Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on
4
System Integration, Sapporo Convention Center, Sapporo, Japan,
December 13-15, 2016
3D Map-building from RGB-D Data Considering
Noise Characteristics of Kinect
Takahiro Yamaguchi1 , Takanori Emaru2 , Yukinori Kobayashi2 and Ankit A. Ravankar2
Abstract— For a mobile robot to explore in an unknown
environment, the robot needs to do Simultaneous Localization
and Mapping (SLAM). Recently, RGB-D sensor such as the
Microsoft Kinect has been extensively used as a low cost 3D
sensor measurement and mapping the environment. The advan-
tage of RGB-D sensor is that it can capture RGB image with
per-pixel depth information. One disadvantage for this sensor is
that its depth information is very noisy. Moreover, if the robot
equipped with the Kinect moves long distances, the localization
error gets accumulated over time. The main aim of this study is
to reduce the error of the SLAM using RGB-D sensor, by taking
into account the noise characteristics of the Kinect sensor. The
noise characteristics are investigated by experiments taking into
account the RGB and depth information. A noise model is
derived as a function of both distance and angle to the observed
surface. The noise model is applied to Iterative Closest Point
(ICP) algorithm for SLAM. Finally, the results of the proposed
SLAM are shown and the improvement in accuracy is verified.
I. INTRODUCTION
For a mobile robot, navigating in an unknown environment
is a crucial task. The robot traversing in an environment
needs to localize its position with respect to the environment
and at the same time needs to build the map of the area by
utilizing its sensors. This problem is termed as SLAM or
Simultaneous Localization and Mapping [1]–[3]. Depending
on the type of sensor used, the environment can be mapped
in 2D or 3D. SLAM is necessary for applications of mobile
robots in search and rescue, infrastructure inspection, agri-
culture, space and so on [4] [5]. Recently many researchers
have proposed 3D SLAM system using various sensors such
as Kinect, 3D-LIDAR and stereo camera [6].
RGB-D sensors such as the Microsoft Kinect has emerged
as a popular choice amongst the robotics researchers in recent
years. Due to its small form factor and easy integration it is
very popular with hobby roboticists and researchers. What
also makes it popular is its low cost, and relatively high
performance. RGB-D sensors are devices that can capture
RGB images and depth images at high frame rates. We can
get colored point cloud data from these images that can be
used to construct high density 3D point cloud model of the
object or environment. Kinect [7] is one of the most popular
choices for RGB-D sensor and has been extensively been
used in various robotics applications. However, the value of
depth have only 11-bits, which makes its accuracy to be
lesser than other 3D sensor like 3D-LIDARs.
SLAM algorithms with RGB-D sensor often uses Iterative
Closest Point (ICP) algorithm [8] to estimate rigid transfor-
Corresponding author email: xlfs 6862@eis.hokudai.ac.jp
1 Graduate School of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
2 Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
978-1-5090-3329-4/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
WeA1A.
mation matrix for alignment of two point cloud. The ICP
algorithm is iteratively applied to consecutive point cloud
data from the RGB-D sensor. The map of the environment
can then be constructed by simultaneous tracking the motion
of the sensor.
Almost all sensors are affected by noise and many re-
searchers in the past have studied the effect of sensor noise
on mapping and localization [9], [10]. For short distances
the noise from the sensor can be neglected. However, if
the RGB-D sensor moves long distances, the number of
point cloud data become large, and the error from mapping
and localization gets accumulated over time. To avoid the
accumulation of error, loop closure is often used. Loop
closure is an algorithm that detects whether the scene has
already been seen and if so, it can correct the trajectory of
the sensor through matching the features from the location.
However, loop closure needs high computational cost and it
can only be used if the loop closure is detected.
Some research utilize the noise characteristics of RGB-D
sensor for ICP algorithm [11]. This approach can decrease
the accumulated error without higher computational cost.
The Kinect sensor has two sensing modes, near-mode and
normal-mode. Most of the previous researches have only
considered the near-mode in their studies [12]. Most RGB-
D sensors including Kinect are especially affected by dis-
cretization effects in depth measurements and in fact most
cameras are only calibrated for certain range. This causes
considerable measurement errors in far ranges (< 3.5 m).
These errors hinder the measurements of surfaces at longer
ranges and thus affect surface modeling.
In this paper, we investigated the noise characteristics in
normal-mode for the Kinect sensor, and proposed an accurate
ICP algorithms that utilizes the noise characteristics. More-
over, the SLAM algorithm along with the ICP is evaluated
by comparing the accuracy for localization.
II. NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF K INECT
The depth information from Kinect sensor is very noisy
in long range. Many researchers have investigated noise
characteristics of this sensor. An experiment to evaluate the
accuracy of its depth data has been carried out in [13]. In
the experiment, the planar surface of a door was measured
by Kinect sensor, and the noise model was derived by using
point cloud on the surface. The result showed that the random
error of depth measurement increases with increasing the
distance to the sensor. But the noise model did not consider
the surface angle. In works by [14], the surface angle was
considered and the noise model was derived as a function
379

