Irradiance‐independent camera color calibration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For a digital color camera to represent the colors in the environment accurately, it is necessary to calibrate the camera RGB outputs in terms of a colorimetric space such as the CIEXYZ or sRGB. Assuming that the camera response is a linear function of scene luminance, the main step in the calibration is to determine a transformation matrix M mapping data from linear camera RGB to XYZ . Determining M is usually done by photographing a calibrated target, often a color checker, and then performing a least‐squares regression on the difference between the camera's RGB digital counts from each color checker patch and their corresponding true XYZ values. To measure accurately the XYZ coordinates for each patch, either a completely uniform lighting field is required, which can be hard to accomplish, or a measurement of the illuminant irradiance at each patch is needed. In this article, two computational methods are presented for camera color calibration that require only that the relative spectral power distribution of the illumination be constant across the color checker, while its irradiance may vary, and yet resolve for a color correction matrix that remains unaffected by any irradiance variation that may be present. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Col Res Appl, 39, 540–548, 2014
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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 it