2014 19th International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics (MMAR) 2014
DOI: 10.1109/mmar.2014.6957371
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating the robustness of feature correspondence using different feature extractors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the first two cases, different types of feature descriptors can be paired with different kinds of feature detectors. [27], [28]. Therefore, it is considered a viable choice for complementing those algorithms.…”
Section: Feature Detectors and Descriptorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the first two cases, different types of feature descriptors can be paired with different kinds of feature detectors. [27], [28]. Therefore, it is considered a viable choice for complementing those algorithms.…”
Section: Feature Detectors and Descriptorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [34], authors compared combinations of well-known feature detectors and descriptors including Harris-FREAK, Hessian-SURF, maximally stable extremal regions (MSER)-SURF, and Fast-FREAK to identify the optimal detector and descriptor pair that best suits the matching procedure. Experiments conducted on 50 images revealed that the Harris-FREAK combination outperformed the other combinations.…”
Section: Feature-based Matching Using Local Templatesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, the accuracy of the 2D location of the detected features (the responsibility of the feature detector) as well as the accuracy of the description and matching of the detected features (the responsibility of the feature descriptor) significantly affect the accuracy of the estimated 3D location. Therefore, a lot of attention has been paid during the past decade to the problem of deciding good feature detectors and descriptors combinations for SfM and it has become a hot area of research [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. When using synthetic data (like SfM Flow does in [13]) is not an option, and the ground truth of the real data is not available, evaluation of the 3D reconstruction becomes very challenging as relying on the value of the reconstruction density (number of 3D points in the sparse point cloud) and accuracy (average reprojection error of the 3D points on the images) can be misleading [14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%