Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Beyond Reprojection Error: Camera Calibration with 3D Targets

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Camera calibration quality should be judged in object space by the rays a calibrated camera predicts, not by reprojection error in pixels, and on that measure a three-dimensional icosahedral target can beat planar ringboards.

desk verdict The new target and bootstrap protocol are useful, but the 40% intersection-error claim is likely a confound of unmatched observation counts. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05066 v1 pith:ME5WQCIP submitted 2026-08-05 cs.CV

Dennis Ruppel , Hasan Kutlu , Kai A. Neumann , Martin Knuth , Pedro Santos , Andreas Weinmann , Arjan Kuijper This is my paper
classification cs.CV MSC 68T4562F40
keywords cameracalibration3Dreconstructionintersectionerrorreprojectionicosahedrontargetconcentriccirclefeaturesbootstrapevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that camera calibration for 3D reconstruction should be evaluated in object space by the rays a calibrated camera predicts, not by the traditional reprojection error measured in pixels. It introduces two ray-based metrics, intersection error and reconstruction error, and uses them to compare a planar ringboard with a newly designed icosahedral 3D target on synthetic and real data. On synthetic data the icosahedron achieves roughly 40% lower mean intersection error and a fourfold to threefold lower standard deviation for intersection and pose errors, while the planar board still wins on mean reprojection and reconstruction error. The authors conclude that reprojection error alone can misorder calibration quality, and that the choice of target and metric should match the intended reconstruction task.

What carries the argument

The machinery is scene-ray prediction from a calibrated camera model, together with two error measures defined on those rays. Intersection error fires each predicted ray at the known 3D geometry of the calibration target and takes the distance between the hit point and the true feature position; reconstruction error collects all rays for the same feature from different camera poses and measures the distance to their least-squares closest point. The icosahedral target places a grid of concentric ring features on each of its 20 faces, with six candidate positions per face of which exactly three carry dot markers, giving $\binom{6}{3}=20$ codes that identify every face and therefore assign a unique 3D coordinate to each detected ring center. A bootstrap procedure resamples the synthetic image pool 10,000 times to produce confidence intervals for all metrics, which is what lets the paper compare stability as well as mean accuracy.

What would settle it

Measure an icosahedral target's true face positions with a coordinate-measuring machine, recalibrate using that measured geometry, and recompute the intersection error; if the roughly 40% advantage over a planar ringboard disappears or reverses, the claimed benefit is an artifact of assuming ideal target geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that calibration quality for 3D reconstruction is properly measured by how accurately the calibrated camera model predicts scene rays in object space, and on that measure a 3D icosahedral target can outperform planar ringboards. Using synthetic renderings with known ground truth, the paper reports a mean intersection error of $2.57\times10^{-2}$ mm for the icosahedron versus $4.32\times10^{-2}$ mm for the planar board at 120 images, with a fourfold smaller standard deviation, and a threefold smaller pose-error standard deviation at 20 images. At the same time the planar board exhibits lower mean reprojection and reconstruction errors, which the paper offers as evidence that a single pixel-space scalar can be misleading and that stability and object-space accuracy are separate, measurable properties of a calibration.

Load-bearing premise

The intersection error assumes the physical geometry of the calibration target is known accurately, so if the printed icosahedron's faces deviate from the ideal shape, the object-space error and the planar-versus-3D comparison are biased in favor of whichever metric relies on that assumed geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Calibration pipelines for 3D reconstruction should report intersection and reconstruction errors alongside reprojection error, since the three metrics capture different failure modes.
  • When few calibration images are available, a 3D target such as the icosahedron can be preferable to a planar board because it stabilizes intersection and pose errors.
  • The choice of calibration target should be driven by the error metric that matters for the downstream task: planar boards for low reprojection error, 3D targets for object-space stability.
  • The virtual-camera model, which undistorts images with a Gaussian-process mapping before a pinhole fit, yields small but consistent accuracy improvements on planar targets in both synthetic and real evaluations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If target fabrication tolerances are tightened or the true target geometry is measured and used in the intersection computation, the icosahedron's synthetic advantage on object-space error may well transfer to real cameras, closing the gap seen in the real-data experiments.
  • The ray-based metrics could be inserted directly into calibration optimization or bundle adjustment as objective terms, turning an evaluation measure into a training signal rather than a post-hoc score.
  • The dot-code face-identification scheme generalizes to other convex polyhedra, so the paper opens a design space of 3D targets whose identification capacity grows with the number of faces.
  • A combined protocol—planar boards for dense reconstruction error plus a 3D target for pose stability—might outperform any single object, a configuration the paper does not test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a camera calibration framework that evaluates calibration quality with novel ray-based metrics (intersection and reconstruction error) in addition to conventional reprojection error, and introduces a 3D icosahedral calibration target with ring-based feature detection. On synthetic data, the authors report that the icosahedron achieves roughly 40% lower mean intersection error and lower variance than a planar ringboard, while reprojection error shows the opposite ordering. Real-data experiments with a 100-megapixel camera show that planar targets achieve lower errors, with 3D-printed icosahedra suffering from fabrication inaccuracies. The paper concludes that reprojection error can be misleading for reconstruction-oriented tasks and that ray-based metrics provide a more holistic assessment.

