Directional TSDF: Modeling Surface Orientation for Coherent Meshes

Malte Splietker; Sven Behnke

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 21 references

Directional TSDF: Modeling Surface Orientation for Coherent Meshes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Splitting a TSDF into six directional volumes preserves thin geometry that standard TSDF fusion erases.

desk verdict Solid, well-ablated extension of TSDF fusion that plausibly fixes thin-structure reconstruction at coarse resolutions, but the evaluation is narrower than the 'state-of-the-art' claim suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05146 v1 pith:BDYKPLMU submitted 2019-08-14 cs.CV

Malte Splietker , Sven Behnke This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords directionalTSDFtruncatedsigneddistancefieldsurfacereconstructionmarchingcubesRGB-Dfusionraycastingthinstructuresvoxelhashing

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Volumetric reconstruction with a truncated signed distance field (TSDF) fails on thin structures because a single per-voxel distance cannot represent two opposing surfaces inside the truncation range; the zero crossing drifts away from the true surface. This paper argues that the fix is representational: store signed distances separately for six axis-aligned direction sectors, so opposite faces of a thin wall do not overwrite each other. It adds two supporting mechanisms, fusion by ray casting along the estimated surface normal and a modified marching cubes that filters and combines per-direction surfaces. The paper reports that this directional TSDF cuts reconstruction error roughly in half on standard models at coarse voxel sizes, for example Dragon RMSE at 10 mm voxels drops from 4.44 mm to 2.15 mm, while preserving geometry thinner than one voxel.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the directional TSDF, a voxel-hashed grid in which each block can hold up to six separate truncated signed-distance arrays, one per axis direction ($X^+, X^-, Y^+, Y^-, Z^+, Z^-$). Direction assignment is governed by the correspondence weight $w_D(n)=\langle n, v_D\rangle$, which routes each measurement into every sector whose axis is within $\sin(\pi/8)$ of the surface normal, so a sample usually enters at most three directions. The companion mechanism is gradient-directed ray casting: starting from the measured surface point, a ray is traversed along the estimated normal in both directions and every voxel within the truncation range is updated with the point-to-plane distance, replacing voxel projection and avoiding aliasing at steep angles. Mesh extraction uses a modified marching cubes that computes one MC index per direction, discards direction-inconsistent indices, votes across directions with the consensus formula of Eq. (6), and combines remaining indices by intersection so a mesh unit can contain two opposite surfaces. Together these mechanisms let thin structures be encoded as two well-separated zero crossings instead of one blurred one.

What would settle it

Render a synthetic thin plate whose surface normal lies exactly on the bisector between two direction sectors and reconstruct it with the proposed pipeline at a coarse voxel size; if the reconstructed mesh shows holes, double walls, or an inflated zero crossing at that boundary while the same plate a few degrees away reconstructs cleanly, the sector discretization is the limiting factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the TSDF's thin-structure failure is a property of the representation, not just of voxel resolution: a scalar signed distance field encodes a surface as a sign transition, and two opposing surfaces closer than the truncation distance merge into one inflated zero crossing. To remove that coupling, the directional TSDF replaces the scalar field with up to six fields per voxel indexed by the positive and negative coordinate axes, assigns each depth sample to every direction sector whose axis aligns with the measured normal (weight $w_D(n)=\langle n, v_D\rangle$, accepted above $\sin(\pi/8)$), and integrates with a weighted moving average. New measurements are fused by casting rays along the surface normal rather than the camera ray or voxel projection, using the point-to-plane distance to the measured point. Mesh extraction is a modified marching cubes: one MC index per direction, a lookup-table filtering of direction-invalid surfaces, an inter-directional vote $a=\sum_D w^{\mathrm{sdf}}_D\langle \nabla\Phi_D, v_D\rangle a_D$ that suppresses overhangs, and an index-intersection step that lets one mesh unit contain two opposing faces. On the two public benchmark suites used in the paper, the proposed pipeline achieves lower RMSE than the baseline at nearly every tested voxel size, with the largest gains on thin features such as the Dragon's ridge and tail.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that six fixed, axis-aligned direction sectors with a $\sin(\pi/8)$ correspondence threshold are enough to assign every real surface to a consistent direction, and that no surface curves sharply enough inside one voxel to make the direction assignment fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Thin structures thinner than the voxel size can be reconstructed without shrinking the voxel grid, so coarse-resolution mapping no longer loses details like ridges, ears, and tails.
Steep observation angles stop being a source of aliasing: fusing along the surface normal uses every depth pixel instead of discarding or mis-projecting it.
Because the per-direction arrays are allocated on demand in a hashed block structure, the added cost scales with the number of directions actually observed in a block, not always six-fold memory.
The same representation can support frame-to-model registration, since the per-direction fields keep consistent information from different viewing directions.
At coarse voxel sizes the reported RMSE improvements are roughly a factor of two on the Dragon and Bunny benchmarks, suggesting the biggest benefit appears exactly where standard TSDF is weakest.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The six-sector discretization is likely a convenience rather than an optimum; the same separation idea could be tested with more sectors, adaptive sector boundaries learned from the data, or normal clustering, and the $\sin(\pi/8)$ threshold is an obvious sensitivity knob.
The paper's evaluation uses rendered depth images with known poses; applying the pipeline to real sensor noise, especially along edges and at grazing angles, could reveal whether the voting and MC-index filtering still suppress artifacts without losing true geometry.
Because the truncation distance is still set by sensor noise, the directional representation trades memory for geometric faithfulness; a natural extension would make truncation direction-aware, shrinking it where thin structure is detected.
The method's per-direction fields could serve as a building block for other volumetric tasks, such as collision checking on thin obstacles or semantic mapping, though the paper does not discuss those.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know: this is a genuine engineering contribution, not a repackaging. Splietker and Behnke store signed distances in six directional volumes, modify marching cubes to merge up to six MC indices, and fuse with ray casting along surface normals. The combination is new as far as the citations show, and it evidently works better than the standard voxel-projection TSDF on the tested data.

