[Bf-vfx] tracker constraints and camera reconstruction...

[David Jeske]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Sergey Sharybin <sergey.vfx at gmail.com>wrote:

>  Another usage of plane track might be constraining point tracks to
>>> belong to this plane while tracking them. Which means we might support
>>> other-way-around usecase: you create point tracks, you create plane out of
>>> them, and then starts tracking this point tracks taking plane constraint
>>> into account.
>>>
>>

> That wouldn't be 3d, that'd still be based on homography estimation and
> making so tracks fits this homography in a best way (well, difficult to
> explain this in text, whiteboard would be much easier). At this point i
> couldn't see why or how we'll reconstruct 3D from point tacks in that case.
>

It seems like something down this path should allow us to both get better
and more reliable tracks, and more reliable camera solve.

Which of these approaches do you think are easy-vs-hard with libmv/Ceres?

1) binding trackers together to help the tracker solve (maybe just
homography)

2) telling the camera solver when a set of tracks are 3d planar, to help
constrain the solver, and improve the relative positions of reconstructed
3d track locations in more rotation-dominant sequences

3) add a workflow like Mocha/AE, where a surface can be spline-marked and
tracks are automatically managed within the surface.

...though when I was looking at this before, I was thinking just saving
camera-reconstruction constraints (origin, floor, scale) in the marker
would be nice, so they don't have to be re-applied every camera-solve
attempt.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-vfx/attachments/20130813/b9e6ec21/attachment.htm