Fig. 1: Experimetal image
Fig. 2: Standard deviation by changing angle and model
function of standard deviation
of the distance to the surface and the surface angle. In their
experiment, near mode of the Kinect sensor was used to
derive the noise model and make a 3D model. Near mode
is suitable for measuring short distance (about 1-3m), but
usually Kinect sensor is often used with the normal mode
for mapping the environment or to perform visual odometry.
In this work, experiments to investigate the noise char-
acteristics of Kinect sensor is evaluated in normal mode.
The experiment technique is same as prior research that uses
planar surface. The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1.
The Kinect sensor measures a white planer target, and a plane
is fitted to the points on the surface by using RANSAC
(Random Sample Consensus) method [15] to avoid the
influence of outliers. The distance z between Kinect sensor
and the surface is calculated by averaging all inlier points
of RANSAC. The distance varies from 1m to 4m at 0.5m
increments. The surface angle is same as the fitting plane
angle and varies from 0◦ to 80◦ . The forward direction
of Kinect sensor is z-axis, and surface angle is the angle
between z-axis and the fitting plane. We then calculate the
standard deviation of distances between all the inliers and the
fitting plane. The high value of standard deviation means that
the data captured by the Kinect sensor was noisy in the angle
Fig. 3: ORB feature points in RGB image and point cloud
Fig. 4: Matching point pairs using ORB descriptor
and the distance.
The colored points in Fig.2 show the result of our exper-
iment. X-axis and Y -axis indicate the surface angle θ, and
standard deviation. As can be seen, the standard deviation
increases with increasing the angle θ or distance z. The black
line is the noise model derived by using same function as
prior research [14] because this graph is similar to results of
it. The parameter of function is optimized to our results by
using nonlinear least-squares method. Equation 1 represents
the noise model function derived from our experimental
results. This function has two variables, angle θ and distance
z.
σ(z, θ) = 0.00151 + 0.00215(z − 0.483)2
2
θ
+1.88 × 10−6 z 2.01 (1.39−θ) 2 (1)
The standard deviation of the normal-mode of the Kinect
sensor is larger than the result from prior research [14]
because the modes of Kinect sensors are different, and the
normal-mode of the Kinect sensor is noisier than the near-
mode.
.
III. 3D MAP - BUILDING ALGORITHM
This section gives a brief description of our 3D map-
building algorithms. The 3D map-bulding algorithm using
Kinect was proposed by many researchers [16], [17] in the
past. The Kinect sensor can capture RGB image and depth
image at 30 frames per second. The colored point cloud is
380
created from these two images. We build the 3D map by
combining many point clouds captured by moving the Kinect
sensor. ICP (Iterative Closest Point) matching is often used
to determine the alignment between the current frame and
the previous frame. At the same time, we can know the
relative motion of Kinect sensor between frames by using
ICP. However, ICP matching algorithm cannot determine the
correct alignment without a good initial alignment. So we
use the feature points and descriptor of RGB images for
initial alignment. Moreover, we introduce a weighted ICP
matching algorithm by using noise model derived in the
previous section.