The paper does several things well. The ablation in Table III is clean: it separates the gain from the directional representation (Dir+VP beats Def+VP) from the gain from gradient-directed ray casting (Dir+RCN beats Dir+RC). The RMSE improvements are consistent across both synthetic and real datasets and across voxel sizes from 5 to 100 mm, which is exactly the regime where thin structures are known to suffer. The MC combining with index intersection and the two-stage filtering is a reasonable, efficient solution to a real problem. The thread-safe accumulation trick in Sec. V is also neat.

Where it's soft: the comparison is against a single baseline, MeshHashing. That makes "outperforms state-of-the-art" an overstatement. No error bars or repeated trials are reported, even though the synthetic pipeline presumably has noise; a 4.44 mm to 2.15 mm gap is large, but we don't know its stability. The threshold sin(pi/8) and the MC voting/filtering are heuristics with no sensitivity analysis. The stress-test concern about fixed six-axis sectors is legitimate: a surface whose normal sits near a sector boundary gets integrated into two directions with near-equal weight, and the only safeguards are the MC filter and the voting rule. The paper doesn't test any rotated geometry to show the method is robust to that. That's a generalizability risk, not a fatal flaw—the sector cones overlap enough that every normal is covered, and the voted filter is designed for these cases, but we don't have evidence. Finally, no code is released, which hurts reproducibility.

Who it's for: people working on robotic mapping and coarse-voxel reconstruction. If you build TSDF pipelines, this is worth reading and possibly adapting. The central idea is plausible, the experiments are honest within their scope, and the deficiencies are addressable.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. It deserves a serious referee. The authors should be asked to compare against at least one more recent TSDF variant, add an orientation or threshold sweep on one synthetic model, and release code. On the content, it's a valid methods contribution that I'd expect to be cited.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Directional TSDF (DTSDF), an extension of the truncated signed distance function representation for real-time RGB-D reconstruction. Instead of storing a single signed distance per voxel, the volume is split into six directional arrays aligned with the positive and negative coordinate axes, and each depth measurement is fused into the directions whose axis has sufficient overlap with the measured surface normal (Section III). Fusion is performed by gradient-directed ray casting along the estimated surface normal, with a point-to-plane distance and combined weighting (Section V). Mesh extraction is done by a modified marching cubes algorithm that filters implausible per-direction MC indices, votes between directions, intersects compatible surface components, and applies a regularization step (Section IV). The method is evaluated on the Stanford and Zhou datasets at several voxel resolutions, comparing RMSE against the MeshHashing baseline, with an ablation over fusion modes and an analysis of runtime and memory (Section VI). The central claim is that DTSDF preserves thin and steep geometry better than standard TSDF fusion, with reported reductions in RMSE such as Dragon from 4.44 mm to 2.15 mm at 10 mm voxels.

