Panoramic Mosaicing with a 180 Field of View Lens 

Hynek Bakstein Tomas Pajdla

Center for Machine Perception, Dept. of Cybernetics

Faculty of Electrical Eng., Czech Technical University
121 35 Prague, Czech Republic
fbakstein,pajdlag@cmp.felk.cvut.cz

Abstract saics [16] and also the setup of the mosaicing camera is
simpler.
We presents a technique for 360 x 360 mosaicing with
a very wide eld of view sh eye lens. Standard camera
calibration is extended for lenses with a eld of view bigger
than 180 . We demonstrate the calibration on a Nikon FC-
E8 sh eye converter, which is an example of a low-cost lens
with 183 eld of view. We illustrate the use of this lens on
one application, the 360 x 360 mosaic which provides 360
eld of view in both vertical and horizontal direction.

1. Introduction Figure 1. Nikon FC-E8 sh eye converter

There are many ways to enhance a eld of view and ob-
tain an omnidirectional sensor. These approaches include
use of mirrors [2, 6, 5], multicamera devices [13, 1], rotating
cameras [19, 18, 7], lenses [4, 23, 18], or combination of the
previous methods [16]. The shape of the mirror determines
its eld of view, mapping of the light rays [9, 12], and other
features such as the single effective viewpoint [21, 10]. On
the other hand, focusing of the lens is easier than focusing
on the mirror and the resulting setup may be simpler.
We concentrate on the use of a special lens, the Nikon
FC-E8 sh eye converter [8], which provides FOV of 183 .
This lens provides omnidirectional image by itself, but we
use this lens in a practical realization of a 360 x 360 mo-
saic [16], where the mosaic is composed by rotating an
omnidirectional camera. The resulting mosaic then covers
360 in both horizontal and vertical direction. We mounted
this lens on a Pulnix digital camera equipped with a stan-
dard 12.5mm lens as it is depicted in Figure 1. Our ex-
periments also show that such a lens provides better results
than mirrors, which were often used to build 360 x 360 mo-
 This work was supported by the following grants: MSM 212300013,
GACR 102/01/0971, MSMT KONTAKT 2001/09.
mounted on a Pulnix digital camera with a
standard 12.5mm lens.
For many computer vision tasks, the relationship be-
tween the light rays entering the camera and pixels in the
image has to be known. In order to nd this relationship,
the camera has to be calibrated. A suitable camera model
has to be chosen for this task. It turns out that the pinhole
camera model with a planar retina is not sufcient for sen-
sors with large FOV [14]. An image point (u; v ) denes a
light ray as a vector which connects a camera center with
the image point which lies on an image plane at a certain
distance from the camera center, see Figure 2(a). This is
a straightforward approach, however, it limits the eld of
view of the camera to less then 180 .
Previous approaches for sh eye calibration used planar
retina and pinhole model [3, 4, 22, 23]. In [20], a stereo-
graphic projection was employed but the experiments were
evaluated on lenses with FOV smaller than 180 . We in-
troduce a spherical retina, see Figure 2(b), and a method for
calibration from a single image of one known 3D calibration
target with iterative renement of parameters of our camera
model with a spherical retina. The light rays emanate from

Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Omnidirectional Vision (OMNIVIS02)

0-7695-1629-7/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
 the camera center and are determined by a radially symmet-
rical mapping between the pixel coordinates (u; v ) and the
angle between the light ray and the optical axis of the cam- (u,v) (u,v)
era, as it is depicted in Figure 2(b).
The main contribution of this work is the introduction of
a proper omnidirectional camera model, i. e. the spheri-
cal retina, and the choice of a proper projection function,
the radially symmetric mapping between the light rays and
pixels, for one particular lens. In contrast to other meth-
ods [3, 4, 22, 23], we test our approach on a lens with apriori
unknown projection function. This lens is an off-the-shelf
cheap lens and therefore it does not have to precisely fol- a) b)
low any of the projection models listed in [14]. Moreover,
this lens has a eld of view larger than 180 and thus the
standard camera model cannot be used. Figure 2. From image coordinates to light
In the next section, we introduce a camera model with a rays: (a) a directional and (b) an omnidirec-
spherical retina. Then we discuss various models describing tional camera.
the relationship between the light rays and pixels in Sec-
tion 3. Section 4 is devoted to the determination of this
model for the case of Nikon FC-E8 converter. A summary This matrix is a simplied intrinsic calibration matrix of a
of the presented method is given in Section 5. Experimental pinhole camera [11]. The displacement of the center of the
results are presented in Section 6. image is expressed by terms u0 and v0 , the skewness of
the image axes is neglected in our case, because cameras
2 Camera Model usually have orthogonal pixels.

