MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005653733 · doi:10.1145/2554688.2554738

Producing high-quality real-time HDR video system with FPGA (abstract only)

2014· article· en· W2005653733 on OpenAlexaff
Tao Ai, Mir Adnan Ali, Gregory Steffan, Kalin Ovtcharov, Sarmad Zulfiqar, Steve Mann

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Enhancement Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceField-programmable gate arrayCompositingHigh dynamic rangeHash functionInterpolation (computer graphics)Computer graphics (images)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceReal-time computingComputer hardwareDynamic rangeImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Video cameras can only take photographs with limited dynamic range. One method to overcome this is to combine differently exposed images of the same subject matter (i.e. a Wyckoff Set), producing a High Dynamic Range (HDR) result. HDR digital photography started almost 20 years ago. Now, it is possible to produce HDR video in real-time, on both high-power CPU/GPU systems, as well as low-power FPGA boards. However, other FPGA implementations have relied upon methods that are less accurate than current CPU and GPU-based methods. Namely, the earlier FPGA approaches used weighted sum for image compositing. In this paper we provide a novel method for real-time HDR com-positing. As an essential part of an upgraded HDR video production system, the resulting system combines differently exposed video stream (of the same subject matter) in Full HD (1080p at 60fps) on a Kintex-7 FPGA. The proposed work flow, implemented with software written in C, estimates the camera response function according to its quadtree representation and generates the compositing circuit in Verilog HDL from a Wyckoff Set. This circuit consists of parts that perform addressing using multiplexer networks and estimation with bilinear interpolation. It is parameterizable by user-specified error constraints, allowing us to explore the trade-offs in resource usage and precision of the implementation. Here is an MD5 hash function sum generated for the rest of the paper: 07897e61027d15dc3600fadbccfbd67d, citation date: December 18, 2013.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Enhancement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207