Comparison of different camera calibration approaches for underwater applications.

The purpose of this study was to compare three camera calibration approaches applied to underwater applications: (1) static control points with nonlinear DLT; (2) moving wand with nonlinear camera model and bundle adjustment; (3) moving plate with nonlinear camera model. The DVideo kinematic analysis system was used for underwater data acquisition. The system consisted of two gen-locked Basler cameras working at 100 Hz, with wide angle lenses that were enclosed in housings. The accuracy of the methods was compared in a dynamic rigid bar test (acquisition volume-4.5×1×1.5 m(3)). The mean absolute errors were 6.19 mm for the nonlinear DLT, 1.16 mm for the wand calibration, 1.20 mm for the 2D plate calibration using 8 control points and 0.73 mm for the 2D plane calibration using 16 control points. The results of the wand and 2D plate camera calibration methods were less associated to the rigid body position in the working volume and provided better accuracy than the nonlinear DLT. Wand and 2D plate camera calibration methods presented similar and highly accurate results, being alternatives for underwater 3D motion analysis.