Single-shot detection of 8 unique monochrome fringe patterns representing 4 distinct directions via multispectral fringe projection profilometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial resolution in three-dimensional fringe projection profilometry is determined in large part by the number and spacing of fringes projected onto an object. Due to the intensity-based nature of fringe projection profilometry, fringe patterns must be generated in succession, which is time-consuming. As a result, the surface features of highly dynamic objects are difficult to measure. Here, we introduce multispectral fringe projection profilometry, a novel method that utilizes multispectral illumination to project a multispectral fringe pattern onto an object combined with a multispectral camera to detect the deformation of the fringe patterns due to the object. The multispectral camera enables the detection of 8 unique monochrome fringe patterns representing 4 distinct directions in a single snapshot. Furthermore, for each direction, the camera detects two π-phase shifted fringe patterns. Each pair of fringe patterns can be differenced to generate a differential fringe pattern that corrects for illumination offsets and mitigates the effects of glare from highly reflective surfaces. The new multispectral method solves many practical problems related to conventional fringe projection profilometry and doubles the effective spatial resolution. The method is suitable for high-quality fast 3D profilometry at video frame rates.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".