Significance. If the results hold, DTSDF would be a useful, inexpensive extension of the standard TSDF pipeline, enabling coarse-resolution reconstruction of thin structures without changing the underlying voxel hashing framework. The paper has several strengths: it is clearly written, the experiments use public datasets with ground truth, the ablation in Table III explicitly separates the contribution of the directional representation from that of the fusion strategy, and the quantitative improvement over the chosen baseline is consistent across voxel sizes. The method is not parameter-free, but the main free parameters are identified. The significance is moderate: the improvements are empirical and would be strengthened by broader comparison and sensitivity analysis, but the core idea is plausible and potentially impactful for robotics and real-time mapping.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Eq. (3)] The direction assignment depends on six fixed, axis-aligned sectors with a correspondence threshold of sin(pi/8). This discretization is not rotation-invariant: a surface normal halfway between two axes is assigned to both directions, and the behavior near sector boundaries is resolved only by the heuristic filtering and voting in Section IV. The evaluation scans all objects in a fixed orientation relative to the world frame, so the central claim that DTSDF handles arbitrary thin and steep geometry is tested only for one alignment. I request a sensitivity experiment in which the object (or equivalently the camera trajectory) is rotated in the world frame, e.g., in 15-degree increments over 0 to 90 degrees, and the RMSE is reported. Without such a test, the possibility that the reported improvements are partly due to alignment of the models with the sector axes cannot be ruled out.
[Tables I-III] The empirical claim that DTSDF 'outperforms state-of-the-art TSDF reconstruction algorithms' is supported by comparison against only a single baseline, MeshHashing [6], and by single-run RMSE values without error bars or repeated trials. The ablation in Table III is informative, but the spread across models and fusion modes suggests that run-to-run or trajectory-dependent variation could be significant. At minimum, the comparison should include a second recent TSDF pipeline (e.g., Voxblox or Chisel) and should report repeated trials or an explicit statement of determinism for each experimental condition. As written, the abstract's plural 'algorithms' overstates the evidence.
[Section IV-A, Eq. (6) and Section IV-C] The intra-directional and inter-directional filtering, the voting scheme of Eq. (6), and the MC index intersection and regularization are heuristic and are not quantitatively validated. Since the directional representation can produce multiple zero crossings per edge, these steps are the only mechanisms preventing holes, double walls, and overhangs. The reported RMSE to ground truth is not sensitive to such topological artifacts: a mesh with a missing thin wall can have the same RMSE as a complete one if the missing surface is small. I ask for complementary metrics, such as precision/recall against the ground truth surface, chamfer distance, number of connected components, or number of non-manifold edges, and for a sensitivity sweep over the direction threshold and voting weights. This is directly relevant to the paper's claim of producing a 'coherent mesh.'

minor comments (4)

[Section IV-C, Algorithm 2] The 'compatible' function used in the MC index combining algorithm is not defined. Please specify the compatibility condition (e.g., whether two components share an edge or are coplanar) so that the algorithm is reproducible.
[Table IV] The row labels for the second block of Table IV appear to be missing: the first row is labeled 'total time,' but the second row, which presumably gives the meshing proportion, is also labeled 'total time.' Please correct the labels or add a separate row for meshing percentage.
[Section VI] The statement 'No other parameters were changed' should be accompanied by a short enumeration of the fixed parameters (truncation factor, direction threshold, weighting coefficients), since these are part of the method's specification.
[Section V, Eq. (9)] The thread-safe accumulation uses atomic floating-point additions. The order of atomic operations can affect the final sum due to floating-point non-associativity; please state whether the results are deterministic across runs or whether this is a source of small run-to-run variation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central accuracy claim is an empirical comparison against independent ground-truth meshes, and the fixed threshold/heuristics are design choices, not fitted targets.

