MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235126022 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14647569

K-means clustering based tone-mapping operator for high dynamic range video

2021· preprint· en· W4235126022 on OpenAlexaff
Negar Taherian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Enhancement Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTone mappingHigh dynamic rangeCluster analysisComputer scienceLuminanceCentroidArtificial intelligenceDynamic rangeComputer visionRange (aeronautics)FlickerFrame (networking)AlgorithmComputer graphics (images)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The field of high dynamic range (HDR) imaging deals with capturing the luminance of a natural scene, usually varying between 10−3 to 105 cd/m2 and displaying it on digital devices with much lower dynamic range. Here, we present a novel tone mapping algorithm that is based on K-means clustering. Our algorithm takes into account the color information within a frame and using k-means clustering algorithm it builds clusters on the intensities within an image and shifts the values within each cluster to a displayable dynamic range. We also implement a scene change detection to reduce the running time of our algorithm by using the cluster information from the previous frame for frames within the same scene. To reduce the flicker effect, we proposed a new method that multiplies a leaky integer to the centroid values of our clustering results. Our algorithm runs in O( N logK + K logK ) for an image with N input luminance levels and K output levels. We also show how to extend the method to handle video input. We display that our algorithm gives comparable results to state-of-the- art tone mapping algorithms. We test our algorithm on a number of standard high dynamic range images and video sequences and provide qualitative and quantitative comparisons to a number of state-of-the-art tone mapping algorithms for videos.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.003
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Enhancement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207