Fringe Projection Profilometry (FPP) requires precise system characterisation to achieve reliable three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions; however, characterisation accuracy strongly depends on robust checkerboard feature localisation, which can deteriorate under challenging imaging conditions such as lens blur and characterisation target orientations. Existing deep learning-based corner detectors are typically assessed using detection metrics and camera reprojection error alone, without considering their wider impact on projector characterisation, camera-projector stereo characterisation consistency, or overall measurement accuracy. In this work, we introduce a complete FPP characterisation pipeline that incorporates deep learning-based corner detection into the standard camera characterisation workflow. We also characterise the projector by sampling phase values at the centres of the white squares in the characterisation target. Rather than treating corner detection as an isolated task, the proposed framework explicitly analyses how localisation errors propagate throughout the entire FPP characterisation chain. Performance is evaluated using detection metrics (e.g., precision and recall), camera and projector reprojection errors, and the camera and projector stereo characterisation. Across a mixed dataset of clean and degraded images, the camera reprojection error is reduced from 1.237 pixels to 0.259 pixels, while the projector reprojection error is reduced by roughly 50%. Dimensional evaluation of reconstructed artefacts shows improved geometric accuracy compared with those resulting from the conventional pipeline. Overall, the findings indicate increased robustness of system-level characterisation under challenging imaging conditions, thereby enabling more reliable industrial FPP measurements.
Figures & tables
Figure 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4
Image dataset
RACE-FPP
OpenCV
PCK@0.5
PCK@1
PCK@5
PCK@10
PCK@0.5
PCK@1
PCK@5
PCK@10
Noise-free
19.70
100.00
100.00
100.00
12.12
100.00
100.00
100.00
Mixed images
16.67
58.33
100.00
100.00
16.67
49.24
96.21
97.73
Noisy images
3.03
19.70
99.24
100.00
5.30
15.15
77.27
87.88
Table 1: Percentage of correct keypoints (PCK) at different thresholds for RACE-FPP and OpenCV detections.
Figure 6Figure 7
Error
RACE-FPP
OpenCV
Noise-free
partial defocus
full defocus
Noise-free
partial defocus
full defocus
Mean
std
Mean
std
Mean
std
Mean
std
Mean
std
Mean
std
Dx
-0.42
0.23
-0.28
1.17
1.02
1.32
-0.43
0.20
0.17
3.41
1.00
3.71
Dy
-0.42
0.16
-0.12
0.96
0.34
1.36
-0.44
0.13
0.34
3.65
1.00
3.84
Euclidean
0.63
0.19
1.22
0.94
2.00
0.86
0.64
0.16
2.27
4.47
3.30
4.43
Table 2: Mean and standard deviation (std) of the directional ( Dx,Dy ) and Euclidean localisation errors in pixels (px) relative to the manually annotated ground truth (GT).
Dataset
Images detected (RACE-FPP)
RPE (RACE-FPP)
Images detected (OpenCV)
RPE (OpenCV)
Noise-free
16/16
0.2281
16/16
0.0806
Mixed images
16/16
0.2591
10/16
1.2365
Noisy images
16/16
0.4500
5/16
2.8514
Table 3: Detection rates and reprojection error (RPE) in pixels (px) for camera characterisation using RACE-FPP and OpenCV pipelines.
Figure 10
Method
Dataset
fx×103 px
fy×103 px
cx×103 px
cy×103 px
RACE-FPP
Noise-free
6.708
6.705
1.432
0.910
Mixed images
6.733
6.728
1.429
0.896
Noisy images
6.714
6.711
1.420
0.903
OpenCV
Noise-free
6.712
6.711
1.446
0.913
Mixed images
6.597
6.634
1.397
1.018
Noisy images
6.352
6.472
1.293
1.207
Table 4: Estimated camera intrinsic parameters obtained using the RACE-FPP and OpenCV pipeline for the three image datasets.
Dataset
RACE-FPP RPE
OpenCV RPE
Projector
Stereo
Projector
Stereo
Noise-free
0.0512
0.1646
0.0357
0.1323
Mixed images
0.3935
0.3778
0.8571
1.6647
Noisy images
0.6305
0.1518
1.6849
3.1638
Table 5: Reprojection error (RPE) in pixels (px) for projector and stereo characterisation using RACE-FPP and the OpenCV pipeline.
Figure 13Figure 14
Feature
Dataset
CMM
RACE-FPP
Deviation
Traditional FPP
Deviation
SD
Noise-free
49.945
49.89
-0.056
49.93
-0.015
Mixed images
49.87
-0.075
51.37
+1.425
Noisy images
49.83
-0.115
54.33
+4.385
Sphere 1 radius
Noise-free
4.997
5.03
+0.033
5.01
+0.013
Mixed images
4.99
-0.007
5.12
+0.123
Noisy images
5.00
+0.003
5.59
+0.593
Table 6: Sphere radius and spacing distance (SD) measurements (mm) of the precision dumbbell sphere, with deviations from the corresponding CMM measurements.
Dataset
CMM
RACE-FPP
std
Deviation
Traditional FPP
std
Deviation
Noise-free
4.917
4.91
0.04
-0.007
4.90
0.05
-0.017
Mixed images
4.91
0.03
-0.007
5.07
0.05
+0.153
Noisy images
4.92
0.04
+0.003
4.97
0.05
+0.053
Table 7: Average hood step-height measurements (mm) for the multi-feature artefact, with standard deviations (std) and deviations from the CMM reference.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University, 2529 Union Drive, Ames, 50011, Iowa, USA · College of Engineering, University of Georgia, 597 D. W. Brooks Drive, Athens, 30602, Georgia, USA