MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328029477 · doi:10.1111/cgf.14668

A Drone Video Clip Dataset and its Applications in Automated Cinematography

2022· article· en· W4328029477 on OpenAlexaff
Amirsaman Ashtari, Raehyuk Jung, Mingxiao Li, Junyong Noh

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMultimodal Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersKorea Creative Content Agency
KeywordsDroneComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceCinematographyCLIPSVideo captureComputer graphics (images)Video processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Drones became popular video capturing tools. Drone videos in the wild are first captured and then edited by humans to contain aesthetically pleasing camera motions and scenes. Therefore, edited drone videos have extremely useful information for cinematography and for applications such as camera path planning to capture aesthetically pleasing shots. To design intelligent camera path planners, learning drone camera motions from these edited videos is essential. However, first, this requires to filter drone clips and extract their camera motions out of these edited videos that commonly contain both drone and non‐drone content. Moreover, existing video search engines return the whole edited video as a semantic search result and cannot return only drone clips inside an edited video. To address this problem, we proposed the first approach that can automatically retrieve drone clips from an unlabeled video collection using high‐level search queries, such as “drone clips captured outdoor in daytime from rural places”. The retrieved clips also contain camera motions, camera view, and 3D reconstruction of a scene that can help develop intelligent camera path planners. To train our approach, we needed numerous examples of edited drone videos. To this end, we introduced the first large‐scale dataset composed of edited drone videos. This dataset is also used for training and validating our drone video filtering algorithm. Both quantitative and qualitative evaluations have confirmed the validity of our method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Graphics ForumSame topicMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207