Significance. The conceptual shift from image-plane reprojection error to object-space ray-based metrics is valuable and could influence evaluation practice in camera calibration for 3D reconstruction. The paper contributes a full pipeline (target design, detection, calibration, bootstrap-evaluated synthetic validation) and is careful to include ground-truth poses in simulation. The synthetic bootstrap procedure and the real-data comparison across several targets are strengths. However, the headline quantitative claim about the icosahedron's superiority rests on a synthetic comparison that is not observationally controlled, and the real-data evidence for the generalized distortion model is presented without statistical support. If the confound is resolved, the core message would be substantially strengthened.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Table 1 and Table 2] The synthetic comparison between the planar ringboard and the icosahedron does not control for the total number of correspondences, the number of visible features per image, or the sampled image region. Table 1 shows that the planar targets are larger (AluBoard 40×40 mm) and have different feature spacing than the icosahedra (roughly 15–25 mm), and an icosahedron has 20 faces with ring grids. Section 4 fixes only the number of images N in {20, 50, 120} for the bootstrap but never reports or matches the total correspondences or angular coverage. In any least-squares calibration, both mean error and variance decrease as observation count grows and as the sampled image region changes. Therefore, the reported 40% lower mean intersection error and fourfold lower standard deviation (Table 2, N=120) cannot be attributed to the 3D geometry of the icosahedron without additional controls. Please rerun the bootstrap with matched total correspondences (or matched per-image feature counts and angular coverage), or explicitly report these quantities and argue why the comparison is fair.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4, Real-world evaluation (Fig. 7)] The abstract states that the generalized distortion model 'more faithfully captures physical camera effects and yields an improvement in calibration accuracy,' but the real-data section reports only median values from 12 runs (Fig. 7) and does not provide confidence intervals, statistical tests, or a table of numerical values. The text says the virtual camera model gave 'small but consistent improvements' for planar targets, but the magnitude and consistency are not quantified. This claim is load-bearing for the paper's contribution list, so please add a proper quantitative comparison (e.g., error distributions, paired tests, or at least the 12-run ranges) to support it.
  3. [Section 3.3, Intersection error definition] The intersection error e_int = X_pred − X_O uses the assumed target geometry X_O as ground truth. For real 3D-printed targets, manufacturing deviations directly enter the error, and the paper acknowledges that 'quantifying manufacturing error is an important direction for future work.' This is an honest limitation, but it means the real-data conclusion that icosahedral targets are worse because of 'geometric inaccuracies' is an inference without direct measurement. Since the real-data section is used to temper the synthetic claim, please either measure the printed target geometries (e.g., with a coordinate measuring machine or photogrammetric network) or explicitly state the sensitivity of the comparison to plausible manufacturing tolerances.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Reference [4]] The reference to Brown (1966) lists the journal as 'Photometric Engineering'; the correct title is 'Photogrammetric Engineering.'
  2. [Table 2] The asterisk notation is explained only as 'values discussed in the text,' but the text does not explicitly call out each starred value. Please either remove the asterisks or point to the specific entries during the simulation-study discussion.
  3. [Section 4, Bootstrap procedure] The bootstrap distributions are summarized by fitting a Gaussian, but no justification is given for normality of the error metrics. With 10,000 samples this may be harmless, but the paper would benefit from a sentence justifying the Gaussian fit or from reporting quantiles as well.
  4. [Section 3.3, Reconstruction error] The statement that reconstruction error 'represents a lower bound on achievable reconstruction accuracy' is not entirely precise: the multi-view ray triangulation assumes the same set of correspondences and weights, which may differ in an actual reconstruction pipeline. Please soften or clarify this claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ray-based metrics are post-hoc evaluations with an external synthetic ground truth, and the icosahedron comparison is an empirical result rather than a derivation from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical comparisons calibrated with standard least-squares fitting in image space (Luhmann, OpenCV, virtual-camera models). The proposed intersection and reconstruction errors are defined after calibration as evaluation metrics: intersection error intersects a predicted scene ray with the known target geometry, and reconstruction error triangulates rays from multiple poses. Neither metric is used as the calibration objective, so there is no fitted input renamed as a prediction. The synthetic experiments provide ground-truth camera poses and scene geometry, giving an external check that does not depend on the fitted parameters. The roughly 40% icosahedron advantage in intersection error is a reported experimental outcome, not a consequence of the metric definitions. The only author-overlapping citation (Santos et al. for the CultArm3D acquisition platform) is incidental and not load-bearing for the calibration claim. There is no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, no ansatz smuggled via citation, and no known result merely renamed as novel. Any concern about the synthetic comparison not controlling for target size or correspondence count is a correctness or experimental-design issue, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard photogrammetric camera models, an external virtual-camera model, and an unverified Gaussian fit to bootstrap distributions. There are no invented physical entities; the icosahedron target is an engineering artifact evaluated against external synthetic ground truth. The main free parameters are the camera intrinsics/distortion coefficients estimated from data, plus detection and Gaussian-process settings not reported in the text.

