Interactive Visual Calibration of Volumetric Head-Tracked 3D Displays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Head-tracked 3D displays can provide a compelling 3D effect, but even small inaccuracies in the calibration of the participant's viewpoint to the display can disrupt the 3D illusion. We propose a novel interactive procedure for a participant to easily and accurately calibrate a head-tracked display by visually aligning patterns across a multi-screen display. Head-tracker measurements are then calibrated to these known viewpoints. We conducted a user study to evaluate the effectiveness of different visual patterns and different display shapes. We found that the easiest to align shape was the spherical display and the best calibration pattern was the combination of circles and lines. We performed a quantitative camera-based calibration of a cubic display and found visual calibration outperformed manual tuning and generated viewpoint calibrations accurate to within a degree. Our work removes the usual, burdensome step of manual calibration when using head-tracked displays and paves the way for wider adoption of this inexpensive and effective 3D display technology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".