No announcement yet.

DLT discussion

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DLT discussion

    Dear Colleagues:

    In response to Andy Dainis' comment about his alternative to the DLT, I
    would like to point out that I have advocated and used a method similar
    to the one that Andy speaks of. It is known as the "NLT" method and was
    developed by Dapena, Harman, & Miller in 1982. The equations are
    clearly spelled out in two articles (J. Biomechanics, 15:11-19, 1982;
    and J. Biomechanics, 18:163, 1985). In fact, the article I mentioned in
    my posting of a few days ago (J. Biomechanics, 28: 1219-1223, 1995)
    compared the NLT to the DLT and discusses the pros and cons of each
    method. The beauty of the DLT over the NLT is the fact that you can get
    quite accurate results without having to bother to do a separate
    calibration of each camera for internal camera parameters (a weakness of
    both the NLT and Andy's method). The advantages of these latter methods
    is that they can be used with VERY LARGE control volumes and use much
    simpler control objects (a single pole with 2 points on it will

    However, the bottom line is that the vast majority of researchers who do
    3-D motion analyses today use the DLT (not these other methods), and
    hence I was hoping to stimulate discussion on how to best use the DLT,
    not the NLT or Andy's (presumably?) proprietary method. If, on the
    other hand, the readership wants to expand to other 3-D methods, I'm
    game for that too. I'd be glad to share my experiences with
    extrapolating the DLT, for example. Thanks for everyone's input so
    far. I'll keep a running tally for summary purposes later.



    Richard N. Hinrichs, Ph.D.
    Dept. of Exercise Science
    Arizona State University