Different result in computing fundamental matrix by Python and C++ using OpenCV

Question

I'm computing fundamental matrix for video odometry in Python and C++ using OpenCV. I've tried to keep the code in both implementations quite the same. However, I'm getting different results in both. In Python, it works correctly, and in C++ it is showing completely incorrect results. Below is a partial example of their code and outputs (first one in Python and second one in C++)

Python version code:

import os
import sys
import cv2
import numpy as np
import math

# Main Function
if __name__ == '__main__':
    K = np.matrix([[522.4825, 0,        300.9989], 
                   [0,        522.5723, 258.1389], 
                   [0.0,      0.0,      1.0]])
img1 = cv2.imread(sys.argv[1] + ".jpg")
img2 = cv2.imread(sys.argv[2] + ".jpg")

# sift = cv2.SURF()

detector = cv2.FeatureDetector_create("SURF")    # SURF, FAST, SIFT
descriptor = cv2.DescriptorExtractor_create("SURF") # SURF, SIFT

# kp1, des1 = sift.detectAndCompute(img1,None)
# kp2, des2 = sift.detectAndCompute(img2,None)

kp1 = detector.detect(img1)
kp2 = detector.detect(img2) 

k1, des1 = descriptor.compute(img1,kp1)
k2, des2 = descriptor.compute(img2,kp2)

# BFMatcher with default params
bf = cv2.BFMatcher()
matches = bf.knnMatch(des1,des2, k=2)

good = []

# Apply ratio test
for m,n in matches:
    if m.distance < 0.7*n.distance:
            good.append(m)

MIN_MATCH_COUNT = 10
if len(good)>MIN_MATCH_COUNT:
    src_pts = np.float32([ kp1[m.queryIdx].pt for m in good ]).reshape(-1,1,2)
    dst_pts = np.float32([ kp2[m.trainIdx].pt for m in good ]).reshape(-1,1,2)
    F, mask = cv2.findFundamentalMat(src_pts, dst_pts, cv2.RANSAC, 5.0)
    matchesMask = mask.ravel().tolist()
else:
    print "Not enough matches are found - %d/%d" % (len(good),MIN_MATCH_COUNT)
    matchesMask = None

print F

And it's output:

[[ -3.22706105e-07   1.12585581e-04  -2.86938406e-02]
[ -1.16307090e-04  -5.04244159e-07   5.60714444e-02]
[  2.98839742e-02  -5.99974406e-02   1.00000000e+00]]

C++ version here:

#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <opencv2/core/core.hpp>
#include <opencv2/imgproc/imgproc.hpp>
#include <opencv2/highgui/highgui.hpp>
#include <opencv2/features2d/features2d.hpp>
#include <opencv2/calib3d/calib3d.hpp>
#include <opencv2/nonfree/features2d.hpp>
#include <opencv2/legacy/legacy.hpp>

using namespace std;

int main(int argc,char *argv[]) {
    //Define intrinsic matrix
    cv::Mat intrinsic = (cv::Mat_<double>(3,3) << 522.4825, 0, 300.9989,
            0, 522.5723, 258.1389,
            0, 0, 1);

    // Read input images
    string jpg1 = argv[1];
    jpg1.append(".jpg");
    string jpg2 = argv[2];
    jpg2.append(".jpg");
    cv::Mat image1 = cv::imread(jpg1,0);
    cv::Mat image2 = cv::imread(jpg2,0);
    if (!image1.data || !image2.data)
        return 0;

    // Display the images
    // cv::namedWindow("Image 1");
    // cv::imshow("Image 1",image1);
    // cv::namedWindow("Image 2");
    // cv::imshow("Image 2",image2);

    // pointer to the feature point detector object
    cv::Ptr<cv::FeatureDetector> detector = new cv::SurfFeatureDetector();
    // pointer to the feature descriptor extractor object
    cv::Ptr<cv::DescriptorExtractor> extractor = new cv::SurfDescriptorExtractor();

