MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140365402 · doi:10.1109/cvprw.2011.5981726

Fully automatic multi-projector calibration with an uncalibrated camera

2011· article· en· W2140365402 on OpenAlexaff
Ignacio Garcia‐Dorado, Jeremy R. Cooperstock

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProjectorRendering (computer graphics)Computer visionComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceCamera auto-calibrationEmbeddingCamera resectioningCalibration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple video projectors can be used to provide a seamless, undistorted image or video over one or more display surfaces. Correct rendering requires calibration of the projectors with respect to these surface(s) and an efficient mechanism to distribute and warp the frame buffer data to the projectors. Typically, the calibration process involves some degree of manual intervention or embedding of optical sensors in the display surface itself, neither of which is practical for general deployment by non-technical users. We show that an effective result can in fact be achieved without such intervention or hardware augmentation, allowing for a fully automatic multi-projector calibration that requires nothing more than a low-cost uncalibrated camera and the placement of paper markers to delimit the boundaries of the desired display region. Both geometric and intensity calibration are performed by projection of gray-coded binary patterns, observed by the camera. Finally, the frame buffer contents for display are distributed in real time by a remote desktop transport to multiple rendering machines, connected to the various projectors.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207