free parameters (4)
  • Camera intrinsic and distortion parameters = Not reported (f_x, f_y, c_x, c_y, k1, k2, k3, p1, p2)
    Estimated per calibration run from the correspondence dataset; all reported error metrics depend on these fitted values.
  • Feature detection thresholds = Not reported
    Hand-chosen thresholds for hierarchy depth, ellipse fitting, and cross-ratio constraints in Step 1 influence detected feature locations.
  • Virtual camera Gaussian process hyperparameters = Not reported
    The virtual-camera pipeline of De Boi et al. adds hyperparameters for undistortion mapping; values are not specified.
  • Icosahedron target geometry (edge length, ring diameter, grid spacing) = MasterIco L=20, W=22.5, H=25 mm; see Table 1 for all targets
    Design choices for the printed targets; the comparison results may depend on these dimensions and on pattern scale.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Brown backward distortion model
    Section 3.2 assumes a parametric radial-plus-tangential distortion model; this is a physical approximation of the lens, not a ground-truth model.
  • domain assumption Virtual camera pinhole equivalence
    Section 3.2 relies on De Boi et al.'s claim that Gaussian-process undistortion yields a perfect pinhole model; this underpins the virtual-camera pipeline.
  • domain assumption Pinhole ray-tracing ground truth
    Section 4 generates synthetic images by ray tracing a virtual pinhole camera; the synthetic comparison is therefore restricted to pinhole-compatible models.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian bootstrap distributions
    Section 4 summarizes 10,000 bootstrap samples with a fitted Gaussian; no normality test is reported, so confidence intervals in Table 2 depend on this unverified assumption.
  • domain assumption Known target geometry for intersection error
    Section 3.3 defines intersection error using the known geometry of the calibration target; for 3D-printed targets this geometry is only as accurate as the printing process.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Reprojection Error: Camera Calibration with 3D Targets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ME5WQCIP

@misc{pith2026260805066,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Reprojection Error: Camera Calibration with 3D Targets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ME5WQCIP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05066}
}
read the original abstract

In 3D reconstruction, camera calibration is an essential element for achieving high fidelity and accuracy of the reconstructed geometry. While existing approaches rely upon 2D planar calibration, this work proposes a framework tailored for 3D reconstruction that is based on predicting scene rays, which adds flexibility to the reconstruction pipeline and enables the use of recent advances in camera models. Novel metrics, reconstruction and intersection error, derived from predicted scene rays are employed in combination with a bootstrapping procedure that statistically evaluates different calibration objects and calibration pipelines for both intrinsic and extrinsic camera parameters. The results show that the generalized distortion model more faithfully captures physical camera effects and yields an improvement in calibration accuracy. Reprojection error is shown to be a potentially misleading indicator of 3D accuracy, and the proposed ray-based metrics provide a more holistic assessment. An icosahedron calibration target is designed to enrich calibration information for 3D reconstruction together with a ring-feature-based detector. The icosahedral target yields approximately 40% lower mean intersection and more stable calibration across bootstrap trials on synthetic data, while real-data performance demands very tight fabrication tolerances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05066 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed 3D calibration object: uncalibrated vs. calibrated image. arXiv:2608.05066v1 [cs.CV] 5 Aug 2026 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A flowchart representation of the proposed calibration pipeline. Binary masks are computed via Otsu thresholding [35], and a border hierarchy is extracted via the Border Following algorithm [48]. Initial seed points are placed in white regions with a hierarchy depth of at least three, and are subsequently refined using the method of Jiang and Quan [22]. The refinement is adapted to exploit the border hierarchy to co… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of a 2D calibration target: a) original image, b) binarized image, and c) automatically detected ringboard grid oriented around the marked central feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 3D-printed icosahedra. From left to right: MasterIco with adhered calibration patterns, ShinyIco with directly printed calibration patterns in shiny filament, and MattIco with directly printed calibration patterns in matte filament [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Input image of the planar grid used to define the distortion-free virtual sensor. (b) Input image mapped onto the virtual sensor. The black regions block out areas with insufficient information for a reliable mapping. normalized pinhole coordinates x𝑝𝑑 = diag(f) −1…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histograms, fitted Gaussian curves, and confidence intervals of the reprojection error for the planar ringboard and the intersection error for the icosahedron. Real-image acquisition. Real data were acquired with the autonomous 3D scanning system CultArm3D [39]. The sy…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of constructed calibration targets fitted with Luhmann, OpenCV, and virtual camera models. Shown are median values of 12 calibration runs for I1: MasterIco, I2: ShinyIco, I3: MattIco, B1: AluBoard, and B2: 3DBoard. Simulation study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pho- togrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing81(2), 103–107 (2 2015).https: //doi.org/10.14358/PERS.81.2.103

    Abdel-Aziz, Y.I., Karara, H.M.: Direct linear transformation from comparator coordinates into object space coordinates in close-range photogrammetry. Pho- togrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing81(2), 103–107 (2 2015).https: //doi.org/10.14358/PERS.81.2.103

    work page doi:10.14358/pers.81.2.103 2015

  2. [2]

    International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information SciencesXXXVIII-5/W16(09 2012).https://doi.org/10.5194/ isprsarchives-XXXVIII-5-W16-335-2011

    Barazzetti, L., Mussio, L., Remondino, F., Scaioni, M.: Targetless camera calibra- tion. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information SciencesXXXVIII-5/W16(09 2012).https://doi.org/10.5194/ isprsarchives-XXXVIII-5-W16-335-2011

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Bradski, G.: The OpenCV Library. Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools (2000)

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Photometric Engineering32(3), 444–462 (1966)

    Brown, D.C.: Decentering Distortion of Lenses. Photometric Engineering32(3), 444–462 (1966)

    work page 1966

  5. [5]

    In: International Conference on Computer Vision

    Camposeco, F., Sattler, T., Pollefeys, M.: Non-parametric structure-based cali- bration of radially symmetric cameras. In: International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 2192–2200 (2015).https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2015.253

    work page doi:10.1109/iccv.2015.253 2015

  6. [6]

    The Photogrammetric Record16(1998).https://doi.org/10.1111/ 0031-868X.00113

    Clarke, T.A., Fryer, J.G.: The development of camera calibration methods and models. The Photogrammetric Record16(1998).https://doi.org/10.1111/ 0031-868X.00113

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    In: Progress in Pattern Recognition, Image Analysis, Computer Vision, and Applications

    De Boi, I., Pathak, S., Oliveira, M., Penne, R.: How to turn your camera into a per- fect pinhole model. In: Progress in Pattern Recognition, Image Analysis, Computer Vision, and Applications. pp. 90–107 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    In: International Conference on Computer Vision

    Dunne, A.K., Mallon, J., Whelan, P.F.: Efficient generic calibration method for general cameras with single centre of projection. In: International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 1–8 (2007).https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2007.4408990

    work page arXiv 2007

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    International Journal of Computer Vision130(3), 747–776 (3 2022)

    Fan, J., Zhang, J., Maybank, S.J., Tao, D.: Wide-angle image rectification: A survey. International Journal of Computer Vision130(3), 747–776 (3 2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-021-01562-9

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Fasogbon, P., Aksu, E.: Calibration of fisheye camera using entrance pupil (09 2019).https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2019.8803832

    2019

  3. [11]

    In: Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Fitzgibbon, A.W.: Simultaneous linear estimation of multiple view geometry and lens distortion. In: Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. vol. 1 (2001).https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2001.990465

    2001

  4. [12]

    In: German Conference on Pattern Recognition (8 2024)

    Fleith, A., Ahmed, D., Cremers, D., Zeller, N.: Lifcal: Online light field camera calibration via bundle adjustment. In: German Conference on Pattern Recognition (8 2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    IEEE Sensors Journal21(8), 10051–10060 (2021).https:// doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2021.3058747

    Gao, Z., Zhu, M., Yu, J.: A novel camera calibration pattern robust to incomplete pattern projection. IEEE Sensors Journal21(8), 10051–10060 (2021).https:// doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2021.3058747

    2021

  6. [14]

    Optics and Lasers in Engineering181(10 2024).https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.optlaseng.2024.108348

    Genovese, K.: Single-image camera calibration with model-free distortion correc- tion. Optics and Lasers in Engineering181(10 2024).https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.optlaseng.2024.108348

    2024

  7. [15]

    In: International Conference on Computer Vision

    Grossberg, M.D., Nayar, S.K.: A general imaging model and a method for finding its parameters. In: International Conference on Computer Vision. vol. 2, pp. 108– 115 (2001).https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2001.937611

    2001

  8. [16]

    International Journal of Computer Vision61, 119–137 (2 2005).https://doi

    Grossberg, M.D., Nayar, S.K.: The raxel imaging model and ray-based calibration. International Journal of Computer Vision61, 119–137 (2 2005).https://doi. org/10.1023/B:VISI.0000043754.56350.10

    2005

  9. [17]

    In: International Conference on Computer Vision

    Ha, H., Perdoch, M., Alismail, H., Kweon, I.S., Sheikh, Y.: Deltille grids for geo- metric camera calibration. In: International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 5354–5362 (2017).https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2017.571 14 D. Ruppel, H. Kutlu et al

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    In: Computer Vision – ACCV 2014

    Heller, J., Henrion, D., Pajdla, T.: Stable radial distortion calibration by polyno- mial matrix inequalities programming. In: Computer Vision – ACCV 2014. pp. 307–321 (1 2015)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Geoscientific Model Development15(14), 5481–5487 (2022)

    Hodson, T.O.: Root-mean-square error (rmse) or mean absolute error (mae): when to use them or not. Geoscientific Model Development15(14), 5481–5487 (2022). https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5481-2022

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    IEEE Sensors Journal24(10 2024).https://doi.org/10.3390/s24206595

    Huai, J., Shao, Y., Jozkow, G., Wang, B., Chen, D., He, Y., Yilmaz, A.: Geometric wide-angle camera calibration: A review and comparative study. IEEE Sensors Journal24(10 2024).https://doi.org/10.3390/s24206595

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Springer New York, 2 edn

    James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R.: An Introduction to Statistical Learning. Springer New York, 2 edn. (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    In: International Conference on Computer Vision

    Jiang, G., Quan, L.: Detection of concentric circles for camera calibration. In: International Conference on Computer Vision. vol. 1, pp. 333–340 (2005).https: //doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2005.73

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence28(8), 1335–1340 (2006)

    Kannala, J., Brandt, S.S.: A generic camera model and calibration method for con- ventional, wide-angle, and fish-eye lenses. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence28(8), 1335–1340 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    Lavest, J.M., Viala, M., Dhome, M.: Do we really need an accurate calibration pat- tern to achieve a reliable camera calibration? In: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Computer Vision. vol. 1, p. 158–174 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    Quarterly of Applied Mathematics2, 164–168 (1944).https://doi.org/ 10.1090/QAM/10666

    Levenberg, K.: A method for the solution of certain non–linear problems in least squares. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics2, 164–168 (1944).https://doi.org/ 10.1090/QAM/10666

    1944 doi

  18. [26]

    In: International Conference on Image Processing

    Lu, M.T., Chuang, J.H.: Fully automatic camera calibration for principal point using flat monitors. In: International Conference on Image Processing. pp. 3154– 3158 (2018).https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2018.8451222

    2018

  19. [27]

    Wichmann Verlag (8 2023)

    Luhmann, T.: Nahbereichsphotogrammetrie. Wichmann Verlag (8 2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing115, 37–46 (2016).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.10.006

    Luhmann, T., Fraser, C., Maas, H.G.: Sensor modelling and camera calibration for close-range photogrammetry. Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing115, 37–46 (2016).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.10.006

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    ArXivcs.CV/0308003(2003).https://doi.org/10

    Ma, L., Chen, Y., Moore, K.L.: A family of simplified geometric distortion mod- els for camera calibration. ArXivcs.CV/0308003(2003).https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.cs/0308003

    2003

  22. [30]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cs/0307045

    Ma, L., Chen, Y., Moore, K.L.: Flexible camera calibration using a new analytical radial undistortion formula with application to mobile robot localization (2003). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cs/0307045

    2003 doi

  23. [31]

    Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics11(2), 431–441 (1963).https://doi.org/10.1137/0111030

    Marquardt, D.W.: An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parame- ters. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics11(2), 431–441 (1963).https://doi.org/10.1137/0111030

    1963 doi

  24. [32]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence35, 2091–2103 (09 2013).https: //doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2012.258

    Miraldo, P., Araujo, H.: Calibration of smooth camera models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence35, 2091–2103 (09 2013).https: //doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2012.258

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    In: International Conference on Computer Vision

    Miraldo, P., Araujo, H., Queiró, J.: Point-based calibration using a paramet- ric representation of the general imaging model. In: International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 2304–2311 (2011).https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2011. 6126511

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Olson, E.: AprilTag: A robust and flexible visual fiducial system. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 3400–3407 (May 2011) Beyond Reprojection Error: Camera Calibration with 3D Targets 15

    2011

  27. [35]

    IEEE Trans- actions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics9(1), 62–66 (1979).https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310076

    Otsu, N.: A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans- actions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics9(1), 62–66 (1979).https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310076

    1979

  28. [36]

    In: Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Pan, L., Pollefeys, M., Larsson, V.: Camera pose estimation using implicit dis- tortion models. In: Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 12809–12818 (06 2022).https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.01248

    2022

  29. [37]

    IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence39(7), 1309–1319 (7 2017)

    Ramalingam, S., Sturm, P.: A unifying model for camera calibration. IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence39(7), 1309–1319 (7 2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2592904

    2017

  30. [38]

    In: Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition

    Ramalingam, S., Sturm, P., Lodha, S.K.: Towards complete generic camera cali- bration. In: Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition. vol. 1, pp. 1093–1098 (2005).https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2005.347

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    Archiving 2020 online: IS&T

    Santos, P., Tausch, R., Domajnko, M., Ritz, M., Knuth, M., Fellner, D.W.: Auto- mated 3D Mass Digitization for the GLAM Sector. Archiving 2020 online: IS&T. - 2161-8798 (ISSN) 2168-3204 (E-ISSN). - (2020) (Archiving Conference), IS&T (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    In: Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Schöps, T., Larsson, V., Pollefeys, M., Sattler, T.: Why having 10,000 param- eters in your camera model is better than twelve. In: Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 2532–2541 (6 2020).https://doi.org/10. 1109/CVPR42600.2020.00261

    2020

  33. [41]

    Shi, Z.: Rotating-star pattern for camera calibration (5 2025).https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2410.13371

    2025 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Springer, C.E.: Geometry and Analysis of Projective Spaces. W. H. Freeman and Company (1 1964)

    1964

  35. [43]

    Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spa- tial Information SciencesII-5, 339–346 (05 2014).https://doi.org/10.5194/ isprsannals-II-5-339-2014

    Stamatopoulos, C., Fraser, C.S.: Automated target-free network orientation and camera calibration. Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spa- tial Information SciencesII-5, 339–346 (05 2014).https://doi.org/10.5194/ isprsannals-II-5-339-2014

    2014

  36. [44]

    In: Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Sturm, P., Maybank, S.: On plane-based camera calibration: A general algorithm, singularities, applications. In: Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. vol. 1, pp. 432–437 (1999).https://doi.org/10.1109/ CVPR.1999.786974

    1999

  37. [45]

    In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science

    Sturm, P., Ramalingam, S.: A generic concept for camera calibration. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. vol. 3022, pp. 1–13 (5 2004).https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-540-24671-8_1

    2004

  38. [46]

    IEEE Sensors Journal2018, 1–15 (03 2018).https://doi.org/10.1155/ 2018/3901431

    Sun, C., Liu, H., Jia, M., Chen, S.: Review of calibration methods for scheimpflug camera. IEEE Sensors Journal2018, 1–15 (03 2018).https://doi.org/10.1155/ 2018/3901431

    2018

  39. [47]

    Optik124(24), 6991–6995 (12 2013).https://doi.org/10

    Sun, Q., Hou, Y., Tan, Q.: A new method of camera calibration based on the segmentation model. Optik124(24), 6991–6995 (12 2013).https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijleo.2013.05.179

    2013

  40. [48]

    Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing30(1), 32–46 (1985).https://doi.org/10.1016/0734-189X(85)90016-7

    Suzuki, S., Abe, K.: Topological structural analysis of digitized binary images by border following. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing30(1), 32–46 (1985).https://doi.org/10.1016/0734-189X(85)90016-7

    1985 doi

  41. [49]

    Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society: A journal of the atmospheric sciences, applied meteorology and physical oceanography132(619), 1769–1793 (2006)

    Swinbank, R., James Purser, R.: Fibonacci grids: A novel approach to global mod- elling. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society: A journal of the atmospheric sciences, applied meteorology and physical oceanography132(619), 1769–1793 (2006)

    2006

  42. [50]

    In: International Conference on Pattern Recognition

    Tamaki, T., Yamamura, T., Ohnishi, N.: Unified approach to image distortion. In: International Conference on Pattern Recognition. vol. 2, pp. 584–587 (2 2002). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR.2002.1048370 16 D. Ruppel, H. Kutlu et al

    2002 arXiv

  43. [51]

    In: Vision Algorithms: Theory and Practice

    Triggs, B., McLauchlan, P.F., Hartley, R.I., Fitzgibbon, A.W.: Bundle adjustment – a modern synthesis. In: Vision Algorithms: Theory and Practice. pp. 298–372 (2000)

    2000

  44. [52]

    Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics34(3), 744–753 (2023).https://doi.org/10.23919/ JSEE.2023.000074

    Wei, L., Zhang, G., Huo, J., Xue, M.: Novel camera calibration method based on invariance of collinear points and pole–polar constraint. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics34(3), 744–753 (2023).https://doi.org/10.23919/ JSEE.2023.000074

    2023

  45. [53]

    From MathWorld— A Wolfram Web Resource,https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ Point-LineDistance3-Dimensional.html, accessed on 14.08.2025

    Weisstein, E.: Point-line distance – 3-dimensional. From MathWorld— A Wolfram Web Resource,https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ Point-LineDistance3-Dimensional.html, accessed on 14.08.2025

    2025

  46. [54]

    Xu, J., Han, D.W., Li, K., Li, J.J., Ma, Z.Y.: A comprehensive overview of fish- eye camera distortion correction methods (5 2024).https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2401.00442

    2024 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    Measurement222(2023).https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.measurement.2023.113651

    Yang, L., Zhou, F., Zhang, W., Liu, Y.: A novel camera calibration method based on circle projection model. Measurement222(2023).https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.measurement.2023.113651

    2023

  48. [56]

    Zhang, C., Ji, Z., Wang, Q.: Unconstrained two-parallel-plane model for focused plenoptic cameras calibration (8 2016).https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1608. 04509

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    IEEE Transactions on Instrumen- tation and Measurement68(10), 4112–4121 (2019).https://doi.org/10.1109/ TIM.2018.2884583

    Zhang, J., Yu, H., Deng, H., Chai, Z., Ma, M., Zhong, X.: A robust and rapid cam- era calibration method by one captured image. IEEE Transactions on Instrumen- tation and Measurement68(10), 4112–4121 (2019).https://doi.org/10.1109/ TIM.2018.2884583

    2019

  50. [58]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence22, 1330–1334 (12 2000).https: //doi.org/10.1109/34.888718

    Zhang, Z.: A flexible new technique for camera calibration. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence22, 1330–1334 (12 2000).https: //doi.org/10.1109/34.888718

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.