Minimal-Bracketing Sets for High-Dynamic-Range Image Capture
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the problem of high-dynamic-range (HDR) image capture using low-dynamic-range (LDR) cameras. We present three different minimal-bracketing algorithms for computing minimum-sized exposure sets bracketing of HDR scenes. Each algorithm is applicable to a different HDR-imaging scenario depending on the amount of target-scene-irradiance information and real-time image processing available at the time of image acquisition. We prove the optimality of each algorithm with respect to its ability to obtain a theoretically minimum-size bracketing set of exposures. We also provide closed-form expressions for computing minimal-bracketing exposure sets for two common types of HDR-imaging systems, those with geometrically varying and arithmetically varying exposure settings. We experimentally demonstrate the advantages of the proposed methods by capturing and processing multiple HDR scenes using minimal-bracketing and 1-stop bracketing methods. The results show that minimal-bracketing can be used to produce high-quality HDR images, while requiring only one third as many LDR images be acquired compared to 1-stop bracketing. We also perform a detailed SNR analysis that quantifies the tradeoff between signal-to-noise ratio and image-bracketing-set size.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it