Paper: An Open Source and Open Hardware Embedded Metric Optical Flow CMOS Camera for

Indoor and Outdoor Applications (https://pixhawk.org/_media/modules/px4flow_paper.pdf)

1. Provide a brief summary of the paper?

This paper presents an open source hardware and software design of an optical flow sensor for estimating
motion of a robot. The paper builds on the recent work in the area of autonomous GPS denied navigation
using optical mouse sensors. The authors have built a sensor using the ARM Cortex M4 chip, a CMOS
image sensor, a gyroscope for angular compensation and an ultrasonic sensor for distance scaling. The sensor
system achieves a high frame rate of computation by subsampling the image and calculating the optic flow
over a block of 64x64 pixels. A block matching algorithm is used to computer optic flow. The ultrasonic
sensor is used to measure the distance to the ground and scale the optic flow values in pixels to metric
values. Angular effects also introduce changes to optic flow readings and these effects are eliminated using a
gyroscope from which differences due to angular motion are discarded from translational motion. A wide
angle lens is incorporated to gather more information of the surroundings. A very interesting method
employed is the use of the special imager bus and Direct Memory Access with double buffering to speed up
computations. SAD block matching algorithm is used for optic flow estimation with 64 sample points. This
measurement is refined with half pixel step size in each direction to find the best matching pixel.
2. What are its strong points and main contributions?
For real time applications, the update rate required is high so as to account for the fluctuations in the motion
of the robot. The low level block matching algorithm is written in C, and some heavy computation is
optimised using assembly instructions. This helps produce a very high frame rate of 250 Hz at the time the
paper was written. Being open source software, it is continuously updated and made better. The update rate
currently stands at the 400Hz, which is helpful in the most tightest manoeuvres. The system presented in the
paper has made its mark in the RC hobbyist community, as the hardware and software is open source and
was picked up by a lot of manufacturers for large scale production. It features on the toolkit of many RC
pilots. It has enabled GPS denied flight for a limited range available to the masses.The open source
architecture also remains a very strong point of the paper. The software and hardware are updated and made
available to anyone who might be interested in making them.
3. What are its weak points?
The weak points of the paper are those that are traditionally inherent in optical flow based systems, i.e.
accumulation errors over time. Although we have a systems running at a very high update rate, the
integration errors do accumulate over a period of time. thus any system that completely relies on the optical
flow sensor will tend to drift over a period of time. This can however be offset by using another
sensor(vision sensor etc) and fuse these readings to get a better pose estimate. The initial version had a strong
electromagnetic interference from the onboard components. Practically, there are some issues using the
sensor in low light conditions and smooth reflective surfaces. Also, it is optimised to be used a downward
facing camera and doesn't work as well as expected if used as a front facing one. The range of working is
limited by the range of the ultrasonic sensor.
4. Are the approaches technically sound?
Yes, the approach is definitely technically sound. The authors have a taken a long standing problem in the
area of autonomous navigation and brought it to the fore. The authors have very well exploited the benefits
of low level micro controller code to enable faster computations. This, coupled with a good algorithm(block
matching) made for a really good sensor architecture. A lot of effort has gone into making the hardware and
not just presenting the idea.
5. Comment on the experimental methodology used in the paper (if applicable).
The authors have used indoor and outdoor testing techniques to test their sensor hardware. The sensor was
first benchmarked indoors using a Vicon motion tracking system as ground truth. After that, the sensor is
tested indoor for hovering and waypoint navigation under low light conditions. Then the sensor is tested on

outdoor flights over a distance of around 200m and its performance is compared to that of a standard optical
mouse sensor.
6. How is the organization and presentation of the paper?
The paper has a very methodical and organised approach. The authors start with an overview of previous
work in the field and their limitations. They go on to explain the theory, the system diagram, implementation,
applications and results. I think the paper was written in a fluid manner explaining each aspect. There is
adequate comparison with other sensors to prove its merit.
7. Describe an idea on how you might improve upon the work reported in this paper, or how it might
inspire you to apply the findings into another application, or generalize it to a broader formulation,
etc.
This sensor can very well be used a part of a larger system where measurements from different systems can
be utilised to get a better sense of the position of the vehicle. I envision an aerial vehicle that can traverse a
forest, avoiding trees and other obstacles. Here, one of the methods applied for motion estimation can be
optic flow readings which could then be fused with other sensor readings that are then fed to a learning
algorithm. Here I would like to have a front facing optic flow camera to obtain motion with respect to
obstacles and hence would work on making the algorithm work better while facing the front.