4.8 Article

Automated Exposures Selection for High Dynamic Range Structured-Light 3-D Scanning

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
Volume 70, Issue 7, Pages 7428-7437

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIE.2022.3201318

Keywords

Intensity modulation; Measurement; Three-dimensional displays; Phase measurement; Cameras; Metrology; Image quality; 3-D measurement; automated exposure selection; image quality metric; industrial metrology; structured light (SL)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article presents a new exposure selection approach for high dynamic range measurement. It introduces an image quality metric and pixel filtering to address the challenge of exposure selection in measuring objects with large surface-reflectivity variations. Experimental results showed that compared to traditional HDR methods, the proposed approach achieved similar surface coverage rates and measurement accuracy with only 3-4 exposures on average.
Structured light scanning has gained widespread applications in industrial metrology; however, measuring objects that have large surface-reflectivity variations is challenging. For this purpose, the high dynamic range (HDR) technique has become a standard method to fuse features under multiple exposures. Presently, in HDR measurement, manual or cumbersome exposure selection strategies are used. This article reports a new exposure selection approach. An image quality metric is designed to evaluate captured images and suppress regional overexposure, based on which a multiple-exposures selection strategy is developed. Unlike existing methods for single-optimal exposure selection, in our approach, pixel filtering is introduced to locate eligible pixels and candidate pixels in next exposures. Experimental results with industrial parts having large surface-reflectivity variations demonstrated that compared with HDR with 15 exposures (equal time intervals), our proposed approach achieved a similar surface coverage rates (97.4% versus 98.1%) and measurement accuracy (0.043 versus 0.041 mm), but only took 3-4 exposures averagely.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available