Local Readjustment for High-Resolution 3D Reconstruction: SupplementaryMaterial

Siyu Zhu1, Tian Fang2, Jianxiong Xiao3, and Long Quan4

1,2,4The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology3Princeton University

1. IntroductionOwing to space constraints, the formal paper provides parts of our experimental results. This document presents more

results of real datasets without ground truth, real datasets with ground truth, and synthetic datasets to both quantitatively andqualitatively demonstrate that our method significantly reduces severe propagated errors and estimation biases caused by theinitial global adjustment, and helps to recover the detailed geometry.

2. Real Datasets without Ground Truth2.1. The Results of the Casa Milla Dataset

Figure 1. Sample images of the Casa Milla dataset.

1

Dense Reconstruction

With

out R

A

With

RA

Image Without RA With RA

Figure 2. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the Casa Milla dataset. We should note thatsome serious artifacts in the dense reconstruction (marked by purple rectangles) are caused by the Non-Lambertian surface and cannot beresolved by our method.

Imag

e W

ithou

t RA

W

ith R

A

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Image Without RA With RA

Figure 3. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the Casa Milla dataset.

2

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Without RA With RA

Image

Figure 4. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the Casa Milla dataset.

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Without RA With RA

Image

Without RA With RA Image

Figure 5. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the Casa Milla dataset.

3

2.2. The Results of the Station Dataset

Figure 6. Sample images of the Station dataset.

Imag

e W

ithou

t RA

W

ith R

A

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Image Without RA With RA

Figure 7. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the Station dataset.

4

Imag

e W

ithou

t RA

W

ith R

A

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Figure 8. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the Station dataset.

Imag

e W

ithou

t RA

W

ith R

A

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Image Without RA With RA

Figure 9. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the Station dataset.

5

2.3. The Results of the Louvre Dataset

Figure 10. Sample images of the Louvre dataset.

Image Without RA With RA

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Imag

e W

ithou

t RA

W

ith R

A

Figure 11. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the Louvre dataset.

6

Image Without RA With RA

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Imag

e W

ithou

t RA

W

ith R

A

Figure 12. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the Louvre dataset.

7

2.4. The Results of the Castle Dataset

Figure 13. Sample images of the Castle dataset.

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Imag

e W

ith R

A

With

out

RA

Image With RA Without RA

Figure 14. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the Castle dataset.

8

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Imag

e W

ithout R

A

With R

A

Image Without RA With RA Image Without RA With RA

Figure 15. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the Castle dataset.

9

3. Real Datasets with Ground Truth3.1. Histograms and Curves

The well-known dense multi-view stereo benchmark [1] contains six datasets, namely fountain-P11, Herz-Jesu-P8, entry-P10, castle-P19, Herz-Jesu-P25, and castle-P30. Because of the lack of space, we have shown the experimental results ofthe Herz-Jesu-P8, entry-P10, and castle-P19 datasets in our formal paper. Here, the relative error histograms and cumulativerelative error curves of the other three datasets are provided.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

5

10

15

20

25

sigma

occu

panc

y

fountain−P11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

10

20

30

sigma

occu

panc

y

Herz−Jesu−P25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

10

20

30

sigma

occu

panc

y

castle−P30

Without RAWith RA

Without RAWith RA

Without RAWith RA

occu

panc

y

0 5 100

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

sigma

cum

ulat

ive

fountain−P11

0 5 100

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

sigma

cum

ulat

ive

Herz−Jesu−P25

0 5 100

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

sigmacu

mul

ativ

e

castle−P30

Without RAWith RA

Without RAWith RA

Without RAWith RA

Figure 16. Relative error histograms and cumulative relative error curves of the real datasets with ground truth, namely fountain-P11,Herz-Jesu-P25, and castle-P30.

3.2. Visual Comparisons

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Image Without RA With RA Image Without RA With RA

Figure 17. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the castle-P30 dataset.

10

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Image Without RA With RA

Imag

e W

ithou

t RA

W

ith R

A

Figure 18. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the Herz-Jesu-P8 dataset.