full rationale

The paper makes an empirical systems claim: the directional TSDF, normal-directed ray casting, and modified marching cubes reduce mesh RMSE relative to the MeshHashing baseline. The derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. The direction weights in Eq. (3) and the voting filter in Eq. (6) are fixed, openly stated design heuristics; they are not fitted to the RMSE targets. The only threshold, sin(pi/8), is a fixed sector-boundary choice, and no parameter is estimated from the ground-truth models used in evaluation. Gradient-based ray casting is explicitly credited to Fossel et al. [18] as an extension rather than derived from a new theorem, and the directional representation is a novel data structure whose properties are tested, not established through a uniqueness argument. The evaluation uses external datasets (Stanford 3D scanning repository and Zhou et al.) with independent ground-truth meshes and fixed poses, so the reported accuracy numbers are external evidence rather than consequences of the method's assumptions. The only self-citation, in a passing related-work reference to multi-resolution surfel maps, is not load-bearing. No equation-level reduction of a predicted quantity to fitted parameters, no imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, and no renaming of a known result was found. The paper's main risks are generalizability and heuristic correctness, which are accuracy concerns rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central contribution rests on two design choices rather than on a chain of mathematical derivation: the six-sector directional decomposition and the heuristic mesh-combining rules. The paper's evidence is empirical, so the ledger is mostly domain assumptions plus one hand-chosen threshold; no physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)

Direction-correspondence threshold sin(pi/8) = sin(pi/8) ≈ 0.3827
Hand-chosen threshold for assigning a measurement to direction arrays; no sensitivity analysis or derivation is given (Section III, below Eq. (3)).
Truncation distance factor (4 x voxel size) = 4 voxels
Adopted from Oleynikova et al. [12] for all experiments; not fitted here, but the reported accuracy depends on it and no sensitivity study is provided.
Directional voting weights wsdf_D in Eq. (6) = unspecified
The weights used in MC index combining are described only verbally as "SDF weight and surface gradient"; exact formulas are not given, leaving an implementation choice that affects mesh coherence.

assumptions (4)

standard math A signed distance function's zero set defines the surface, and truncating at a threshold preserves the surface location.
Foundation of TSDF fusion, used throughout Sections III and IV.
domain assumption Six axis-aligned direction sectors can represent arbitrary surface orientations when measurements are assigned by w_D(n) = <n, v_D> with threshold sin(pi/8).
Core design choice of the paper; no proof that six sectors are sufficient for all surface normals, only the heuristic that "six is an obvious choice" (Section III).
domain assumption Surface normals estimated from a depth neighborhood plus bilateral filter are accurate enough to guide direction assignment and ray-casting fusion.
The fusion and direction assignment depend on these normals; the paper notes normals "can be inaccurate" but does not quantify the effect on reconstruction accuracy (Section III-B).
ad hoc to paper Inter-directional MC index filtering, voting, and regularization remove false surfaces without removing true ones.
These heuristics are central to mesh coherence but are presented without correctness analysis, failure modes, or a tuning study (Sections IV-A and IV-C).

invented entities (1)

Directional TSDF volume decomposition: six per-direction signed distance arrays per voxel block
purpose: Store opposite surfaces separately so thin structures survive truncation-range overlap
The representation is introduced by this paper and evaluated only within it; no external implementation or independent benchmark of the representation exists in the cited literature, and code is not released.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Directional TSDF: Modeling Surface Orientation for Coherent Meshes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BDYKPLMU

@misc{pith2026190805146,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Directional TSDF: Modeling Surface Orientation for Coherent Meshes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BDYKPLMU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05146}
}

read the original abstract

Real-time 3D reconstruction from RGB-D sensor data plays an important role in many robotic applications, such as object modeling and mapping. The popular method of fusing depth information into a truncated signed distance function (TSDF) and applying the marching cubes algorithm for mesh extraction has severe issues with thin structures: not only does it lead to loss of accuracy, but it can generate completely wrong surfaces. To address this, we propose the directional TSDF - a novel representation that stores opposite surfaces separate from each other. The marching cubes algorithm is modified accordingly to retrieve a coherent mesh representation. We further increase the accuracy by using surface gradient-based ray casting for fusing new measurements. We show that our method outperforms state-of-the-art TSDF reconstruction algorithms in mesh accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05146 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Qualitative reconstruction comparison on the Dragon model from the Stanford 3D scanning repository [7]. Voxel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Data structure for dynamically allocating blocks and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Fusion mode comparison. A measured surface point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: MC index combining (orange) and inter-directional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Filtering an implausible MC index by surface normal. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Voxel neighborhood MC index regularization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Distance error heatmap comparison between state-of-the-art (top) and proposed (bottom) on the Stanford dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Mean data integration time for dataset Asian Dragon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Mean number of voxel arrays per block for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[6]

