3-D Depth Reconstruction from a Single Still Image (2007) [pdf]
1–10 of 30 posts
Re: 3-D Depth Reconstruction from a Single Still Image (2007) [pdf]
#2tl:dr;
Can combine monocular NN CV techniques with stereo techniques for good, cheap results.
AKA: The future of SLAM.
Re: 3-D Depth Reconstruction from a Single Still Image (2007) [pdf]
#3As an aside, I really enjoy it when people post articles like this on HN. Technical, but not too niche, and relevant to today's interests in technology.
Re: 3-D Depth Reconstruction from a Single Still Image (2007) [pdf]
#4This is some very cool research, though many may be surprised to learn that it is an IJCV journal article from 2007, based on a conference paper from NIPS 2005.
Re: 3-D Depth Reconstruction from a Single Still Image (2007) [pdf]
#5Video is a nice watch, especially as this is from 2007, so the state of the art should be even better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ7_ED9g4FY
Re: 3-D Depth Reconstruction from a Single Still Image (2007) [pdf]
#6I wish these groups would make their code available so others could play with it and test it out. Some do, but I wish more did.
I would be curious to see the performance of this 3d depth reconstruction technique for non-rigid environments.
Re: 3-D Depth Reconstruction from a Single Still Image (2007) [pdf]
#7Video is a nice watch, especially as this is from 2007, so the state of the art should be even better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ7_ED9g4FY
Google Tango (https://www.google.com/atap/project-tango/) is able to do pretty impressive 3d reconstruction from what I hear. However it has a number of cameras, whilst linked technique can work with just one image (with enough training).
Re: 3-D Depth Reconstruction from a Single Still Image (2007) [pdf]
#8I wish these groups would make their code available so others could play with it and test it out. Some do, but I wish more did. I would be curious to see the performance of this 3d depth reconstruction technique for non-rigid environments.
I love open source, but there is a very good reason why academics generally don't release their code.
They are scientists: they are best at testing, explaining, and documenting nature.
Code is an engineer's job: making it as fast and robust as possible for the given application or with the latest tools.
They want to make you work for it :)
Re: 3-D Depth Reconstruction from a Single Still Image (2007) [pdf]
#9I wish these groups would make their code available so others could play with it and test it out. Some do, but I wish more did. I would be curious to see the performance of this 3d depth reconstruction technique for non-rigid environments.
Yeah! Having spent much of the last year plowing through computer vision papers, it's pretty rare to encounter published code or even datasets.
Why is this? Do people spend all their time polishing prose and neglecting the code? Or maybe they keep it closed for commercial intentions? Or is it just a cultural thing in all of academia?
Re: 3-D Depth Reconstruction from a Single Still Image (2007) [pdf]
#10I wish these groups would make their code available so others could play with it and test it out. Some do, but I wish more did. I would be curious to see the performance of this 3d depth reconstruction technique for non-rigid environments.
Yeah! Having spent much of the last year plowing through computer vision papers, it's pretty rare to encounter published code or even datasets. Why is this? Do people spend all their time polishing prose and neglecting the code? Or maybe they keep it closed for commercial intentions? Or is it just a cultural thing in all of academia?
Science = Nature.
Code = Applying Nature.