Perception of blending in stereo motion panoramas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most methods for synthesizing panoramas assume that the scene is static. A few methods have been proposed for synthesizing stereo or motion panoramas, but there has been little attempt to synthesize panoramas that have both stereo and motion. One faces several challenges in synthesizing stereo motion panoramas, for example, to ensure temporal synchronization between left and right views in each frame, to avoid spatial distortion of moving objects, and to continuously loop the video in time. We have recently developed a stereo motion panorama method that tries to address some of these challenges. The method blends space-time regions of a video XYT volume, such that the blending regions are distinct and translate over time. This article presents a perception experiment that evaluates certain aspects of the method, namely how well observers can detect such blending regions. We measure detection time thresholds for different blending widths and for different scenes, and for monoscopic versus stereoscopic videos. Our results suggest that blending may be more effective in image regions that do not contain coherent moving objects that can be tracked over time. For example, we found moving water and partly transparent smoke were more effectively blended than swaying branches. We also found that performance in the task was roughly the same for mono versus stereo videos.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".