MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093909263 · doi:10.1109/sitis.2013.43

Motion Estimation in Blurred Frames Using Phase Correlation

2013· article· en· W2093909263 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion estimationPhase correlationMotion vectorComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceQuarter-pixel motionMotion blurCorrelationMotion (physics)Noise (video)Phase (matter)MathematicsImage (mathematics)PhysicsFourier transform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a method to adopt phase correlation for blurred frames. Phase correlation is a strong motion estimation tool which is highly robust against noise, However, phase correlation is not robust against blur degradation in frames. In scenarios where only one of the frames is blurred or when the two frames have different blur extents, phase correlation does not achieve an accurate estimation of the motion vector. We also show that the number of motion vectors estimated by the block-matching technique is reduced in such scenarios, therefore, a technique to estimate the motion in such scenarios is strongly needed. We investigate the effects of blurring on motion estimation and show the effectiveness of our algorithm for motion estimation in blurred frames and compare it against existing methods.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

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 communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207