MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mobile Computational Photography: A Tour

2021· preprint· en· W3133206434 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

VenueAnnual Review of Vision Science · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotographyComputer scienceParallelsMobile phoneComputational photographyCamera phoneMultimediaComputer graphics (images)Computer visionKey (lock)Artificial intelligenceImage processingVisual artsTelecommunicationsArtImage (mathematics)EngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first mobile camera phone was sold only 20 years ago, when taking pictures with one's phone was an oddity, and sharing pictures online was unheard of. Today, the smartphone is more camera than phone. How did this happen? This transformation was enabled by advances in computational photography-the science and engineering of making great images from small-form-factor, mobile cameras. Modern algorithmic and computing advances, including machine learning, have changed the rules of photography, bringing to it new modes of capture, postprocessing, storage, and sharing. In this review, we give a brief history of mobile computational photography and describe some of the key technological components, including burst photography, noise reduction, and super-resolution. At each step, we can draw naive parallels to the human visual system.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0040.005
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.375 · 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