MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044595307 · doi:10.1117/12.579807

Calibration techniques for object tracking using a compound eye image sensor

2004· article· en· W2044595307 on OpenAlexaff
Rubakumar Krishnasamy, Paul J. Thomas, S. Pepic, Winnifred Wong, Richard Hornsey

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCalibrationPixelLens (geology)Bundle adjustmentImage sensorTracking (education)OpticsImage (mathematics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vanishing point and Z-tranform image center calibration techniques are reported for a prototype “compound-eye” camera system which can contain up to 25 “eyelets”. One application of this system is to track a fast-moving object, such as a tennis ball, over a wide field of view. Each eyelet comprises a coherent fiber bundle with a small imaging lens at one end. The other ends of the fiber bundles are aligned on a plane, which is re-imaged onto a commercial CMOS camera. The design and implementation of the Dragonfleye prototype is briefly described. Calibration of the image centers of the eyelet lenses is performed using a vanishing point technique, achieving an error of approximately ±0.2 pixels. An alternative technique, the Z-transform, is shown to be able to achieve similar results. By restricting the application to a two-dimensional surface, it is shown that similar accuracies can be achieved using a simple homography transformation without the need for calibrating individual eyelets. Preliminary results for object tracking between eyelets are presented, showing an error between actual and measured positions of around 3.5 mrad.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.267
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207