v
The camera model describes how a 3D scene is trans-
formed into a 2D image. It has to incorporate the orientation u
of the camera with respect to some scene coordinate system K
1
v
and also the way how the light rays in the camera centered u
coordinate system are projected into the image. The orien-
tation is expressed by extrinsic camera parameters while the
latter relationship is determined by intrinsic parameters of
the camera. Figure 3. A circle in the image plane is dis-
Intrinsic parameters can be divided into two groups. The torted due to a different length of the axes.
rst one includes the parameters of the mapping between Therefore we observe an ellipse instead of a
the rays and ideal orthogonal square pixels. We will dis- circle in the image.
cuss these parameters in the next section. The second group
contains the parameters describing the relationship between
ideal orthogonal square pixels and the real pixels of image
sensors.
Let (u; v ) denote coordinates of a point in the image
3 Projection Models
measured in an orthogonal basis as shown in Figure 3. CCD
chips often have a different spacing between pixels in the Models of the projection between the light rays and the
vertical and the horizontal direction. This results in im- pixels are discussed in this section. Most commonly used
ages unequally scaled in the horizontal and vertical direc- approach is that these models are described by a radially
tion. This distortion causes circles to appear as ellipses in symmetric function that maps the angle  between the in-
the image, as shown in Figure 3. Therefore, we introduce a coming light ray and the optical axis to some distance r
parameter  representing the ratio between the scales of the from the image center, see Figures 7(a) and 7(b). This func-
horizontal and the vertical axis. A matrix expression of the tion typically has one parameter k . As it was stated be-
distortion can be written in the following form: fore, the perspective projection, which can be expressed as
01 0 u0
1 r = k tan , is not suitable for modeling cameras with large
1=@ 0 A FOV. Several other projection models exist [14]:
K  v0 : (1)
0 0 1  stereographic projection r = k tan 2 ,

Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Omnidirectional Vision (OMNIVIS02)

0-7695-1629-7/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
  equidistant projection r = k,
 equisolid angle projection r = k sin 2 , and
 sine law projection r = k sin .
Figure 4 shows graphs of the above projection functions
for angle  varying from 0 to 180 degrees. The vertical axis
of this graph represents the value of a specic model func-
tion for corresponding  angle. All functions were scaled so
that they have a value of 1 at  = 50 . This gure illustrates
the development of the projective function with varying . It
can be noticed that perspective projection cannot cope with
angles  near 90 . It can also be noticed that most of the
models can be approximated with an equidistant projection
for a smaller angle . However, when the FOV of the lens
increases, the models differ signicantly. In the next section
we describe a procedure for selecting the appropriate model
for the Nikon FC-E8 converter.
5 corresponding to  = 90 must be imaged precisely. In our
4
3 the lens with respect to the calibration cylinder. This setup
Model function value
2 is sufcient for the model determination, however, for a full
1
0 nate system) have to be included in the computation, as it is
Perspective
1 Stereographic
Sine law
2 Equisolid angle
Equidistant
3
4 pixels observed in the image and the pixel coordinates pre-
0 50 100
angle
Figure 4. Values of the projection functions
for angle  in range of 0 and 180 degrees.
All functions were scaled so that they have a
value of 1 at 50 .
4 Model Determination
The model describing the mapping between the pixels
and the light rays differs from lens to lens. Some lenses
are manufactured so that they follow a certain model, for
some other lenses is this information unavailable, which is
the case of the Nikon FC-E8 converter. Also the assumption
that the light rays emanate from one point does not have to
be true for some lenses. This requires additional parameters
of the model determining the position of the ray origin. All
above situations can be incorporated into our framework.
We demonstrate this procedure on one particular lens.
Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Omnidirectional Vision (OMNIVIS02)
0-7695-1629-7/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
In order to derive the projection model for Nikon FC-
E8, we have investigated how light rays with constant in-
crement in the angle  are imaged on the image plane. We
performed the following experiment. The camera was ob-
serving a cylinder with circles seen by light rays with known
angle , as it is depicted in Figure 5(a). These circles cor-
respond to an increment in the angle  set to 5 for rays
imaged to the peripheral parts of the image ( = 90 ::70 )
and to 10 for the rays imaged to the central part of the im-
age.
Figure 5(b) shows the grid which, after wrapping around
a cylinder, produced the circles. Figure 5(c) shows an im-
age of this cylinder. It can be seen that circles are imaged
to approximate circles and that constant increment in angles
results in slowly increasing increment in radii of the circles
in the image. Note that the circles at the border have angular
distance 5 , while the distance near the center is 10 . The
camera has to be positioned so that its optical axis is iden-
tical with the rotational axis of the cylinder and the circle
case we used the assumption of the radial symmetry and the
known eld of view of the lens for manual positioning of
camera calibration, parameters determining this positioning
(rotation and translation with respect to the scene coordi-
described in Section 5.
We tted all of the models mentioned in the previous sec-
tion to detected projections of the light rays into the image.
The model t error was the Euclidean distance between the
150
dicted by the model function. The stereographic projection
with two parameters: r = a tan b provided the best t but
there was still a systematic error, see Figure 6. Therefore,
we extended the model, which resulted in a combination of
the stereographic projection with the equisolid angle projec-
tion. This improved model is identied by four parameters,
see Equation 3, and provides the best t with no systematic
error, as it is depicted in Figure 6. This holds even for the
situation, where the parameters were estimated using only a
half of the detected points and then used to predict the other
half of the points. The prediction error was less then half of
the pixel in the worst case. An initial t of the parameters is
discussed in the following section.
5 Complete Camera Model
Under the above observations, we can formulate the
model of the camera. Provided with a scene point X =
~ =
(x; y; z )T , we are able to compute its coordinates X
x; y~; z~)T in the camera centered coordinate system:
(~
~ = RX + T ;
X (2)
 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 5. (a) Camera observing a cylinder with a calibration pattern (b) wrapped around the cylinder.
Note that the lines corresponds to light rays with an increment in the angle  set to 5 (the bottom 4
intervals) and 10 (the 5 upper intervals). (c) Image of circles with radii set to a tangent of a constantly
incremented angle results in concentric circles with almost constant increment in radii in the image.

