Investigation of Chromatic Aberration and Its Influence on the Processing of Underwater Imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of researchers utilising imagery for the 3D reconstruction of underwater natural (e.g., reefs) and man-made structures (e.g., shipwrecks) is increasing. Often, the same procedures and software solutions are used for processing the images as in-air without considering additional aberrations that can be caused by the change of the medium from air to water. For instance, several publications mention the presence of chromatic aberration (CA). The aim of this paper is to investigate CA effects in low-cost camera systems (several GoPro cameras) operated in an underwater environment. We found that underwater and in-air distortion profiles differed by more than 1000 times in terms of maximum displacement and in terms of curvature. Moreover, significant CA effects were found in the underwater profiles that did not exist in-air. Furthermore, the paper investigates the effect of adjustment constraints imposed on the underwater self-calibration and the reliability of the interior orientation parameters. The analysis of the precision shows that in-air RMS values are just due to random errors. In contrast, the underwater calibration RMS values are 3x-6x higher than the exterior orientation parameter (EOP) precision, so these values contain both random error and the systematic effects from the CA. The accuracy assessment shows significant differences.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".