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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tölgyessy, Michal, Dekan, Martin, Chovanec, Ľuboš, Hubinský, Peter
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