A. Initial alignment
In this paper, initial alignment(IA) is executed by detecting
Fig. 5: An image of sequence freiburg2 desk
feature points and by extracting descriptors from RGB image.
We used ORB (Oriented FAST and Rotated BRIEF) feature
TABLE I: Information about dataset for SLAM
detector and descriptor [18] for this study. The ORB has low
calculation cost and gives binary features that are invariant Duration 99.36 s
to rotation and scale. Fig. 3 shows ORB feature points in Duration with ground-truth 69.15 s
the RGB image, and the point cloud. Some of the points Ground-truth trajectory length 18.880 m
Avg. translational velocity 0.193 m/s
vanishes in point cloud because some pixels of depth image Avg. angular velocity 6.338 deg/s
have no depth value, due to long distance, surface material, Trajectory dim 3.90 × 4.13 × 0.57 m
and surface angle. We estimated the initial alignment by
using only feature points. The top figure in Fig. 4 shows
the descriptor matching result for two consecutive images.
Most of the matches seems to be good, but some matches sensor in one frame, and it reduced to 15, 000 points after
indicates totally different points in the two images. To avoid filtering. We applied the noise model to the ICP algorithm to
the influence of false matches like this, RANSAC algorithm find the best transformation and by minimizing the sum of
is often used to determine a rigid transformation to align squared distances between correspondences. We considered
the consecutive two point clouds. The result of RANSAC the problem to find the transformation M , that transforms
is shown in the lower figure in Fig. 4 and disappearance of the source cloud si to the coordinate of the destination cloud
false matches can be clearly seen. di . The sum of weighed squared distances is expressed in
Equation 2.
B. Iterative Closest Point (ICP)  2
After the initial alignment is done, it is important to refine Mopt = argmin (M · si − di ) · ni · wi (2)
M i
the alignment using ICP. The ICP is iterative method to
find the transformation to align one point cloud to another Here, Mopt is the best transformation to align the two clouds
point cloud. The flow of ICP algorithm is as follows. Firstly, and ni is the unit normal vector at di , which is estimated
the algorithm searches for corresponding points from source by PCA (principal component analysis) [21]. The standard
point cloud and destination point cloud. These corresponding deviation calculated from the noise model indicates how
points are usually the nearest neighbor points. Secondly, the noisy the data is. If the value of standard deviation is high,
algorithm estimates the transformation matrix to minimize it means that the data is unlikely to be accurate. Therefore,
the sum of squared distances between the corresponding the weighing factor wi is calculated by the equation wi =
points. Thirdly, the original source cloud is transformed. 1/σ(diz , θi ) where diz is the z component of points di in
Moreover, corresponding points from the transformed cloud destination cloud, and θi is angle of the surface containing
and destination cloud are estimated and finally, the ICP some points near points di .
algorithm is iterated.
In the calculation of transformation matrix estimation, IV. EVALUATION
Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm [19] or linearization are To evaluate our algorithm, we used datasets of TUM RGB-
generally used. In the ICP algorithm of this paper, we D benchmark [22], [23]. This data consists of the RGB and
took linearization by using small-anlgle approximation [20], depth images captured by moving the Kinect sensor, and the
because the angle difference of two consecutive frames is ground truth of Kinect motion obtained from motion-capture
very small. system. Furthermore, the benchmark provides an evaluation
ICP uses not only the feature points used in IA but tool to calculate some values to evaluate the accuracy of
uniformly filtered (voxel grid filter) point cloud from the SLAM system or visual odometry. We chose the sequence
Kinect. In total, 307, 200 points are obtained by the Kinect ‘freiburg2 desk’ for this evaluation. A scene from the dataset

381
 TABLE II: Each parameter of our algorithm TABLE III: Comparison of translational ATE

feature detector threshold 50 algorithm RMSE(m) mean(m) std(m) max(m)

RANSAC inlier threshold 0.05m unweighted ICP 0.631 0.496 0.390 1.360
RANSAC maximum iteration 500 weighted ICP 0.210 0.173 0.118 0.455
voxel size for filtering 0.03m IA + unweighted ICP 0.537 0.420 0.335 1.137
ICP maximum iteration 30 IA + weighted ICP 0.205 0.169 0.116 0.443
displacement threshold for convergence 1.0 × 10−8 m
angle threshold for convergence 1.0 × 10−5 deg

