MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993025405 · doi:10.3390/jlpea3040337

Hardware Implementation of an Automatic Rendering Tone Mapping Algorithm for a Wide Dynamic Range Display

2013· article· en· W1993025405 on OpenAlexaff
Chika Ofili, S. Glozman, Orly Yadid-Pecht

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Low Power Electronics and Applications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Enhancement Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTone mappingAlgorithmHigh dynamic rangeField-programmable gate arrayHardware architectureVerilogRendering (computer graphics)SoftwareComputer hardwareDynamic rangeArtificial intelligenceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tone mapping algorithms are used to adapt captured wide dynamic range (WDR) scenes to the limited dynamic range of available display devices. Although there are several tone mapping algorithms available, most of them require manual tuning of their rendering parameters. In addition, the high complexities of some of these algorithms make it difficult to implement efficient real-time hardware systems. In this work, a real-time hardware implementation of an exponent-based tone mapping algorithm is presented. The algorithm performs a mixture of both global and local compression on colored WDR images. An automatic parameter selector has been proposed for the tone mapping algorithm in order to achieve good tone-mapped images without manual reconfiguration of the algorithm for each WDR image. Both algorithms are described in Verilog and synthesized for a field programmable gate array (FPGA). The hardware architecture employs a combination of parallelism and system pipelining, so as to achieve a high performance in power consumption, hardware resources usage and processing speed. Results show that the hardware architecture produces images of good visual quality that can be compared to software-based tone mapping algorithms. High peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and structural similarity (SSIM) scores were obtained when the results were compared with output images obtained from software simulations using MATLAB.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Low Power Electronics and ApplicationsSame topicImage Enhancement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207