MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176913557 · doi:10.1109/3dv.2015.44

Optimal Camera Parameters for Depth from Defocus

2015· article· en· W2176913557 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicImage Processing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus (optics)Aperture (computer memory)Variable (mathematics)Focal lengthDepth of fieldComputer scienceDepth of focus (tectonics)Computer visionRange (aeronautics)Computational photographyVariance (accounting)Artificial intelligenceOpticsLens (geology)MathematicsImage (mathematics)Image processingPhysicsGeologyAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pictures taken with finite aperture lenses typically have out-of-focus regions. While such defocus blur is useful for creating photographic effects, it can also be used for depth estimation. In this paper, we look at different camera settings for Depth from Defocus (DFD), the conditions under which depth can be estimated unambiguously for those settings and optimality of different settings in terms of lower bound of error variance. We present results for general camera settings, as well as two of the most widely used camera settings namely, variable aperture and variable focus. We show that for variable focus, the range of depth needs to be larger than twice the focal length to unambiguously estimate depth. We analytically derive the optimal aperture ratio, and also show that there is no single optimal parameter for variable focus. Furthermore we show how to choose focus in order to minimize error variance in a particular region of the scene.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

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 head0.270
Teacher spread0.235 · 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