Fig. 7: Comparison of translational RPE

TABLE IV: Comparison of translational RPE

algorithm RMSE(m) mean(m) std(m) max(m)

unweighted ICP 0.043 0.038 0.029 0.192
weighted ICP 0.021 0.018 0.010 0.063
IA + unweighted ICP 0.041 0.030 0.029 0.180
IA + weighted ICP 0.020 0.018 0.010 0.060

Fig. 6: Estimated trajectory and ground truth

is shown in Fig. 5 and the details are given in Table I. The
environment for this sequences is a typical office scene with
two desks with several objects on top of it, and the Kinect
sensor is moved around the table.
A. Implementation
We implemented our system using the Robot Operating
System (ROS) [24], OpenCV [25] and Point Cloud Library
(PCL) [26], [27]. OpenCV is the most popular computer
vision library, and used in the processing of RGB image.
Hamming distances are used to match the feature points
because ORB is a binary descriptor. We used Brute-Force
Hamming to find matching points. Moreover, we filtered the
matching pairs by the cross check. The flow of cross check
is as follows. Firstly, for all the feature points in the query
image, the algorithm find matching points in the reference
image. Then the query image and the reference images are
switched, and matching procedure is repeated again. Only
the feature points that are matched to each other are used to
the next step where RANSAC is performed. Moreover, our
algorithm uses PCL to process the data of point clouds. There
are many convenient algorithms such as voxel grid filter,
nearest point search and transformation matrix estimation
that were utilized.
Each parameter in the implementation is set as Table
II. The feature detector in ORB is same as FAST feature
detector. FAST detector have threshold to detect feature
points. The displacement and angle threshold is used to de-
termine whether the convergence is completed or not in ICP
algorithm. If the displacement or angle difference become
less than these threshold, the ICP algorithm is considered to
be terminated.
B. Absolute Trajectory Error (ATE)
The absolute trajectory error (ATE) [28] is a performance
measure to compare the trajectory estimated from the real
sensor data and the ground truth with true trajectory (ground
truth). The estimated position and ground truth are associated
with time to get the data. Fig. 6 shows the ground truth and
the estimated trajectory of four different methods; (1)only
unweighted ICP; (2)only weighted ICP; (3)unweighted ICP
with initial alignment and; (4)weighted ICP with initial align-
ment. The RMSE(Root Mean Square Error), mean, standard
deviation, and maximum value of errors are presented in
Table III. The error is equal to the difference between each
pair of positions. These results shows that the weighted ICP
estimated even more accurate trajectory than unweighted
ICP, and the initial alignment improves the accuracy slightly.

382
 Fig. 8: Comparison of rotational RPE

TABLE V: Comparison of rotational RPE

algorithm RMSE(deg) mean(deg) std(deg) max(deg)

