Cargando…
Evaluation of the Azure Kinect and Its Comparison to Kinect V1 and Kinect V2
The Azure Kinect is the successor of Kinect v1 and Kinect v2. In this paper we perform brief data analysis and comparison of all Kinect versions with focus on precision (repeatability) and various aspects of noise of these three sensors. Then we thoroughly evaluate the new Azure Kinect; namely its w...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7827245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33430149 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21020413 |
_version_ | 1783640715594563584 |
---|---|
author | Tölgyessy, Michal Dekan, Martin Chovanec, Ľuboš Hubinský, Peter |
author_facet | Tölgyessy, Michal Dekan, Martin Chovanec, Ľuboš Hubinský, Peter |
author_sort | Tölgyessy, Michal |
collection | PubMed |
description | The Azure Kinect is the successor of Kinect v1 and Kinect v2. In this paper we perform brief data analysis and comparison of all Kinect versions with focus on precision (repeatability) and various aspects of noise of these three sensors. Then we thoroughly evaluate the new Azure Kinect; namely its warm-up time, precision (and sources of its variability), accuracy (thoroughly, using a robotic arm), reflectivity (using 18 different materials), and the multipath and flying pixel phenomenon. Furthermore, we validate its performance in both indoor and outdoor environments, including direct and indirect sun conditions. We conclude with a discussion on its improvements in the context of the evolution of the Kinect sensor. It was shown that it is crucial to choose well designed experiments to measure accuracy, since the RGB and depth camera are not aligned. Our measurements confirm the officially stated values, namely standard deviation ≤17 mm, and distance error <11 mm in up to 3.5 m distance from the sensor in all four supported modes. The device, however, has to be warmed up for at least 40–50 min to give stable results. Due to the time-of-flight technology, the Azure Kinect cannot be reliably used in direct sunlight. Therefore, it is convenient mostly for indoor applications. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7827245 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78272452021-01-25 Evaluation of the Azure Kinect and Its Comparison to Kinect V1 and Kinect V2 Tölgyessy, Michal Dekan, Martin Chovanec, Ľuboš Hubinský, Peter Sensors (Basel) Technical Note The Azure Kinect is the successor of Kinect v1 and Kinect v2. In this paper we perform brief data analysis and comparison of all Kinect versions with focus on precision (repeatability) and various aspects of noise of these three sensors. Then we thoroughly evaluate the new Azure Kinect; namely its warm-up time, precision (and sources of its variability), accuracy (thoroughly, using a robotic arm), reflectivity (using 18 different materials), and the multipath and flying pixel phenomenon. Furthermore, we validate its performance in both indoor and outdoor environments, including direct and indirect sun conditions. We conclude with a discussion on its improvements in the context of the evolution of the Kinect sensor. It was shown that it is crucial to choose well designed experiments to measure accuracy, since the RGB and depth camera are not aligned. Our measurements confirm the officially stated values, namely standard deviation ≤17 mm, and distance error <11 mm in up to 3.5 m distance from the sensor in all four supported modes. The device, however, has to be warmed up for at least 40–50 min to give stable results. Due to the time-of-flight technology, the Azure Kinect cannot be reliably used in direct sunlight. Therefore, it is convenient mostly for indoor applications. MDPI 2021-01-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7827245/ /pubmed/33430149 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21020413 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Technical Note Tölgyessy, Michal Dekan, Martin Chovanec, Ľuboš Hubinský, Peter Evaluation of the Azure Kinect and Its Comparison to Kinect V1 and Kinect V2 |
title | Evaluation of the Azure Kinect and Its Comparison to Kinect V1 and Kinect V2 |
title_full | Evaluation of the Azure Kinect and Its Comparison to Kinect V1 and Kinect V2 |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of the Azure Kinect and Its Comparison to Kinect V1 and Kinect V2 |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of the Azure Kinect and Its Comparison to Kinect V1 and Kinect V2 |
title_short | Evaluation of the Azure Kinect and Its Comparison to Kinect V1 and Kinect V2 |
title_sort | evaluation of the azure kinect and its comparison to kinect v1 and kinect v2 |
topic | Technical Note |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7827245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33430149 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21020413 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tolgyessymichal evaluationoftheazurekinectanditscomparisontokinectv1andkinectv2 AT dekanmartin evaluationoftheazurekinectanditscomparisontokinectv1andkinectv2 AT chovaneclubos evaluationoftheazurekinectanditscomparisontokinectv1andkinectv2 AT hubinskypeter evaluationoftheazurekinectanditscomparisontokinectv1andkinectv2 |