Experimental study of the influence of refraction on underwater three-dimensional reconstruction using the SVP camera model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an underwater imaging system, a perspective camera is often placed outside a tank or in waterproof housing with a flat glass window. The refraction of light occurs when a light ray passes through the water-glass and air-glass interface, rendering the conventional multiple view geometry based on the single viewpoint (SVP) camera model invalid. While most recent underwater vision studies mainly focus on the challenging topic of calibrating such systems, no previous work has systematically studied the influence of refraction on underwater three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction. This paper demonstrates the possibility of using the SVP camera model in underwater 3D reconstruction through theoretical analysis of refractive distortion and simulations. Then, the performance of the SVP camera model in multiview underwater 3D reconstruction is quantitatively evaluated. The experimental results reveal a rather surprising and useful yet overlooked fact that the SVP camera model with radial distortion correction and focal length adjustment can compensate for refraction and achieve high accuracy in multiview underwater 3D reconstruction (within 0.7 mm for an object of dimension 200 mm) compared with the results of land-based systems. Such an observation justifies the use of the SVP camera model in underwater application for reconstructing reliable 3D scenes. Our results can be used to guide the selection of system parameters in the design of an underwater 3D imaging setup.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".