unweighted ICP 1.730 1.202 1.244 9.185
weighted ICP 0.732 0.642 0.350 1.720
Fig. 9: Map built by our algorithm
IA + unweighted ICP 1.628 1.132 1.170 8.771
IA + weighted ICP 0.730 0.643 0.346 1.690
and there are many 3D and RGB features in the dataset.
TABLE VI: Comparison of computational cost Therefore the ICP algorithm does not often converge to
wrong local minimum.
Algorithm ICP iterations Alignment time(ms) Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 shows that in some of the time step
unweighted ICP 17 390.4 the error becomes large, but the weighted algorithm greatly
weighted ICP 11 289.2 reduced this error. There is little difference in time step,
IA + unweighted ICP 13 315.6 in which the error is originally small between unweighted
IA + weighted ICP 8 240.1
ICP and weighted ICP. This is because the weighing of
the Kinect data improves the accuracy of transformation
estimation by ICP. The positions of the accuracy points are
C. Relative Pose Error (RPE) aligned accurately than not accurate points.
Relative pose error (RPE) [28] is a performance measure As can be seen in Table I, the Kinect moves at approx-
that compare the accuracy of motion in window size of imately 20cm/s. Table IV shows weighted ICP algorithm
distance, time, angle, or frame. We decided 1 second as caused the approximately 2cm translational error in one
time window size for the experiment. Therefore, the relative second. Therefore, the error is roughly 10% of the moving
pose error in this paper means the difference between the distance.
motion captured by motion capture system and the motion It can be seen in Table VI that weighting and initial align-
estimated by our algorithm in 1 second. In RPE calculation, ment reduces the computational time. ICP is computationally
four methods were compared as similar to ATE. Fig. 7, Table expensive than RGB image processing for initial alignment
IV, Fig. 8 and Table V shows the RPE difference in the four because ICP includes many steps, such as the nearest point
methods. X-axis and Y -axis in this figure indicates the time searching, normal estimation and so on. Therefore reducing
and the relative pose error. It can be seen that the weighted the ICP iterations is important to make the algorithm effi-
ICP reduces the RPE greatly and initial alignment reduces it cient. In the table, the necessary number of iterations for
slightly. ICP is reduced by weighting and initial alignment, and the
computational cost is also reduced. The reason is that the
D. Computational performance weighting and initial alignment changes how to converge.
The computational cost of the four methods needs to be Weighting is considered to make the convergence efficient.
evaluated. The mean number of ICP iteration and compu- The algorithm of initial alignment transform the source cloud
tational time for alignment of two clouds are shown in before the ICP, and therefore ICP with initial alignment can
Table VI. If the initial alignmnet is used, the alignment time reach the solution faster than the algorithms which don’t use
includes the time for both IA and ICP. It can be seen that in initial alignment.
the figure that the initial alignment and weighted ICP reduces From the proposed algorithm it can be seen that the ICP
the ICP iteration number as well as the computational cost. accuracy can be improved by weighing algorithm from noisy
Kinect dataset. The error of weighting algorithm reduces to
V. DISCUSSIONS less than half of error of unweighting algorithm. However,
The initial alignment does not have a great effect on the this is insufficient to build a consistent map. In order to build
error reduction. The reason is that the Kinect motion is slow a consistent map of the wider environment, it is necessary

383
to use not only Kinect data but also data from other sensors, [15] M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles, “Random sample consensus: a
such as wheel odometry and IMU in case of a mobile robot. paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and
automated cartography,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 24, no. 6,
In addition, global optimization of estimated trajectory is also pp. 381–395, 1981.
needed to make a more consistent map. [16] P. Henry, M. Krainin, E. Herbst, X. Ren, and D. Fox, “Rgb-d
mapping: Using kinect-style depth cameras for dense 3d modeling of
VI. CONCLUSIONS indoor environments,” The International Journal of Robotics Research,
vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 647–663, 2012.
In this paper, we proposed a weighting ICP algorithm [17] A. Ravankar, “Probabilistic approaches and algorithms for indoor robot
using the error characteristics of the normal-mode Kinect mapping in structured environments,” Ph.D. dissertation, Hokkaido
sensor and SLAM algorithm using both RGB image and University, Japan, 2015.
[18] E. Rublee, V. Rabaud, K. Konolige, and G. Bradski, “Orb: An
depth image. The results shows the improvement in the efficient alternative to sift or surf,” in 2011 International conference
accuracy of the position estimation. We also showed that it on computer vision. IEEE, 2011, pp. 2564–2571.
is possible to improve the accuracy of SLAM using Kinect [19] J. J. Moré, “The levenberg-marquardt algorithm: implementation and
theory,” in Numerical analysis. Springer, 1978, pp. 105–116.
without changing the sensor to more expensive one. [20] K.-L. Low, “Linear least-squares optimization for point-to-plane icp
However, we estimated the noise model of only one surface registration,” Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina, vol. 4,
Kinect sensor and we ignored the individual difference of 2004.
[21] I. Jolliffe, Principal component analysis. Wiley Online Library, 2002.
it for evaluation. For future work, we plan to investigate [22] J. Sturm, N. Engelhard, F. Endres, W. Burgard, and D. Cremers,
the individual difference and take evaluations with different “A benchmark for the evaluation of rgb-d slam systems,” in 2012
Kinect sensors. Moreover, we plan to improve the function IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.
IEEE, 2012, pp. 573–580.
of noise model to fit the data obtained by Kinect sensor and [23] Rgb-d slam dataset and benchmark, homepage, (last checked: Jul
find better weighting function for the ICP algorithm. 2016). [Online]. Available: http://vision.in.tum.de/data/datasets/rgbd-
dataset
R EFERENCES [24] M. Quigley, K. Conley, B. Gerkey, J. Faust, T. Foote, J. Leibs,
R. Wheeler, and A. Y. Ng, “Ros: an open-source robot operating
[1] S. Thrun, W. Burgard, and D. Fox, Probabilistic robotics. MIT press, system,” in ICRA workshop on open source software, vol. 3, no. 3.2.
2005. Kobe, Japan, 2009, p. 5.
[2] S. Thrun and J. J. Leonard, “Simultaneous localization and mapping,” [25] Opencv japan, homepage, (last checked: Jul 2016). [Online].
in Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, 2008, pp. 871–889. Available: http://opencv.jp/
[3] A. Ravankar, A. A. Ravankar, Y. Hoshino, T. Emaru, and Y. Kobayashi, [26] R. B. Rusu and S. Cousins, “3d is here: Point cloud library (pcl),” in
“On a hopping-points svd and hough transform-based line detection Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2011 IEEE International Conference
algorithm for robot localization and mapping,” 2016. on. IEEE, 2011, pp. 1–4.
[4] L. Pedersen, D. Kortenkamp, D. Wettergreen, I. Nourbakhsh, and [27] Point cloud library (pcl), homepage (last checked: Jul 2016). [Online].
D. Korsmeyer, “A survey of space robotics,” 2003. Available: http://pointclouds.org/
[5] K. Nagatani, S. Kiribayashi, Y. Okada, K. Otake, K. Yoshida, S. Ta- [28] F. Endres, J. Hess, N. Engelhard, J. Sturm, D. Cremers, and W. Bur-
dokoro, T. Nishimura, T. Yoshida, E. Koyanagi, M. Fukushima et al., gard, “An evaluation of the rgb-d slam system,” in Robotics and
“Emergency response to the nuclear accident at the fukushima daiichi Automation (ICRA), 2012 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE,
nuclear power plants using mobile rescue robots,” Journal of Field 2012, pp. 1691–1696.
Robotics, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 44–63, 2013.
[6] Z. Fang and Y. Zhang, “Experimental evaluation of rgb-d visual odom-
etry methods,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems,
vol. 12, 2015.
[7] Microsoft kinect, homepage, (last checked: Jul 2016). [Online].
Available: http://www.xbox.com/ja-JP/kinect/
[8] S. Rusinkiewicz and M. Levoy, “Efficient variants of the icp algo-
rithm,” in 3-D Digital Imaging and Modeling, 2001. Proceedings.
Third International Conference on. IEEE, 2001, pp. 145–152.
[9] A. A. Ravankar, Y. Hoshino, A. Ravankar, L. Jixin, T. Emaru, and
Y. Kobayashi, “Algorithms and a framework for indoor robot mapping
in a noisy environment using clustering in spatial and hough domains,”
Int J Adv Robot Syst, vol. 12, p. 27, 2015.
[10] A. A. Ravankar, Y. Hoshino, T. Emaru, and Y. Kobayashi, “Map
building from laser range sensor information using mixed data clus-
tering and singular value decomposition in noisy environment,” in
System Integration (SII), 2011 IEEE/SICE International Symposium
on. IEEE, 2011, pp. 1232–1238.
[11] R. A. Newcombe, S. Izadi, O. Hilliges, D. Molyneaux, D. Kim,
A. J. Davison, P. Kohi, J. Shotton, S. Hodges, and A. Fitzgibbon,
“Kinectfusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking,” in
Mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR), 2011 10th IEEE international
symposium on. IEEE, 2011, pp. 127–136.
[12] S. May, D. Droeschel, D. Holz, S. Fuchs, E. Malis, A. Nüchter,
and J. Hertzberg, “Three-dimensional mapping with time-of-flight
cameras,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 26, no. 11-12, pp. 934–965,
2009.
[13] K. Khoshelham and S. O. Elberink, “Accuracy and resolution of kinect
depth data for indoor mapping applications,” Sensors, vol. 12, no. 2,
pp. 1437–1454, 2012.
[14] C. V. Nguyen, S. Izadi, and D. Lovell, “Modeling kinect sensor noise
for improved 3d reconstruction and tracking,” in 2012 Second Interna-
tional Conference on 3D Imaging, Modeling, Processing, Visualization
& Transmission. IEEE, 2012, pp. 524–530.

384