Ask Your Question

image_proc not working as expected

asked 2015-10-25 10:46:26 -0600

Georacer gravatar image

updated 2015-10-25 14:26:30 -0600

Hello everyone,

I'm trying to use image_proc to rectify my image, coming from a folder.

Here is my launch file:


<group ns="calibration">
    <rosparam command="load" file="/home/george/GOPRO/chessboard/calibrationdata/cal.yml"/>
    <!-- <node pkg="green_eye" name="camera_info_pub" type="camera_info_pub" output="screen" /> -->

<node pkg="green_eye" name="file_monitor" type="file_monitor" output="screen"/>
<node pkg="green_eye" name="image_processor" type="image_processor" output="screen"/>
<group ns="camera">
    <node pkg="image_proc" name="image_proc" type="image_proc" output="screen"/>
    <node pkg="image_view" name="image_raw" type="image_view" output="screen">
        <remap from="image" to="image_raw" />
    <node pkg="image_view" name="image_mono" type="image_view" output="screen">
        <remap from="image" to="image_mono" />
    <node pkg="image_view" name="image_rect" type="image_view" output="screen">
        <remap from="image" to="image_rect" />

The file_monitor node checks for new images in a folder and publishes the image path. image_processor reads that path and uses openCV to read the image and publish it to the /camera/image_raw node. It also stamps and publishes the CameraInfo topic in the /camera/camera_info path. From there on, I expect image_proc to do its job, but it fails.

While the image_raw and image_mono topics are visible by the image_view, image_rect always stays grey (in fact it is never published).

I also get the following warning (not actually pasted exactly)

  [image_transport] Topics '/camera/image_mono' and '/camera/camera_info' do not appear to be synchronized. In the last 10s:
  Image messages received: 4
  CameraInfo messages received: 4
  Synchronized pairs: 0

image_mono seems to be a product of image_proc, but not actually a topic I publish myself, which lags image_raw by some 10s of ms and is displayed correctly. However, image_raw should be the only input of image_proc that I have to stamp. Thus, I don't know why this warning should appear, or whether it affects my result.

Any ideas welcome, Thanks in advance!

Edit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I managed to have the intended result with the cv::undistort API, but the solution is less modular and I'm not sure whether the result is as sound as the well-documented image_proc, so I'll leave this open.

Edit 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the code which I use to fill the camera_info message, having the converted .yaml file loaded in the parameter server:

pub_img_raw = it.advertise("/camera/image_raw",1);
pub_cfg = n.advertise<sensor_msgs::CameraInfo>("/camera/camera_info",1);

sensor_msgs::CameraInfo cfg;
XmlRpc::XmlRpcValue list;
int i;

cfg.header.frame_id = "camera";
double temp;
ros::param::get("/calibration/image_height", temp);
cfg.height = (uint)temp;
ros::param::get("/calibration/image_width", temp);
cfg.width = (uint)temp;
ros::param::get("/calibration/distortion_model", cfg.distortion_model);
ros::param::get("/calibration/distortion_coefficients/data", list);
for (i=0;i<5;i++) {
ros::param::get("/calibration/camera_matrix/data", list);
for (i=0;i<9;i++) {
    cfg.K[i] = list[i];
ros::param::get("/calibration/rectification_matrix/data", list);
for (i=0;i<9;i++) {
    cfg.R[i] = list[i];
ros::param::get("/calibration/projection_matrix/data", list);
for (i=0;i<12;i++) {
    cfg.P[i] = list ...
edit retag flag offensive close merge delete


I just realized that the warning comes from image_transport, not image_proc, so one less thing to worry about. But the fact that image_rect is never published is still a problem.

Georacer gravatar image Georacer  ( 2015-10-25 10:55:59 -0600 )edit

image_transport is used within image_proc so it is likely that this is indeed a thing to worry about :)

Stefan Kohlbrecher gravatar image Stefan Kohlbrecher  ( 2015-10-25 13:17:34 -0600 )edit

1 Answer

Sort by ยป oldest newest most voted

answered 2015-10-25 10:57:09 -0600

updated 2015-10-25 15:50:21 -0600

The warning message indicates that the Image and CameraInfo message timestamps are not synchronized. Per default, per published Image message, there should be a CameraInfo message with the exact same timestamp published. Otherwise, the default synchronization policy used by many tools with result in exactly the warning (and issues) you observe.

Note that issues with this pop up once in a while and you'll be able to find more info about time sync issues when searching this site, for instance this Q/A.

/edit: You call ros::Time::now twice for settings timestamps, which can lead to inconsistent stamps. Essentially the exact same issue as described here. Not sure this will fix things, but it's a good idea to eliminate obvious potential sources of error.

Note you could also use a CameraPublisher for convenience.

edit flag offensive delete link more


It turns out this was not the problem: /camera/camera_info is published and stamped by me. image_proc reads it along with /camera/camera_raw and produces among other things /camera/image_mono, but with some delay. image_transport sees this and complains, but it shouldn't matter.

Georacer gravatar image Georacer  ( 2015-10-25 11:01:17 -0600 )edit

Normally this matters as the callback of a CameraSubscriber is never called when you never have a synchronized pair.

I recommend you do not erase info from your question, as I refer to the warning message in my answer and things get very hard to understand for others.

Stefan Kohlbrecher gravatar image Stefan Kohlbrecher  ( 2015-10-25 13:07:30 -0600 )edit

It indeed was wrong from my part to edit the question by deleting content. I realize that now. Sorry about that. Let me re-instate the deleted content.

Georacer gravatar image Georacer  ( 2015-10-25 13:26:39 -0600 )edit

Thanks for taking the time to answer, Stefan. However, even though I had seen the linked thread, I can't understand how it helps. The warning is complaining about the stamps of an image_procinput topic and an output topic, which seems weird to me.

Georacer gravatar image Georacer  ( 2015-10-25 14:16:33 -0600 )edit

To add to the conversation, I noticed that the /rectifynodelet of image_proc does use image_mono as input, but I sure didn't try to use it.

Georacer gravatar image Georacer  ( 2015-10-25 14:18:31 -0600 )edit

Then everything makes perfect sense and a timestamp problem is plausible. Not sure why rectify uses image_mono per default. See updated answer.

Stefan Kohlbrecher gravatar image Stefan Kohlbrecher  ( 2015-10-25 15:53:11 -0600 )edit

Ugh... it was the different timestamps after all... such a silly mistake. Even for those nanoseconds image_proc complained. I was used to the tf package which is not as strict with sliding frames but this time it bit me. Thanks a bunch!

Georacer gravatar image Georacer  ( 2015-10-25 16:21:22 -0600 )edit

Your Answer

Please start posting anonymously - your entry will be published after you log in or create a new account.

Add Answer

Question Tools

1 follower


Asked: 2015-10-25 10:46:26 -0600

Seen: 3,103 times

Last updated: Oct 25 '15