Correcting the Eccentricity Error of Projected Spherical Objects in Perspective Cameras
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Projective transformation of spheres onto images produce ellipses, whose centers do not coincide with the projected center of the sphere. This results in an eccentricity error, which must be treated in high precision metrology. This article provides closed formulations for modeling this error in images to enable 3-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the center of spherical objects. The article also provides a new direct robust method for detecting spherical pattern in point clouds. It was shown that the eccentricity error in an image has only one component in the direction of the major axis of the ellipse. It was also revealed that the eccentricity is zero if and only if the center of the projected sphere lies on the camera’s perspective center. The effectiveness of the robust sphere detection and the eccentricity error modeling method was evaluated on simulated point clouds of spheres and real-world images, respectively. It was observed that the proposed robust sphere fitting method outperformed the popular M-estimator sample consensus in terms of radius and center estimation accuracy by a factor of 13, and 14 on average, respectively. Using the proposed eccentricity adjustment, the estimated 3D center of the sphere using modeled eccentricity was superior to the unmodeled case. It was also observed that the accuracy of the estimated 3D center using modeled eccentricity continuously improved as the number of images increased, whereas the unmodeled eccentricity did not show improvements after eight image views. The results of the investigation show that: (i) the proposed method effectively modeled the eccentricity error, and (ii) the effects of eliminating the eccentricity error in the 3D reconstruction become even more pronounced in a larger number of image views.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".