An efﬁcient volumetric mesh representation for real-time scene reconstruction using spatial hashing,

W. Dong, J. Shi, W. Tang, X. Wang, and H. Zha, “An efﬁcient volumetric mesh representation for real-time scene reconstruction using spatial hashing,” 2018

work page 2018
[1]

KinectFusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking,

R. A. Newcombe, S. Izadi, O. Hilliges, D. Molyneaux, D. Kim, A. J. Davison, P. Kohi, J. Shotton, S. Hodges, and A. Fitzgibbon, “KinectFusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking,” in Proceeding of the IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) , 2011, pp. 127–136

work page 2011
[2]

Multi-resolution surfel maps for efﬁcient dense 3D modeling and tracking,

J. St ¨uckler and S. Behnke, “Multi-resolution surfel maps for efﬁcient dense 3D modeling and tracking,” Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 137–147, 2014

work page 2014
[3]

ElasticFusion: Real-time dense SLAM and light source estimation,

T. Whelan, R. F. Salas-Moreno, B. Glocker, A. J. Davison, and S. Leutenegger, “ElasticFusion: Real-time dense SLAM and light source estimation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 35, no. 14, pp. 1697–1716, 2016

work page 2016
[4]

FLaME: Fast lightweight mesh estimation using variational smoothing on delaunay graphs,

W. N. Greene and N. Roy, “FLaME: Fast lightweight mesh estimation using variational smoothing on delaunay graphs,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2017, pp. 4696–4704

work page 2017
[5]

Real-time cpu-based large-scale 3D mesh reconstruction,

E. Piazza, A. Romanoni, and M. Matteucci, “Real-time cpu-based large-scale 3D mesh reconstruction,” 2018

work page 2018
[7]

The Stanford 3D scanning repository,

S. C. G. Laboratory, “The Stanford 3D scanning repository,” http://graphics.stanford.edu/data/3Dscanrep/, accessed Feb 25, 2019

work page 2019
[8]

State of the art on 3D reconstruction with RGB-D cameras,

M. Zollh ¨ofer, P. Stotko, A. G¨orlitz, C. Theobalt, M. Nießner, R. Klein, and A. Kolb, “State of the art on 3D reconstruction with RGB-D cameras,” Computer Graphics F orum (Eurographics State of the Art Reports), vol. 37, pp. 625–652, 2018

work page 2018

Show all 21 references

[9]

SurfelMeshing: Online surfel- based mesh reconstruction,

T. Sch ¨ops, T. Sattler, and M. Pollefeys, “SurfelMeshing: Online surfel- based mesh reconstruction,” 2018

2018
[10]

Real-time 3D reconstruction at scale using voxel hashing,

M. Nießner, M. Zollh ¨ofer, S. Izadi, and M. Stamminger, “Real-time 3D reconstruction at scale using voxel hashing,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) , vol. 32, no. 6, p. 169, 2013

2013
[11]

Chisel: Real time large scale 3D reconstruction onboard a mobile device using spatially hashed signed distance ﬁelds

M. Klingensmith, I. Dryanovski, S. Srinivasa, and J. Xiao, “Chisel: Real time large scale 3D reconstruction onboard a mobile device using spatially hashed signed distance ﬁelds.” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) , vol. 4, 2015

2015
[12]

V oxblox: Incremental 3D euclidean signed distance ﬁelds for on- board MA V planning,

H. Oleynikova, Z. Taylor, M. Fehr, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “V oxblox: Incremental 3D euclidean signed distance ﬁelds for on- board MA V planning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , Sep. 2017, pp. 1366–1373

2017
[13]

V olumetric 3D mapping in real-time on a cpu,

F. Steinbr ¨ucker, J. Sturm, and D. Cremers, “V olumetric 3D mapping in real-time on a cpu,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2014, pp. 2021– 2028

2014
[14]

Patch volumes: Multiple fusion volumes for consistent rgb-d modeling,

P. Henry, D. Fox, A. Bhowmik, and R. Mongia, “Patch volumes: Multiple fusion volumes for consistent rgb-d modeling,” in RSS workshop on RGB-D: Advanced reasoning with depth cameras, Berlin, Germany, 2013

