MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188751381

Focal Stack Photography: High-Performance Photography with a Conventional Camera

2009· article· en· W2188751381 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 institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotographyStack (abstract data type)Computational photographyFocal lengthShot (pellet)Computer scienceDepth of fieldHigh-speed photographyOpticsComputer graphics (images)Process (computing)Field (mathematics)Field of viewComputer visionLens (geology)ArtPhysicsImage processingVisual artsMaterials scienceImage (mathematics)Mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We look at how a seemingly small change in the photographic process—capturing a focal stack at the press of a button, instead of a single photo—can boost significantly the optical performance of a conventional camera. By generalizing the familiar photographic concepts of “depth of field ” and “exposure time ” to the case of focal stacks, we show that focal stack photography has two performance advantages: (1) it allows us to capture a given depth of field much faster than one-shot photography, and (2) it leads to higher signal-to-noise ratios when capturing wide depths of field with a restricted exposure time. We consider these advantages in detail and discuss their implications for photography. 1

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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