You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am trying derive a point cloud using the equations in csCalibration.pdf, specifically equation 1:
The left-most side has pzV as the scalar factor. From my understanding of the camera projection equations (reference 1, reference 2), this is derived from the equation: screen_xy = physical_xy * focal_length / distance, which has been re-formed by moving distance to the left side as distance * screen_xy = physical_xy * focal length. From this, pzV is standing in as the distance or depth from the camera (though there are transforms to account for offset from the camera, etc).
However, the vehicle coordinate frame uses ISO 8855 conventions and the Z dimension is up instead of the standard camera coordinate system where Z represents depth. From this, it appears that the equation should use pxV instead, and when making that substitution I achieve reasonable results. This may also be related to #28.
Is this interpretation correct? Should equation 1 have pxV on the left side?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I am trying derive a point cloud using the equations in csCalibration.pdf, specifically equation 1:
The left-most side has
pzV
as the scalar factor. From my understanding of the camera projection equations (reference 1, reference 2), this is derived from the equation:screen_xy = physical_xy * focal_length / distance
, which has been re-formed by movingdistance
to the left side asdistance * screen_xy = physical_xy * focal length
. From this,pzV
is standing in as thedistance
or depth from the camera (though there are transforms to account for offset from the camera, etc).However, the vehicle coordinate frame uses ISO 8855 conventions and the Z dimension is up instead of the standard camera coordinate system where Z represents depth. From this, it appears that the equation should use
pxV
instead, and when making that substitution I achieve reasonable results. This may also be related to #28.Is this interpretation correct? Should equation 1 have
pxV
on the left side?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: