Closed narutojxl closed 4 years ago
Hi @narutojxl
There are some modifications based on the original paper. For practical consideration, some of the process is removed since it does not contribute too much to the overall performance.
Yes, temporal consistency is removed. For geometrical consistency, using FPFH is slow. And ICP does not perform well. So I do not recommend this two approach.
And Thanks for your mention on LiDAR-Iris. This is a good work.
Han
I see, thanks for your detailed reply @wh200720041 , closed it now :) Best Jiao
Hi, @wh200720041
Thanks for your great work and clear codes. I noticed the input _/velodynepoints is already intensity-calibrated instead of the original one, right? So I wonder how you do it? Is there any specific instruction besides the paper you mentioned?
Hi @wh200720041, thanks for your contribution and sharing of your code. I'm interested in the calibration of Lidar intensity. Lots of works have been presented for the terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) which is used to sense the environment in stationary and can generate dense point cloud, but few for the Lidar. The only calibration approach I found in the literatures is the one referred in your paper, but it doesn't give a deep instruction. I noticed that @YangSiri has the same issue, would you mind give some tips on this problem? Many thanks!
Hi doctor wang,
Temporal consistency check
module, right?Geometrical consistency
, which calculate corner-to-corner and surf-to-surf with ceres to get constraint. Is there some reason, why not use FPFH first and ICP, have you test the performance between them?Thanks for your hard work and help! Jiao