# Computing Relative Pose Between Two opposite direction Cameras Using Markers

**URL:** <https://forum.opencv.org/t/computing-relative-pose-between-two-opposite-direction-cameras-using-markers/20555>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [March 18, 2025, 3:09am UTC](https://forum.opencv.org/t/computing-relative-pose-between-two-opposite-direction-cameras-using-markers/20555 "2025-03-18T03:09:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![crackwitz](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.opencv.org/crackwitz/32/14_2.png) [@crackwitz](https://forum.opencv.org/u/crackwitz)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2025, 9:30am UTC](https://forum.opencv.org/t/computing-relative-pose-between-two-opposite-direction-cameras-using-markers/20555/2 "2025-03-18T09:30:28Z")

</div>

> [@Volo-Ro](#):
>
> T\_front\_to\_behind = T\_behind\_to\_marker4\_inv @ T\_marker2\_to\_marker4\_inv @ T\_front\_to\_marker2\_inv

and _that_ is why [I specifically recommended “domino” notation](https://forum.opencv.org/t/reviewing-my-approach-for-relative-transformation-between-aruco-markers-in-opencv/20549/2), rather than any other notation, certainly not a “to” notation. domino notation (“from”) makes issues trivial to spot.

give inverses their own names, don’t just tack an “inv” onto the name.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.opencv.org/t/computing-relative-pose-between-two-opposite-direction-cameras-using-markers/20555)._