1 z = optical axis
(x,y,z)
(u,v)

0.5 r

(u0 ,v0 ) v
Model fiting error

0 y u

0.5 x

(a) (b)
1
Figure 7. (a) Camera coordinate system and
1.5 a tan(/b) its relationship to the angles  and ' (b) From
a tan(/b) + c sin(/d)
polar coordinates (r; ') to orthogonal coordi-
2
0 20 40 60 80 100 nates (u0 ; v0 ).
angle

the pixel coordinates u0 = (u0 ; v 0 ; 1) in some orthogonal

Figure 6. Model t error for stereographic and
combined stereographic and equisolid angle
image coordinate system, see Figure 7(b), as
projection.
u0 = r cos ' (4)
v0 = r sin ' : (5)
where R represents a rotation and T stands for a transla-
tion. The standard rotation matrix R has three degrees of In this case the vector u0 does not represent a light ray from
freedom and T is expressed by the vector T = (t1 ; t2 ; t3 )T . the camera center like in a pinhole camera model, instead
Then, the angle , see Figure 7(a), between the light ray it is just a vector augmented by 1 so that we can write an
~ and the optical axis, can be computed.
through the point X afne transform of the image points compactly by one ma-
This angle determines the distance r of the pixel from the trix multiplication (6). Real pixel coordinates u = (u; v; 1)
can be obtained as
u = Ku0 :
center of the image:
(6)
 
r = a tan + c sin ; (3)
b d The complete camera model parameters including ex-
where a, b, c, and d are the parameters of the projection trinsic and intrinsic parameters can be recovered from mea-
model. sured coordinates of calibration points by minimizing
Together with the angle ' between the light ray repro-
jected to the xy plane and the x axis of the camera centered
X
N

coordinate system, the distance r is sufcient to calculate

J (R; T; ; u0 ; v0 ; a; b; c; d) = ku~ uk ; (7)
i=1

Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Omnidirectional Vision (OMNIVIS02)

0-7695-1629-7/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 8. (a) Experimental setup for the half cylinder experiment. (b) One of the images. (c) The
calibration target is located 90 left from the camera, note the signicant distortion.