    // Detection of the SURF features
    vector<cv::KeyPoint> keypoints1, keypoints2;
    detector->detect(image1,keypoints1);
    detector->detect(image2,keypoints2);

    // Extraction of the SURF descriptors
    cv::Mat descriptors1, descriptors2;
    extractor->compute(image1,keypoints1,descriptors1);
    extractor->compute(image2,keypoints2,descriptors2);

    // Construction of the matcher
    cv::BruteForceMatcher<cv::L2<float> > matcher;

    vector<vector<cv::DMatch> > matches;
    vector<cv::DMatch> good_matches;
    matcher.knnMatch(descriptors1, descriptors2, matches, 2);

    for (vector<vector<cv::DMatch> >::iterator matchIterator= matches.begin();
         matchIterator!= matches.end(); ++matchIterator) {
        if ((*matchIterator)[0].distance < 0.7f * (*matchIterator)[1].distance) {
            good_matches.push_back((*matchIterator)[0]);
        }
    }

    // Convert keypoints into Point2f
    vector<cv::Point2f> src_pts, dst_pts;
    for (vector<cv::DMatch>::iterator it= good_matches.begin();
         it!= good_matches.end(); ++it)
    {
        // Get the position of left keypoints
        float x= keypoints1[it->queryIdx].pt.x;
        float y= keypoints1[it->queryIdx].pt.y;
        src_pts.push_back(cv::Point2f(x,y));
        // Get the position of right keypoints
        x= keypoints2[it->trainIdx].pt.x;
        y= keypoints2[it->trainIdx].pt.y;
        dst_pts.push_back(cv::Point2f(x,y));
    }
    // Compute F matrix using RANSAC
    cv::Mat fundemental = cv::findFundamentalMat(
            cv::Mat(src_pts),cv::Mat(dst_pts), // matching points
            CV_FM_RANSAC,  // RANSAC method
            5.0); // distance
    cout <<  fundemental << endl;

    return 0;
}

And its output:

[-4.310057787788129e-06, 0.0002459670522815174, -0.0413520716270485;
-0.0002531048911221476, -8.423657757958228e-08, 0.0974897887347238;
0.04566865455090797, -0.1062956485414729, 1]

Here are two test images: image 1 image 2

I can't find the reason. Could anyone tell me why?

Answer 1

Since nobody is answering I'll share my thoughts. Do you check only numbers in F, or you apply it somehow and observe incorrect results? As @brandon-white has already noticed, floating-point precision may be one of the reasons. But actually it is more complicated.

First thing that comes to mind is that AFAIK in C++ OpenCV uses it's own routines for matrix and other math operations, while in python numpy is used where possible. Maybe under the hood they use similar algorithms/implementations, but still you may get numerically different results, especially in cases where you deal with ambiguity (eigenvector decomposition, SVD, etc).

Also, you are using RANSAC to estimate F. In order to deal with (theoretically) any amount of outliers RANSAC takes a small random sample from all of your keypoints, and tries to find pairs, that satisfy some constraints. It does this multiple times, and takes a best sample afterwards to calculate a final model. So basically you will end up with different points to estimate F each run, if you seed the pseudo-random generation routine appropriately. But, usually homography and fundamental matrix estimators use a smarter approach, and after a sample that best satisfies the constraints is found - all points that satisfy this model are used to recalculate the matrix again. This way you should get more consistent results, ideally same if RANSAC parameters are OK. I am not sure whether it is used in OpenCV, but I guess it is.

Finally, there are degenerate cases , where F can't be fully estimated - case of planar motion, when all your keypoint lie on a plane (in 3D world), and purely rotational camera motion. Since you say that your code works in Python this is probably not the case, but still a point to consider.

So if you haven't done so yet - try to check F matrices you get on some data to ensure that the results you get are really different. In that case - there should be an error somewhere (admittedly I haven't closely checked your code yet).

Also, showing the matches you use for F computation may be useful for debugging, since that narrow the range of places, where your code may be behaving differently.