Depth consistency and vertical disparities in stereoscopic panoramas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the problem of acquiring omnidirectional stereoscopic imagery of dynamic scenes has gained commercial interest, and consequently, new techniques have been proposed to address this problem. The goal of many of these new panoramic methods is to provide practical solutions for acquiring real-time omnidirectional stereoscopic imagery for human viewing. However, there are problems related to mosaicking partially overlapped stereoscopic snapshots of the scene that need to be addressed. Among these issues are the conditions to provide a consistent depth illusion over the whole scene and the appearance of undesired vertical disparities. We develop an acquisition model capable of describing a variety of omnistereoscopic imaging systems and suitable to study the design constraints of these systems. Based on this acquisition model, we compare different acquisition approaches based on mosaicking partial stereoscopic views of the scene in terms of their depth continuity constraints and the appearance of vertical disparities. This work complements and extends our previous work in omnistereoscopic imaging systems by proposing a mathematical framework to contrast different acquisition strategies to create stereoscopic panoramas using a small number of stereoscopic 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".