MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automatic View Selection Using Viewpoint Entropy and its Application to Image‐Based Modelling

2003· article· en· W2029129133 on OpenAlexaff
Pere‐Pau Vázquez, Miquel Feixas, Mateu Sbert, Wolfgang Heidrich

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversitat de Girona
KeywordsComputer scienceRendering (computer graphics)Artificial intelligenceEntropy (arrow of time)Redundancy (engineering)Computer visionImage-based modeling and rendering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the last decade a new family of methods, namely Image‐Based Rendering, has appeared. These techniques rely on the use of precomputed images to totally or partially substitute the geometric representation of the scene. This allows to obtain realistic renderings even with modest resources. The main problem is the amount of data needed, mainly due to the high redundancy and the high computational cost of capture. In this paper we present a new method to automatically determine the correct camera placement positions in order to obtain a minimal set of views for Image‐Based Rendering. The input is a 3D polyhedral model including textures and the output is a set of views that sample all visible polygons at an appropriate rate. The viewpoints should cover all visible polygons with an adequate quality, so that we sample the polygons at sufficient rate. This permits to avoid the excessive redundancy of the data existing in several other approaches. We also reduce the cost of the capturing process, as the number of actually computed reference views decreases. The localization of interesting viewpoints is performed with the aid of an information theory‐based measure, dubbed viewpoint entropy. This measure is used to determine the amount of information seen from a viewpoint. Next we develop a greedy algorithm to minimize the number of images needed to represent a scene. In contrast to other approaches, our system uses a special preprocess for textures to avoid artifacts appearing in partially occluded textured polygons. Therefore no visible detail of these images is lost. ACM CSS: I.3.7 Computer Graphics—Three‐Dimensional Graphics and Realism

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations178
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Graphics ForumSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207