search

ClayFlannigan / icp

iterative closest point
Other
603 stars 153 forks source link

Usage for two point sets of different sizes #5

Closed idocohn closed 6 years ago

idocohn commented 6 years ago

In the code it seems like you assume (and assert) that the two point sets you get are of the same shape (Nxm)

In our use case we try to register two point clouds from successive revolutions. We will probably not have the same number of points.

Why do you have this requirement? If it's for the NN stage then it seems not relevant. Is there a way to extend your code to support our case?

ClayFlannigan commented 6 years ago

This implementation does require point sets to be the same shape. Typically, one would sample the point sets to enforce this constraint (and sometimes to speed it up). There are probably several methods you might use to sample the points. Try reviewing this for some inspiration.

idocohn commented 6 years ago

Thanks, that makes sense.

abhineet99 commented 5 years ago

@idocohn I have a similar case of successive revolutions. But then some of the points in a point cloud can not be mapped to any other point in the other cloud right? Like some points might not be visible through an angle. How did ICP perform in your case then? I'm not getting great results.

BoltonBailey commented 4 years ago

I'll just note here that I was able to comment out the assert lines and have it work fine.

ynma-hanvo commented 3 months ago

@idocohn I have a similar case of successive revolutions. But then some of the points in a point cloud can not be mapped to any other point in the other cloud right? Like some points might not be visible through an angle. How did ICP perform in your case then? I'm not getting great results.

I am doing the same thing as you did. can you share your result on this case, is it working fine?