-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 541
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
propose another method for estimating tag position. #60
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Hi Weixu, I would like to apologize for not responding sooner to your pull request. I have looked at it a couple times over the years, but each time, other, more pressing work interrupted me before I could even really start evaluating your solve square method. The problem is that I have very little time to devote to AprilTag support, so it mostly gets consumed by fixing day-to-day bugs. The other problem is that I currently do not have a good system to test the pose estimation calculations. I do not think this situation will change in the future, but I will leave this PR open in the hopes that eventually it can be evaluated. Best, |
I have been able to reproduce the results in the PR using the author's original test bed. I used a branch of apriltag that has diagnostics tracing code embedded which allowed this capture I modified the submissions code to start in PAUSE=1 and only process one iteration at a time. The orthogonal iteration is done first, there are around 44k lines emitted from math for this operation and it results in the output described above. As it is implemented directly the second method 'solve squares' results in only a dozen or so lines, in effect only to build the rotational matrix for the pose output. Here are my observations:
|
I would like to thank both of you very much for looking at this PR. |
Do you have more test inputs and verifiable outputs? From what I've seen running your test framework I think it's worthwhile to spend additional time upstreaming both the solve squares method (even if it's a run-time or compile-time option) and the test framework. |
I think there is also https://encov.ip.uca.fr/publications/pubfiles/2014_Collins_etal_IJCV_plane.pdf |
Hello,
My name is Weixu Zhu. I'm a PhD student in IRIDIA lab, Université libre de Bruxelles.
When using estimate_tag_pose, I got "Error, more than one new minima found" pretty often. When this happens, I got the pose wrong, shown in attached file
. I had a look at code apriltag_pose.c, this seems to be caused by a first bad orthogonal_iteration estimating, and then fix_pose_ambiguities got confused and got n_minima > 1.
(Also, near line 424 - 437 in apriltag_pose.c, I also observed that (n_minima == 0) happens more often than (n_minima > 1). The code doesn't do anything about it. I'm not sure if it is a problem or not. I guess this is fine, since when (n_minima == 0) happens, orthogonal_iteration seems to produce a good result.)
Anyway, I propose an alternative method, I call it solve_square method. I change apriltag_pose.c a little bit, so that when "Error, more than one new minima found" happens, it switches to solve_square method to get the estimation result. It works pretty fine as I test it, shown in the file
The detail of the solve_square method is here:
solve_square_description.pdf
You can also clone my testbench https://github.com/freedomcondor/tagTestBench.git, which contains a picture I save which causes "Error, more than one new minima found", to see the results yourself.
I would appreciate it if you could evaluate my solution to see if it is a good one.
Thank you very much. Have a nice day.
Weixu Zhu