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Figure 19. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the fountain-P11 dataset. We observe that,compared with the mesh model without readjustment, there is almost no obvious visual improvement in the mesh model with readjustment.It is primarily because these images are all captured in a well-conditioned environment, and the scale of the dataset is comparatively small,meaning it is not the ideal target for our readjustment approach. Fortunately, the images used for reconstruction, especially those forInternet-scale reconstruction, are generally taken under different conditions of lighting, scale, surface reflection, and weather, using variouscameras and lens with different focus, sensor noise and distortion, and the estimation bias cannot be ignored.

11

4. Synthetic DatasetsBased on prior textured mesh models, both standard models (Block) and those from the general reconstruction engine (De-

pot and Tower), we use Maya to set synthetic camera poses and get rendered images for dense reconstruction. In this section,we present some visual comparisons between the synthetic datasets with and without readjustment. Moreover, we providethe average relative error of the dataset with and without readjustment where different types and levels of perturbations aremanually introduced (the statistics of the Block dataset is shown in the formal paper).

4.1. The Results of the Block Dataset

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 20. The demonstration of the synthetic Block dataset. (a) The mesh model used for generating synthetic camera geometry. (b) Thesynthetic camera geometry. (c) Some samples of the rendered images for dense reconstruction.

(a)

(b)

(a)

(c)

Figure 21. The visual comparison of the synthetic Block dataset. Note that we add Gaussian noise to the parameters of two specificcameras, which are marked by red dashed rectangles in (a). (b) and (c) are respectively the mesh models without and with readjustment.We can clearly observe that the mesh model in (c) contains less severe propagated errors.

12

4.2. The Results of the Depot Dataset

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 22. The demonstration of the synthetic Depot dataset. (a) The mesh model used for generating synthetic camera geometry. (b) Thesynthetic camera geometry. (c) Some samples of the rendered images for dense reconstruction.

Imag

e W

ithou

t RA

W

ith R

A

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Image Without RA With RA Image Without RA With RA

Figure 23. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the synthetic Depot dataset.

Error type Uniform error Concentrated errorError level 1 pixel 2 pixels 5 pixels 20 pixels 1 pixel 2 pixels 5 pixels 20 pixels

Relativeerror[sigma]

Without RA 3.457 6.784 15.451 29.453 3.431 6.175 14.745 28.452With RA 3.074 5.147 14.974 27.454 2.457 5.407 8.754 16.741

Reduction 11.08% 24.13% 3.09% 6.79% 28.39% 12.44% 40.63% 41.16%

Table 1. The average relative error of the synthetic Depot dataset with and without readjustment where different types and levels ofperturbations are manually introduced.

13

4.3. The Results of the Tower Dataset

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 24. The demonstration of the synthetic Tower dataset. (a) The mesh model used for generating synthetic camera geometry. (b) Thesynthetic camera geometry. (c) Some samples of the rendered images for dense reconstruction.

Imag

e W

ithou

t RA

W

ith R

A

Dense Reconstruction Without RA With RA

Figure 25. The comparison between mesh models with and without readjustment (RA) for the synthetic Tower dataset.

Error type Uniform error Concentrated errorError level 1 pixel 2 pixels 5 pixels 20 pixels 1 pixel 2 pixels 5 pixels 20 pixels

Relativeerror[sigma]

Without RA 3.784 7.345 17.613 32.154 3.556 7.123 17.234 31.157With RA 3.462 6.954 16.489 31.156 2.932 5.998 11.194 16.419

Reduction 8.51% 5.32% 6.38% 3.10% 17.55% 15.79% 35.05% 47.30%

Table 2. The average relative error of the synthetic Tower dataset with and without readjustment where different types and levels ofperturbations are manually introduced.

14

References[1] C. Strecha, W. von Hansen, L. V. Gool, P. Fua, and U. Thoennessen. On benchmarking camera calibration and multi-view stereo for high resolution imagery. In CVPR, 2008.

11

15