Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Troubles with T265 IMU coordinate system. #3107

Open
alejandronespereira opened this issue May 22, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Troubles with T265 IMU coordinate system. #3107

alejandronespereira opened this issue May 22, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@alejandronespereira
Copy link

Required Info
Camera Model t265
Firmware Version 5.15.1
Operating System & Version Ubuntu 22.04
Kernel Version (Linux Only) (e.g. 4.14.13)
Platform PC
SDK Version 6.20.0-36-generic
Language C++
Segment Robot

Issue Description

I am having trouble wrapping my head around the t265 IMU coordinate system. I am trying to integrate the IMU data as well as the odometry produced by the tracking camera. I see in the official documentation here that the coordinate system is a Right Hand convention with the Z pointing inwards the camera, and Y point upwards.

However, the ROS2 wrapper is outputing the IMu in a frame that does not exist on the tf that is published, camera_imu_optical_frame. i will refer to the axes denoted on this image:
image
as XYZ (in caps) from now onwards, and the gravity vector G as pointing towards the ground.

Here are the values for the linear acceleration depending on the camera orientation:

  • X = G (side of the camera with the USB connection facing the ground):
    x: 9.8, y: 0, z: 0
  • Y = G (camera upside down):
    x: 0, y: -9.8, z: 0
  • Z = G (camera facing the sky):
    x: 0, y: 0, z: 9.8

I don''t understand why the Y axis is negative, but again the camera_imu_optical_frame has no connection to the camera that I know.

What am I missing?

@JTShuai
Copy link

JTShuai commented Jul 11, 2024

@alejandronespereira Hi, I have the same trouble. Have you found any updates on it?

@alejandronespereira
Copy link
Author

Nope, sorry. I recall I ended up publishing some tfs myself and taking those into account for a while, but as the camera is discontinued I ended up with another solution that did not use this model.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants