MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403534401 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3477413

Multi-Frequency Nonlinear Methods for 3D Shape Measurement of Semi-Transparent Surfaces Using Projector-Camera Systems

2024· article· en· W4403534401 on OpenAlexaff
Frank Billy Djupkep Dizeu, Michel Picard, Marc-Antoine Drouin, Jonathan Boisvert

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProjectorComputer scienceComputer visionComputer graphics (images)Nonlinear systemArtificial intelligenceVisualizationStructured-light 3D scannerPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measuring the 3D shape of semi-transparent surfaces with projector-camera 3D scanners is a difficult task because these surfaces weakly reflect light in a diffuse manner, and transmit a large part of the incident light. The task is even harder in the presence of participating background surfaces. The two methods proposed in this paper use sinusoidal patterns, each with a frequency chosen in the frequency range allowed by the projection optics of the projector-camera system. They differ in the way in which the camera-projector correspondence map is established, as well as in the number of patterns and the processing time required. The first method utilizes the discrete Fourier transform, performed on the intensity signal measured at a camera pixel, to inventory projector columns illuminating directly and indirectly the scene point imaged by that pixel. The second method goes beyond discrete Fourier transform and achieves the same goal by fitting a proposed analytical model to the measured intensity signal. Once the one (camera pixel) to many (projector columns) correspondence is established, a surface continuity constraint is applied to extract the one to one correspondence map linked to the semi-transparent surface. This map is used to determine the 3D point cloud of the surface by triangulation. Experimental results demonstrate the performance (accuracy, reliability) achieved by the proposed methods.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer GraphicsSame topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207