Fringe Projection and Error-Compensated Calibration for Compact 3D Shape-Measurement Systems
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Measurement of the three-dimensional (3-D) shape of an object is needed for both industrial and consumer applications. In industrial applications, compact measurement systems are needed to accomplish certain tasks such as measuring an interior surface in a confined space. In consumer applications, compact measurement systems are also needed for common consumers to conveniently get access to 3D data for a wide range of everyday uses. Fringe-projection techniques have been increasingly used for 3D shape measurement due to the advantage of dense full-field measurement. \n \n \nFor a camera-projector measurement system, system geometry (the relative camera-projector position and angle) determine the system compactness. Analysis of the relation of system geometry to measurement accuracy is challenging owing to the effect of the various factors that vary with system geometry on measurement accuracy. It is thus necessary to experimentally determine how measurement accuracy varies with system geometry, in order to determine the most compact design that satisfies a desired measurement accuracy. This has been achieved in a compactness study, in which the measurement accuracy is evaluated at different relative camera-projector positions and angles. \n \n \nMeasurement results in the compactness study have shown that there is a tradeoff in loss of accuracy for increased compactness and loss of compactness for increased accuracy. The smallest camera-projector angle (for an industrial system) or the smallest physical distance between the camera and projector (for a consumer system) that satisfies the desired accuracy would provide the most compact design. Several new methods including 1) an improved heterodyne phase-unwrapping method, 2) an adaptive fringe-pattern projection (AFPP) method for surfaces of high variation in reflectivity and illumination, and 3) a pixel-wise adaptive fringe-pattern projection (PWAFPP) method for such surfaces, have been developed in this research to improve measurement accuracy, thus contributing to enable a more compact system design to achieve a desired measurement accuracy. \n \n \nFirst, the new improved heterodyne phase-unwrapping method detects and compensates for the spike-like errors in absolute phase maps. The method has demonstrated improved projector calibration accuracy from 18.2 to 0.2 pixels, thus ensuring usable camera-projector stereovision system calibration for 3D measurement. Second, the new AFPP method adapts the projector maximum input gray levels (MIGLs) to local surface reflectivity using only two prior fringe-pattern projection and image-capture rounds. The method demonstrated greatly improved 3D measurement accuracy by avoiding image saturation in highly-reflective surface regions while maintaining high intensity modulation of captured fringe patterns across the entire surface with large range in reflectivity. Third, the new PWAFPP method projects a MIGL adapted to the surface reflectivity and illuminance for each pixel. The method has demonstrated a 34% root-mean-square (RMS) error reduction in 3D measurement for pixels that remained saturated after applying the AFPP method. The new method can thus be used to measure surfaces with more complex variation in surface reflectivity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».