English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and reliability of above and underwater 3D reconstruction of three calibration volumes with different control points disposal (#1 - on vertical and horizontal rods; #2 - on vertical and horizontal rods and facets; #3 - on crossed horizontal rods). Each calibration volume (3 × 2 × 3 m) was positioned in a 25 m swimming pool (half above and half below the water surface) and recorded with four underwater and two above water synchronised cameras (50 Hz). Reconstruction accuracy was determined calculating the RMS error of twelve validation points. The standard deviation across all digitisation of the same marker was used for assessing the reliability estimation. Comparison among different number of control points showed that the set of 24 points produced the most accurate results. The volume #2 presented higher accuracy (RMS errors: 5.86 and 3.59 mm for x axis, 3.45 and 3.11 mm for y axis and 4.38 and 4.00 mm for z axis, considering under and above water, respectively) and reliability (SD: underwater cameras ± [0.2; 0.6] mm; above water cameras ± [0.2; 0.3] mm) that may be considered suitable for 3D swimming kinematic analysis. Results revealed that RMS error was greater during underwater analysis, possibly due to refraction.

Reconstruction Error of Calibration Volume's Coordinates for 3D Swimming Kinematics