MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548381730 · doi:10.1109/iccv.2009.5459357

A new multiview spacetime-consistent depth recovery framework for free viewpoint video rendering

2009· article· en· W2548381730 on OpenAlexaff
Cheng Lei, Xi Chen, Yee‐Hong Yang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRendering (computer graphics)Computer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceDepth mapView synthesisOptical flowSpacetimeImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a new approach for recovering spacetime-consistent depth maps from multiple video sequences captured by stationary, synchronized and calibrated cameras for depth based free viewpoint video rendering. Our two-pass approach is generalized from the recently proposed region-tree based binocular stereo matching method. In each pass, to enforce temporal consistency between successive depth maps, the traditional region-tree is extended into a temporal one by including connections to “temporal neighbor regions” in previous video frames, which are identified using estimated optical flow information. For enforcing spatial consistency, multi-view geometric constraints are used to identify inconsistencies between depth maps among different views which are captured in an inconsistency map for each view. Iterative optimizations are performed to progressively correct inconsistencies through inconsistency maps based depth hypotheses pruning and visibility reasoning. Furthermore, the background depth and color information is generated from the results of the first pass and is used in the second pass to enforce sequence-wise temporal consistency and to aid in identifying and correcting spatial inconsistencies. The extensive experimental evaluations have shown that our proposed approach is very effective in producing spatially and temporally consistent depth maps.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations26
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207