MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123898224 · doi:10.1109/tbc.2010.2043895

Motion-Compensated Frame Rate Up-Conversion—Part II: New Algorithms for Frame Interpolation

2010· article· en· W2123898224 on OpenAlexaff
Demin Wang, A. Vincent, Philip Blanchfield, Robert Klepko

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Broadcasting · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsCommunications Research Centre Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion estimationQuarter-pixel motionMotion interpolationMotion compensationComputer visionInterpolation (computer graphics)Computer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceFrame rateBlock-matching algorithmMotion vectorMathematicsMotion (physics)Video processingVideo tracking

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motion-compensated frame rate up-conversion (MC-FRUC) consists of two key elements: motion estimation and motion-compensated frame interpolation. The motion estimation algorithm presented in , which is used in the MC-FRUC method proposed in this paper, provides unidirectional motion trajectories. The advantage of this motion estimation algorithm, besides its accuracy, is that it provides information on occlusions. However, motion compensation along unidirectional motion trajectories yields overlaps, holes, and blocking artifacts. To solve these problems, this paper presents two new algorithms for unidirectional motion-compensated frame interpolation: irregular-grid expanded-block weighted motion compensation (IEWMC) and block-wise directional hole interpolation (BDHI). The IEWMC is used to reduce the blocking artifacts and solve the problem of overlapping blocks. The BDHI preserves local texture and edges while filling holes. Experimental results show that the IEWMC outperforms conventional motion compensation, and the BDHI is better than the repeated median filter that is often used to fill holes. The performance of the proposed MC-FRUC, that uses the two new algorithms and the unidirectional motion estimation algorithm, is evaluated against three existing MC-FRUC techniques: a typical bi-directional algorithm, an object-based algorithm, and a commercial plug-in product. Experimental results show that the quality of the pictures interpolated using the proposed MC-FRUC method is much higher than those interpolated using the three existing MC-FRUC techniques.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0030.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations94
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on BroadcastingSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207