Real-Time Camera Tracking: When is High Frame-Rate Best?

Abstract

Higher frame-rates promise better tracking of rapid motion, but advanced real-time vision systems rarely exceed the standard 10– 60Hz range, arguing that the computation required would be too great. Actually, increasing frame-rate is mitigated by reduced computational cost per frame in trackers which take advantage of prediction. Additionally, when we consider the physics of image formation, high frame-rate implies that the upper bound on shutter time is reduced, leading to less motion blur but more noise. So, putting these factors together, how are application-dependent performance requirements of accuracy, robustness and computational cost optimised as frame-rate varies? Using 3D camera tracking as our test problem, and analysing a fundamental dense whole image alignment approach, we open up a route to a systematic investigation via the careful synthesis of photorealistic video using ray-tracing of a detailed 3D scene, experimentally obtained photometric response and noise models, and rapid camera motions. Our multi-frame-rate, multiresolution, multi-light-level dataset is based on tens of thousands of hours of CPU rendering time. Our experiments lead to quantitative conclusions about frame-rate selection and highlight the crucial role of full consideration of physical image formation in pushing tracking performance.

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-33786-4_17

Extracted Key Phrases

8 Figures and Tables

02040201220132014201520162017
Citations per Year

95 Citations

Semantic Scholar estimates that this publication has 95 citations based on the available data.

See our FAQ for additional information.

Cite this paper

@inproceedings{Handa2012RealTimeCT, title={Real-Time Camera Tracking: When is High Frame-Rate Best?}, author={Ankur Handa and Richard A. Newcombe and Adrien Angeli and Andrew J. Davison}, booktitle={ECCV}, year={2012} }