findFundamentalMat documentation for CV_FM_RANSAC (Bug #2394)


Added by Julien Rebetez almost 5 years ago. Updated almost 5 years ago.


Status:Cancelled Start date:2012-09-27
Priority:Normal Due date:
Assignee:Maria Dimashova % Done:

0%

Category:calibration, 3d
Target version:2.4.3
Affected version: Operating System:
Difficulty: HW Platform:
Pull request:

Description

findFundamentalMat documentation says that if method is CV_FM_RANSAC, the number of points should be >= 8.

But this is incoherent with the code : in fundam.cpp, lines 636, there is a check that falls back on LMEDS if N < 15 :

if( (method & ~3) == CV_RANSAC && count >= 15 )
result = estimator.runRANSAC(m1, m2, &_F3x3, tempMask, param1, param2 );
else
result = estimator.runLMeDS(m1, m2, &_F3x3, tempMask, param2 );

History

Updated by Alexander Smorkalov almost 5 years ago

  • Assignee set to Maria Dimashova
  • Target version set to 2.4.3

Updated by Vadim Pisarevsky almost 5 years ago

I would consider it a feature. Consider the following facts:
1. Fundamental matrix is computed from at least 7 points (actually, 8 points is needed to get a single fundamental matrix, not 1 or 3).
2. If the ratio of inliers is known to be >=50% then LMEDS method is preferable to RANSAC, since the median (on which we compute the error) will always be an inlier and LMEDS is non-parametric method.
3. When the number of points is <= 14 then there will be always >=50% of inliers by definition.

This theory is proved by practice. We had some problems with the correctness test for cv::findFundamentalMat - sometimes it generated point configurations that fooled RANSAC algorithm. Since we added this hack - use LMEDS when the number of points is small enough, we got rid of those problems.

So, I cancel the ticket. If you have the particular dataset on which findFundamentalMat computes wrong matrix, please, reopen the ticket and supply the dataset.

  • Status changed from Open to Cancelled

Updated by Julien Rebetez almost 5 years ago

I agree with your analysis. My point was that the documentation should include your analysis or at least say that even if the user pass method=CV_FM_RANSAC, the system will fallback on LMEDS, regardless of the method parameter.
The documentation should read "CV_FM_RANSAC for the RANSAC algorithm N >= 15" and not the current "CV_FM_RANSAC for the RANSAC algorithm N >= 8".

Also available in: Atom PDF