MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060088431 · doi:10.1117/12.586915

View morphing and interpolation through triangulation

2005· article· en· W2060088431 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoyong Sun, Éric Dubois

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphingComputer scienceInterpolation (computer graphics)Affine transformationComputer visionArtificial intelligenceTriangulationFeature (linguistics)Classification of discontinuitiesStairstep interpolationTexture mappingImage (mathematics)AlgorithmBilinear interpolationMathematicsMultivariate interpolationGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a method for view morphing and interpolation based on triangulation. View morphing here is viewed here as a basic tool for view interpolation. The feature points in each source image are first detected. Based on these feature points, each source image is segmented into a set of triangular regions and local affine transformations are then used for texture mapping of each triangle from the source image to the destination image. This is called triangulation-based texture mapping. However, one of the significant problems associated with this approach is texture discontinuity between adjacent triangles. In order to solve this problem, the triangular patches that might cause these adjacent discontinuities are first detected and the optimal affine transformations for these triangles are then applied. In the subsequent view interpolation step, all source images are transferred to the novel view through view morphing, and the final novel view is the combination of all these candidate novel views. The major improvement over the traditional approach is a feedback-based method proposed to determine the weights for the texture combination from different views. Simulation results show that our method can reduce the discontinuities in triangle-based view morphing and significantly improve the quality of the interpolated views.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207