where k:::k denotes the Euclidean norm, N is the number
of points, u~ are coordinates of points measured in the im-
age, and u are their coordinates reprojected by the cam-
era model. A MATLAB implementation of the Levenberg-
Marquardt [15] minimization was employed in order to
minimize the objective function (7).
The rotational matrix R and the vector of translation T,
see (2), have both three degrees of freedom. The image cen-
on a half cylinder. The object was realized such that a line
of calibration points was rotated on a turntable, as it is de-
picted in Figure 8. Here, the points with the same angle 
had different depths.
The rst experimental setup was also used to determine
the projection model, as it is described in Section 4. The
total number of 72 points was manually detected. One half
of the circles of points was used for the estimation of the
ter, the scale ratio of the image axes  , and the four param-
eters of the mapping between the light rays and pixels (3)
give 7 intrinsic parameters. This yields a total of 13 param-
eters of our model.
When minimizing the objective function (7), we initial-
ize the image center to the center of the circle (ellipsis) sur-
rounding the image, see Figure 5. This is possible because
the Nikon FC-E8 lens is so called circular sh eye, where
this circle is visible. Assuming that the mapping between
the light rays and pixels (3) is radially symmetric, this cen-
ter of the circle should be approximately in the image cen-
ter. Parameters of the model were initially set to an ideal
stereographic projection, which means that b = 2, c = 0,
d = 1, and a was initialized using the ratio between the
coordinates of points corresponding to the light rays with
parameters while the second half was used to compute the
reprojection errors. Similar approach was also used in the
second experiment, where the number of calibration points
was 285. Again, all points were detected manually.
Figure 9 shows the reprojection of points, computed with
parameters estimated during the calibration, compared with
their coordinates detected in the image. The lines repre-
sent the errors between the respective points are scaled 20
times to make the distances clearly visible. The same error
is shown in Figure 10 for all the points. It can be noticed that
the error is small compared to the precision of manual de-
tection, where the images of some lines spanned more pix-
els while others where too far to be imaged as continuous
circles, see Figure 5(c). Therefore we performed another
experiment, where the calibration points where checker-
the angle  equal to 0 and 90 degrees. The value of the  board patterns.
parameters was initialized to 1. The initial camera position
was set to be in the center of the scene coordinate system
with the z axis coincident with the optical axis of the cam-
era.
6 Experimental Results
We performed two calibration experiments. In the rst
experiment, the calibration points were located on a cylin-
der around the optical axis and the camera was looking
down into that cylinder, see Figure 5(a). The points had
the same depth for the same value of . The second experi-
ment employed a 3D calibration object with points located
Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Omnidirectional Vision (OMNIVIS02)
0-7695-1629-7/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
Similar graphs illustrate the results from the second ex-
periment. Figure 11 shows the comparison between the re-
projected points and their coordinates detected in the image.
Again, the lines representing the distance between these two
sets of points are scaled 20 times.
Figure 12(a) depicts this reprojection error for each cal-
ibration point. Note that the error is bigger for points in
the corners of the image, which is natural, since the resolu-
tion here is higher and therefore one pixel corresponds to a
smaller change in the angle .
To verify the randomness of the reprojection error, we
performed the following test. Because the points in the im-
age were detected manually, we suppose that the detection
 1000 900

800
800
700

600
600
500

400 400

300
200
200

0 100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Figure 9. Reprojection of points for the cylin- Figure 11. Reprojection of points for the half
der experiment. The distances between cylinder experiment. The distances between
the reprojected and the detected points are the reprojected and the detected points are
scaled 20 times. scaled 20 times.

1.8 100
2.5
1.6

1.4 80

Reprojection error
2 1.2
60
1

Count
Reprojection error

0.8
40
1.5 0.6

0.4 20
0.2
1 0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 5 10 15 20 25
Calibration point number Sum of squares of normalized detection errors

0.5 (a) (b)

0 Figure 12. (a) Reprojection error for each

0 20 40
Calibration point number
Figure 10. Reprojection error for each point
for the cylinder experiment.
60 80
point for the half cylinder experiment. (b)
Histogram of sum of squares of normalized
detection errors together with a 2 density
marked by the curve.

