Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

How to get IMU-only trajectory? #67

Open
thzt16 opened this issue May 8, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

How to get IMU-only trajectory? #67

thzt16 opened this issue May 8, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@thzt16
Copy link

thzt16 commented May 8, 2018

I want to get the IMU-only trajectory, and use it to compare with the ground-truth and Visual-Inertial output. How? Thank you !

@weblucas
Copy link
Contributor

weblucas commented May 8, 2018

OKVIS does not provide this, but for sure will be a terrible trajectory. I don't think you need to show that this is a bad idea. Just the noise and bias in the IMU are enough to give a completely wrong trajectory

@thzt16
Copy link
Author

thzt16 commented May 8, 2018

Thanks for your answer! What I want to do is that, if the feature tracking lost, I want to optimize IMU data only, not include reprojection error term. This means that the IMU error term also has to be changed. Or just use the IMU integration result between two image frames to replace the joint optimization result. This idea right or wrong? Dose it work?

@NikolausDemmel
Copy link

Just some anecdotal evidence: OKVIS seems to work fine if there is little-to-no visual information for a short period of time (at least if it has been well initialized). Check the results for sequences slides{1,2,3} of OKVIS on our dataset https://vision.in.tum.de/data/datasets/visual-inertial-dataset. Those include a section where the camera is sliding inside a closed tube w/o light. I didn't verify that all feature tracks are lost in those sections, but I strongly suspect it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants