MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162050399 · doi:10.1109/icdsp.2011.6004994

Investigation of the effect of three-dimensional smoothing on multiview stereo images

2011· article· en· W2162050399 on OpenAlexaff
A.S. Babalis, A.N. Venetsanopoulos, D. Androutsos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereoscopyComputer visionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFilter (signal processing)Bilateral filterSmoothingRange (aeronautics)NaturalnessStereo displayComputer graphics (images)Image (mathematics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Future stereoscopic (3D) systems will become multiview capable to allow for the user to experience a more realistic 3D experience since they will not be limited to one view. This will help to make 3D technology more realistic, however, viewing discomfort will still be an issue. When viewing stereoscopic images, one cause of viewing discomfort can be attributed to the images appearing unnaturally sharp across the entire range of depth. To correct this problem for multiview images, a 3D filtering approach is proposed that will reduce the computation time required since the filter need only be applied once, whereas conventional 2D filtering techniques would be required to be performed 2n times (where n is the number of views). After conducting an initial experiment on 15 people, the proposed filter (on average) received similar ratings for discomfort and naturalness, when compared to the well established 2D bilateral filters. The benefit of this work is that it can provide an alternative method for filtering multiview images at a low cost, while obtaining similar results to bilateral filters, making it a useful filter for a wide range of future multiview stereo systems/applications.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207