MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171501635 · doi:10.1109/isot.2010.5687390

Saturation avoidance by adaptive fringe projection in phase-shifting 3D surface-shape measurement

2010· article· en· W2171501635 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Waddington, Jonathan Kofman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsSaturation (graph theory)Structured-light 3D scannerObservational errorIntensity (physics)PhysicsMaterials scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fringe-pattern projection systems are capable of non-contacting 3D surface full-field measurement with high accuracy. However, the systems are prone to intensity saturation and low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) when measuring objects with a large range of reflectivity across the surface. Intensity saturation occurs when the light intensity directed to the camera exceeds the maximum intensity quantization level. A low SNR occurs when there is a low intensity modulation compared to the amount of noise in the image. Saturation and low SNR can result in significant measurement error. This paper presents a method for saturation avoidance during object-surface measurement, by adaptively adjusting the projected fringe-pattern intensities, through the maximum input gray level (MIGL). A high SNR can be maintained while avoiding saturation by combining the intensities from phase-shifted images captured at different MIGL, into a set of composite phase-shifted images. In measurement of a black and white checkerboard at different depths, the newly developed method reduced errors by an average 0.25 mm compared to the highest accuracy measurement using a uniform MIGL.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations48
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207