Chinese Journal of Lasers, Volume. 52, Issue 17, 1704001(2025)

Accurate Camera Pose Estimation for Model Scale Scaling Interference

Xiaoyan Zhou1, Futao Lu1, Qida Yu1、*, Bo Ni1, and Guili Xu2
Author Affiliations
  • 1School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 201144, Jiangsu , China
  • 2School of Automation, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 211106, Jiangsu , China
  • show less
    Figures & Tables(12)
    Schematic of the PnP problem with scaling factors
    Pose errors in the synthetic data experiments. (a)‒(d) Rotation matrix error at different noise standard deviations;
    Errors in pose and scaling factors under noise standard deviation σ=5 pixel. (a) Rotation matrix error; (b) translation vector error; (c) error in scaling factor s1; (d) error in scaling factor s2
    Qualitative results of some data on the KeypointNet dataset. (a) 3D point cloud of a bottle after scaling; (d) 3D point cloud of a car after scaling; (b)(e) visualized qualitative results of our method; (c)(f) visualized qualitative results of APnP method
    Four images from the ETH3D Benchmark dataset, where the first two are outdoor scenes and the last two are indoor scenes
    Comparison of pose errors and CPU running time in real data experiments. (a)‒(d) Rotation matrix error under actual scenarios of Courtyard, Facade, Delivery area, and Statue; (e)‒(h) translation vector error under actual scenarios of Courtyard, Facade, Delivery area, and Statue; (i)‒(l) CPU running time under actual scenarios of Courtyard, Facade, Delivery area, and Statue
    Histograms of pose errors of each method under extreme scaling factors. (a) Rotation matrix error under the actual scenario Courtyard; (b) rotation matrix error under the actual scenario Delivery area; (c) translation vector error under the actual scenario Courtyard; (d) translation vector error under the actual scenario Delivery area
    • Table 1. Error statistics for rotation matrix and translation vector in the synthetic data experiment

      View table

      Table 1. Error statistics for rotation matrix and translation vector in the synthetic data experiment

      MethodAverage RMSE of rotation matrix /10-3Promotion rate of rotation matrix /%Average RMSE of translation vector /10-3Promotion rate of translation vector /%
      MLPnP244.12625.475.31422.36
      oDLT353.60614.735.05318.35
      EPnP143.46711.314.76813.47
      DPnP363.42210.144.72512.68
      CPnP333.3678.674.67311.71
      Our method3.0754.126
    • Table 2. Running time statistics

      View table

      Table 2. Running time statistics

      Method

      Average

      running time /s

      Computational efficiency

      improvement rate /%

      MLPnP2424.5936.72
      oDLT3522.6431.27
      EPnP1420.8725.44
      DPnP3623.3233.28
      CPnP3318.1714.36
      Our method15.56
    • Table 3. Error statistics of rotation matrix and translation vector under the actual scenario Facade

      View table

      Table 3. Error statistics of rotation matrix and translation vector under the actual scenario Facade

      Method

      Average RMSE of

      rotation matrix /10-2

      Promotion rate of

      rotation matrix /%

      Average RMSE of

      translation vector/10-2

      Promotion rate of

      translation vector/%

      MLPnP246.48021.368.47626.69
      oDLT356.18217.577.76619.98
      EPnP145.89213.517.55217.72
      DPnP366.03015.497.27414.57
      CPnP335.77511.767.26714.49
      Our method5.0966.214
    • Table 4. Error statistics of rotation matrix and translation vector under the actual scenario Statue

      View table

      Table 4. Error statistics of rotation matrix and translation vector under the actual scenario Statue

      Method

      Average RMSE of

      rotation matrix /10-2

      Promotion rate of

      rotation matrix /%

      Average RMSE of

      translation vector/10-2

      Promotion rate of

      translation vector /%

      MLPnP246.18625.436.97321.71
      oDLT355.69218.966.69718.49
      EPnP145.39914.566.55616.73
      DPnP365.60417.686.48115.77
      CPnP335.12910.066.36214.19
      Our method4.6135.459
    • Table 5. Possible combinations of extreme scaling factors

      View table

      Table 5. Possible combinations of extreme scaling factors

      No.s1s2
      1(2,2)
      2(0.5,0.5)
      3(0.5,2)
      4(2,0.5)
    Tools

    Get Citation

    Copy Citation Text

    Xiaoyan Zhou, Futao Lu, Qida Yu, Bo Ni, Guili Xu. Accurate Camera Pose Estimation for Model Scale Scaling Interference[J]. Chinese Journal of Lasers, 2025, 52(17): 1704001

    Download Citation

    EndNote(RIS)BibTexPlain Text
    Save article for my favorites
    Paper Information

    Category: Measurement and metrology

    Received: Feb. 24, 2025

    Accepted: Apr. 24, 2025

    Published Online: Sep. 17, 2025

    The Author Email: Qida Yu (003550@nuist.edu.cn)

    DOI:10.3788/CJL250554

    CSTR:32183.14.CJL250554

    Topics