If you want to get really fancy you could use the vision algorithm to remove gyro drift when stationary. Lessthanoptimal wrote:You can feed the orientation estimate from the IMU into the feature tracker and use that to simply/improve feature tracking. Probably more than you guys want to pay, but really good compared to what something like that would cost a few years ago. What's really notable about it is that the acceleration was accurate enough that you could integrate it and estimate your 6-DOF pose for a little bit. I recently saw an IMU with gyro and acceleration that was about 1"x1"x1".
I'm not aware of any open source projects that support this functionality (boofcv doesn't yet). You can feed the orientation estimate from the IMU into the feature tracker and use that to simply/improve feature tracking. Would removing those requirements allow the VO algorithm to be reduced? For this specific VR problem, scene reconstruction or accurate depth mapping are unnecessary. Since IMU's provide very good angular data, is there a way to "remove" the angular calculations from the VO algorithm and just track position? Would this lessen the computational requirements in any way - or would pretty much the same amount of work need to be done just to compute position with any sort of accuracy? Oh, and another thing. There has been some speculation that a sensor fusion with an IMU device could lower the camera requirements. A pretty tall order - but that's if you rely completely on the camera. I know that too much jitter in orientation would be disconcerting, but I wonder if other movements are as troublesome? If not, then what are the limits? Are we attempting to achieve unnecessary precision? I also wonder if using a fast cam like the PSEye to detect quick, major motions, and then also using a slower high-res cam for more precise corrections is a suitable option.īrantlew wrote:Yeah, ideally in the sub-millimeter, sub-degree, 60+ Hz range. Unless you have to avoid using one, it could only be beneficial. It does appear that IMUs are reasonable at tracking orientation (except on the axis perpendicular to gravity if you don't use a magnetometer), as has been proven by the people who got the chance to try the Rift.
There's a lot less calibrations and computations involved. Outwards looking optical tracking seems extremely tricky, and agree with whoever suggested small areas would probably be better served using an inwards looking system. I don't think they'll do much good mounted to your head unfortunately. The optical sensors in mice, while being extremely fast, have VERY low resolutions (30x30 is considered "high-res") and mediocre monochromatic color depth.