Fig. 1. Software-based methods for correcting projector nonlinearities error
Fig. 2. Measurement system of fringe projection
Fig. 3. Effect of projector nonlinearity on the phase measuring results.(a) Simulated phase curve; (b) Simulated phases with a carrier added; (c) Nonlinearity curve of projector; (d) A phase-shifting intensity curve; (e) Measured phases without carrier;(f) Phase errors
Fig. 4. (a) Calculated background intensities (dotted curve) and modulations (solid curve); (b) Normalized intensity curve
Fig. 5. Self-correcting method based on iterative intensity curve fitting. (a) Smoothed phase curve ; (b) Phase difference before and after filtering; (c) Cosine of the smoothed phases; (d) Dependence between the normalized intensities and the cosine of smoothed phases; (e) Polynomial fitting to the clustering points in (d); (f) Corrected phases
Fig. 6. Recognizing and removing the projector nonlinearity from a single phase map. (a) Wrapped smoothed phases; (b) Dependence of phase errors on phases; (c) Iterative fitting result of phase error function; (d) Corrected phases
Fig. 7. Correction of the projector nonlinearity from two-frequency phase maps. (a) Low frequency fringe; (b) Measured low frequency fringe phases; (c) High frequency fringe; (d) Measured high frequency fringe phases; (e) Phase errors in Fig.(b) (dotted) and Fig.(d) (solid); (f) Corrected phases
Fig. 8. (a) A fringe pattern; (b)Unwrapped phase map without carrier
Fig. 9. Depth maps of different correcting methods for projector nonlinearities. (a) Projector nonlinearity not corrected; (b) Photometric calibration;(c) Self-correcting methods based on iterative fitting of intensity curve
[41]; (d) Phase error estimation from a single phase map
[42]; (e) Self-correcting method based on statistics
[45]; (f) Iterative least squares fitting method based on two-frequency phase maps
[44] Fig. 10. Comparison among different compensating methods with the methods in (a)-(f) corresponding to those in Fig. 9(a)-(f)
Methods | Prior calibration required | Number of the required fringe patterns | Computational complexity | Insensitivity to time-variance of the projector nonlinearity | Expected accuracy | Calibration-based methods (e.g. LUT and
phase-error function)
| Yes | Small | Low | High | Middle | Increasing the number of phase shifts with phase-shifting technique | No | Large | Low | Low | High | Iterative least squares fitting to the intensity curve based on single-frequency fringe patterns[41] | No | Small | High | Low | High | Phase error estimation from a calculated
phase map[42] | No | Small | Middle | Low | High | Phase error estimation from two-frequency phase maps using iterative least squares fitting method[44] | No | Small | Middle | Low | High | Phase error estimation from two-frequency phase maps using fringe statistics[45] | No | Small | Low | Low | Low |
|
Table 1. Performance comparisons of projector nonlinearity correcting methods