PointCloudLibrary / PointCloudLibrary/pcl

icp setIndices doesn't work

Open
#3,109 7 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

help wanted kind: bug kind: todo module: registration
Dominant language
C++
Stars
11.1k
Forks
4.7k
Avg merge
4d 10h
Merged PRs (30d)
6

Description

I first generate 1000 random points to form the source point cloud:
for (size_t i = 0; i < cloud_in->points.size (); ++i)
{
cloud_in->points[i].x = 1024 * rand () / (RAND_MAX + 1.0f);
cloud_in->points[i].y = 1024 * rand () / (RAND_MAX + 1.0f);
cloud_in->points[i].z = 1024 * rand () / (RAND_MAX + 1.0f);
}
and then form the target point cloud from the front 100 points of source point cloud , and add 0.7 to x
for (size_t i = 0; i < cloud_out->points.size (); ++i)
{
cloud_out->points[i].x = cloud_in->points[i].x + 0.7f;
cloud_out->points[i].y = cloud_in->points[i].y;
cloud_out->points[i].z = cloud_in->points[i].z;
}
I try two times for the indices:
boost::shared_ptr< std::vector > pr(new std::vector);
// first try
// for(int i=0; i<100; i+=1)
// pr->push_back(i);
// second try
for(int i=100; i<200; i+=1)
pr->push_back(i);
but the result transformation is the same, if the setIndices works, the result shouldn't be the same, because the points in source point cloud we use to registration is different.

Your Environment

  • Operating System and version: ubuntu16.04
  • Compiler:cmake
  • PCL Version:1.7

Context

Expected Behavior

Current Behavior

Code to Reproduce

pcl::PointCloud<pcl::PointXYZ>::Ptr cloud_in (new pcl::PointCloud<pcl::PointXYZ>);
    pcl::PointCloud<pcl::PointXYZ>::Ptr cloud_out (new pcl::PointCloud<pcl::PointXYZ>);

    // Fill in the CloudIn data
    cloud_in->width    = 1000;
    cloud_in->height   = 1;
    cloud_in->is_dense = false;
    cloud_in->points.resize (cloud_in->width * cloud_in->height);
    for (size_t i = 0; i < cloud_in->points.size (); ++i)
    {
        cloud_in->points[i].x = 1024 * rand () / (RAND_MAX + 1.0f);
        cloud_in->points[i].y = 1024 * rand () / (RAND_MAX + 1.0f);
        cloud_in->points[i].z = 1024 * rand () / (RAND_MAX + 1.0f);
    }

    cloud_out->width    = 100;
    cloud_out->height   = 1;
    cloud_out->is_dense = false;
    cloud_out->points.resize (cloud_out->width * cloud_out->height);

    for (size_t i = 0; i < cloud_out->points.size (); ++i)
    {
        cloud_out->points[i].x = cloud_in->points[i].x + 0.7f;
        cloud_out->points[i].y = cloud_in->points[i].y;
        cloud_out->points[i].z = cloud_in->points[i].z;
    }
    std::cout << cloud_out->points.size() << std::endl;


    boost::shared_ptr< std::vector<int> > pr(new std::vector<int>);
   // first try
   //   for(int i=0; i<100; i+=1)
    //    pr->push_back(i);
 // second try
    for(int i=100; i<200; i+=1)
        pr->push_back(i);

    pcl::IterativeClosestPoint<pcl::PointXYZ, pcl::PointXYZ> icp;
    icp.setMaxCorrespondenceDistance(0.5);
    icp.setTransformationEpsilon(1e-12);
    icp.setEuclideanFitnessEpsilon(0.0001);
    icp.setMaximumIterations (1000000);
    icp.setInputSource(cloud_in);
    icp.setInputTarget(cloud_out);

    //icp.setIndices(pr);
    pcl::PointCloud<pcl::PointXYZ> Final;
    icp.align(Final);

    std::cout << "has converged:" << icp.hasConverged() << " score: " <<
              icp.getFitnessScore() << std::endl;

    std::cout << icp.getFinalTransformation() << std::endl;

    pcl::transformPointCloud(*cloud_out,*cloud_out,icp.getFinalTransformation().inverse());

Possible Solution

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start by running the supplied C++ reproduction with PCL 1.7 and compare results with icp.setIndices(pr) enabled for the two index ranges. Inspect the IterativeClosestPoint setIndices entry point and related index handling. Done means the behavior is explained and, if incorrect, a focused fix or regression test demonstrates that changing source indices affects registration.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
cpp
Domain
computer-vision
Issue type
Bug
Difficulty
3/5
Estimated time
1-2 days
Activity status
Quiet
Clarity
Needs clarification
Newbie friendliness
38/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.