error has normal distribution in both image axes. Therefore,
a sum of squares of these errors, normalized to unit vari-
ance, should be described by a 2 distribution [17]. Fig-
ure 12(b) shows a histogram of detection errors together
with a graph of a 2 density. Note that 2 distribution de-
scribes well the calibration error distribution.
Finally we show that we are able to select pixels in the
image, which correspond the the light rays lying in one
plane passing through a camera center. The angle  between
these rays and the optical axis equals to 2 and because this
situation is circularly symmetric, the corresponding pixels
should form a circle centered at the image center (u0 ; v0 ),
obtained by minimizing (7). The radius of the circle is de-
termined from (3) for  = 2 and a, b, c, and d obtained by
minimizing (7). Due to the difference in scale of the image
alization of the 360 x 360 mosaic [16]. The selection of the
proper pixels (ellipse) assures that the corresponding points
in the mosaic pair will be on the same image rows, which
simplies the correspondence search algorithms.
There are two possible approaches for selection of light
rays with a specic angle . The one originally proposed
in [16] uses mirrors, see Figure 13(a). The cameramirror
rig setup must be performed very precisely to get reliable
results. Moreover, focusing on the mirror is not easy, be-
cause one has to focus on a virtual scene, not on the mirror,
neither on the real scene. Therefore, we propose another
approach employing optics with FOV larger than 180, de-
picted in Figure 13(b).
Figure 14 shows the right and the left eye mosaic respec-
tively. Note the signicant disparity of objects in the scene.
axes  , see Equation 1, the pixels form an ellipse, while the Enlarged parts of the mosaic showing one corresponding
image center again corresponds to the center of the ellipse. point can be found in Figures 15(a) and 15(c) for the right
As noted before, these light rays lie in one plane, which is mosaic and Figures 15(b) and 15(d) for the left mosaic.
crucial for the employment of the proposed sensor in a re- These gures represent the worst case, where the difference

Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Omnidirectional Vision (OMNIVIS02)

0-7695-1629-7/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE

(a) (b)
Figure 13. Two possible realizations of the
360 x 360 mosaic. (a) a telecentric camera
and a conical mirror, (b) a central camera with
Nikon sh eye converter.
between the situation, where the corresponding points lie
on the same image row, was the biggest. Figures 15(a) and
15(b) were acquired using a conical mirror observed by a
telecentric lens, while Figures 15(c) and 15(d) are from mo-
saic acquired employing the Nikon FC-E8 lens.
Figure 14. Right (upper) and left (lower) eye
mosaics.
Notice that in the upper row, where images taken with the
use of the mirror are shown, the images are more blurry and
that the points do not lie on the same image row and that this
difference is quite signicant, although some other points
actually were on the same image row. This is in contrast
with the images in the bottom row that were taken with the
Nikon FC-E8 converter, where all corresponding points lie
on the same image row and the images are more sharp. This
condition is satised for all pixels with a tolerance smaller
than 0.5 pixel.
Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Omnidirectional Vision (OMNIVIS02)
0-7695-1629-7/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
7 Conclusion
We have proposed a camera model for lenses with FOV
larger than 180. The model is based on employment of
a spherical retina and a radially symmetrical mapping be-
tween the incoming light rays and pixels in the image. We
proposed a method for identication of the mapping func-
tion, which led to a combination of two mapping functions.
A complete calibration procedure, involving a single image
of a 3D calibration target, is then presented. Finally, we
demonstrate the theory in two experiments and one applica-
tion, all using the Nikon FC-E8 sh eye converter. We be-
lieve that the ability to correctly describe and calibrate the
Nikon FC-E8 sh eye lens converter opens a way to many
new application of very wide angle lenses.
References
[1] P. Baker, C. Fermuller, Y. Aloimonos, and R. Pless. A spher-
ical eye from multiple cameras (makes better models of the
world). In A. Jacobs and T. Baldwin, editors, Proceedings
of the CVPR01 conference, Kauaii, USA, volume 1, pages
576583, Dec. 2001.
[2] S. Baker and S. K. Nayar. A theory of single-viewpoint cata-
dioptric image formation. International Journal of Com-
puter Vision, 35(2):175196, 1999.
[3] A. Basu and S. Licardie. Alternative models for sh-eye
lenses. Pattern Recognition Letters, 16(4):433441, 1995.
[4] S. S. Beauchemin, R. Bajcsy, and G. G. A unied proce-
dure for calibrating intrinsic parameters of sh-eye lenses.
In Vision Interface (VI 99), pages 272279, May 1999.
[5] R. Benosman, E. Deforas, and J. Devars. A new catadioptric
sensor for the panoramic vision of mobile robots. In IEEE
Workshop on Omnidirectional Vision (OMNIVIS00), Hilton
Head, South Carolina, pages 112116, June 2000.
[6] A. M. Bruckstein and T. J. Richardson. Omniview cameras
with curved surface mirrors. In IEEE Workshop on Omni-
directional Vision (OMNIVIS00), Hilton Head, South Car-
olina, pages 7984, June 2000.
[7] J. Chai, S. B. Kang, and H.-Y. Shum. Rendering with non-
uniform approximate concentric mosaics. In Second Work-
shop on Structure from Multiple Images of Large Scale En-
vironments, SMILE, July 2000.
[8] N. Corp. Nikon www pages: http://www.nikon.com, 2000.
[9] S. Derrien and K. Konolige. Approximating a single ef-
fective viewpoint in panoramic imaging devices. In IEEE
Workshop on Omnidirectional Vision (OMNIVIS00), Hilton
Head, South Carolina, pages 8590, June 2000.
[10] C. Geyer and K. Daniilidis. A unifying theory for central
panoramic systems and practical implications. In D. Vernon,
editor, European Conference on Computer Vision ECCV
2000, Dublin, Ireland, volume 2, pages 445462, June-July
2000.
[11] R. Hartley and A. Zisserman. Multiple View Geometry in
Computer Vision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, 2000.
 295 295