2013
[15]

A volumetric method for building complex models from range images,

B. Curless and M. Levoy, “A volumetric method for building complex models from range images,” in Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques . ACM, 1996, pp. 303–312

1996
[16]

Improved 3D reconstruction using combined weighting strategies,

P. Stotko and T. Golla, “Improved 3D reconstruction using combined weighting strategies,” in Proceedings of the Central European Seminar on Computer Graphics (CESCG) , 2015, pp. 135–142

2015
[17]

Real- time camera tracking and 3D reconstruction using signed distance functions

E. Bylow, J. Sturm, C. Kerl, F. Kahl, and D. Cremers, “Real- time camera tracking and 3D reconstruction using signed distance functions.” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) , vol. 2, 2013

2013
[18]

2D-SDF-SLAM: A signed distance function based SLAM frontend for laser scanners,

J.-D. Fossel, K. Tuyls, and J. Sturm, “2D-SDF-SLAM: A signed distance function based SLAM frontend for laser scanners,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2015, pp. 1949–1955

2015
[19]

A fast voxel traversal algorithm for ray tracing,

J. Amanatides, A. Woo et al., “A fast voxel traversal algorithm for ray tracing,” in Eurographics, vol. 87, no. 3, 1987, pp. 3–10

1987
[20]

Marching cubes: A high resolu- tion 3D surface construction algorithm,

W. E. Lorensen and H. E. Cline, “Marching cubes: A high resolu- tion 3D surface construction algorithm,” in ACM siggraph computer graphics, vol. 21, no. 4, 1987, pp. 163–169

1987
[21]

Dense scene reconstruction with points of interest,

Q.-Y . Zhou and V . Koltun, “Dense scene reconstruction with points of interest,” ACM Transactions on Graphics , vol. 32, no. 4, p. 112, 2013

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [6]

An efﬁcient volumetric mesh representation for real-time scene reconstruction using spatial hashing,

W. Dong, J. Shi, W. Tang, X. Wang, and H. Zha, “An efﬁcient volumetric mesh representation for real-time scene reconstruction using spatial hashing,” 2018

work page 2018

[2] [1]

KinectFusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking,

R. A. Newcombe, S. Izadi, O. Hilliges, D. Molyneaux, D. Kim, A. J. Davison, P. Kohi, J. Shotton, S. Hodges, and A. Fitzgibbon, “KinectFusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking,” in Proceeding of the IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) , 2011, pp. 127–136

work page 2011

[3] [2]

Multi-resolution surfel maps for efﬁcient dense 3D modeling and tracking,

J. St ¨uckler and S. Behnke, “Multi-resolution surfel maps for efﬁcient dense 3D modeling and tracking,” Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 137–147, 2014

work page 2014

[4] [3]

ElasticFusion: Real-time dense SLAM and light source estimation,

T. Whelan, R. F. Salas-Moreno, B. Glocker, A. J. Davison, and S. Leutenegger, “ElasticFusion: Real-time dense SLAM and light source estimation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 35, no. 14, pp. 1697–1716, 2016

work page 2016

[5] [4]

FLaME: Fast lightweight mesh estimation using variational smoothing on delaunay graphs,

W. N. Greene and N. Roy, “FLaME: Fast lightweight mesh estimation using variational smoothing on delaunay graphs,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2017, pp. 4696–4704

work page 2017

[6] [5]

Real-time cpu-based large-scale 3D mesh reconstruction,

E. Piazza, A. Romanoni, and M. Matteucci, “Real-time cpu-based large-scale 3D mesh reconstruction,” 2018

work page 2018

[7] [7]

The Stanford 3D scanning repository,

S. C. G. Laboratory, “The Stanford 3D scanning repository,” http://graphics.stanford.edu/data/3Dscanrep/, accessed Feb 25, 2019

work page 2019

[8] [8]

State of the art on 3D reconstruction with RGB-D cameras,

M. Zollh ¨ofer, P. Stotko, A. G¨orlitz, C. Theobalt, M. Nießner, R. Klein, and A. Kolb, “State of the art on 3D reconstruction with RGB-D cameras,” Computer Graphics F orum (Eurographics State of the Art Reports), vol. 37, pp. 625–652, 2018

work page 2018