MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968454093 · doi:10.1063/1.3577042

Omnifocus video camera

2011· article· en· W1968454093 on OpenAlexaff
Keigo Iizuka

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Optical Sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer visionCamera auto-calibrationArtificial intelligenceVideo cameraFocus (optics)Three-CCD cameraPixelComputer graphics (images)Smart cameraCamera resectioningVideo trackingVideo captureVideo processingCamera matrixPinhole camera model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The omnifocus video camera takes videos, in which objects at different distances are all in focus in a single video display. The omnifocus video camera consists of an array of color video cameras combined with a unique distance mapping camera called the Divcam. The color video cameras are all aimed at the same scene, but each is focused at a different distance. The Divcam provides real-time distance information for every pixel in the scene. A pixel selection utility uses the distance information to select individual pixels from the multiple video outputs focused at different distances, in order to generate the final single video display that is everywhere in focus. This paper presents principle of operation, design consideration, detailed construction, and over all performance of the omnifocus video camera. The major emphasis of the paper is the proof of concept, but the prototype has been developed enough to demonstrate the superiority of this video camera over a conventional video camera. The resolution of the prototype is high, capturing even fine details such as fingerprints in the image. Just as the movie camera was a significant advance over the still camera, the omnifocus video camera represents a significant advance over all-focus cameras for still images.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicAdvanced Optical Sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207