300 300

305 305

310
310

315
315

320
320

325
325

155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 855 860 865 870 875 880 885 890

(a) (b)
120 120

125 125

130 130

135 135

140 140

145 145

150 150

155 155

145 150 155 160 165 170 175 725 730 735 740 745 750 755

(c) (d)

Figure 15. Detail of a corresponding pair of points (a) and (c) in the right mosaic and (b) and (d) in
the left mosaic representing the difference from the ideal case, where the corresponding points lie
on the same image row. The upper row is the worst case acquired using mirror, bottom row for the
Nikon FC-E8 sh eye converter. Note the blurred images and that the points do not lie on the same
image row in case of mirror and that the lens provides focused and aligned images.

[12] R. A. Hicks and R. Bajcsy. Catadioptric sensors that ap-
proximate wide-angle perspective projections. In IEEE
Workshop on Omnidirectional Vision (OMNIVIS00), Hilton
Head, South Carolina, pages 97103, June 2000.
[13] H. Hua and N. Ahuja. A high-resolution panoramic camera.
In A. Jacobs and T. Baldwin, editors, Proceedings of the
CVPR01 conference, Kauaii, USA, volume 1, pages 960
967, Dec. 2001.
[14] F. M. M. Perspective projection: the wrong imaging model.
Technical Report TR 95-01, Comp. Sci., U. Iowa, 1995.
[15] J. More. The levenberg-marquardt algorithm: Implementa-
tion and theory. In G. A. Watson, editor, Numerical Analysis,
Lecture Notes in Mathematics 630, pages 105116. Springer
Verlag, 1977.
[16] S. K. Nayar and A. Karmarkar. 360 x 360 mosaics. In
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog-
nition (CVPR00), Hilton Head, South Carolina, volume 2,
pages 388395, June 2000.
[17] A. Papoulis. Probability and Statistics. Prentice-Hall, 1990.
[18] S. Peleg and M. Ban-Ezra. Stereo panorama with a single
camera. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pat-
tern Recognition, pages 395401, June 1999.
[19] H.-Y. Shum, A. Kalai, and S. M. Seitz. Omnivergent stereo.
In Proc. of the International Conference on Computer Vi-
sion (ICCV99), Kerkyra, Greece, volume 1, pages 2229,
September 1999.
[20] D. E. Stevenson and M. M. Fleck. Robot aerobics: Four
easy steps to a more exible calibration. In International
Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3439, 1995.
[21] T. Svoboda, T. Pajdla, and V. Hlavac. Epipolar geometry
for panoramic cameras. In H. Burkhardt and N. Bernd, ed-
itors, the fth European Conference on Computer Vision,
Freiburg, Germany, pages 218232, June 1998.
[22] R. Swaminathan and S. Nayar. Non-metric calibration of
wide-angle lenses. In DARPA Image Understanding Work-
shop, pages 10791084, 1998.
[23] Y. Xiong and K. Turkowski. Creating image based VR using
a self-calibrating sheye lens. In IEEE Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition (CVPR97), pages 237243, 1997.

Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Omnidirectional Vision (OMNIVIS02)

0-7695-1629-7/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE