Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'surface normal'.
Found 1 result
Greg Bearman sent me this reference and I may be the last to know... (!) But this paper - “3D Surface Reconstruction Using Polynomial Texture Mapping” by Mohammed ElFarargy Amr Rizq and Marwa Rahswan http://bit.ly/1k7Xyoe - from the 2013 G. Bebis et al (eds) "Advances in Visual Computing", Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), Vols. 8033, 8034, 9th International Symposium, ISVC 2013, Rethymnon, Crete, Greece, July 29-31 - SEEMS to offer a reliable pathway towards automated comparison of chronologically separated RTI's for the discovery and tracking of morphological changes in heritage materials and works of art. By generating displacement (height) maps from RTI's by iteratively improving contrast between the surface normal data extracted from the RGB values, the investigators were able to generate TRUE 3D surface models. If calibrated and distortion-corrected images are used to assemble the RTI's, these models are accurate and precise. If I'm reading past the lines correctly, this means that regardless of the alignment (tip, tilt or rotation) of the work in the capture images, the 3D models should have sufficient precision to allow for automated morphological comparison! Any body else working in this? I am hopeful that Greg Williamson and I can run our data sets through the iterative algorithms and check for precision. Thoughts? .