Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 49 references

Pro-Cam SSfM: Projector-Camera System for Structure and Spectral Reflectance from Motion

T0 review · 3 major / 8 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 A projector and camera moving around an object can recover both its 3D shape and the per-point light spectrum.

desk verdict Solid system paper with a clean shading model, but the main experiment confounds multi-view averaging with the proposed geometric shading term. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08185 v1 pith:24TA5WGR submitted 2019-08-22 cs.CV cs.GReess.IV

Chunyu Li , Yusuke Monno , Hironori Hidaka , Masatoshi Okutomi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.GReess.IV
keywords spectralreflectancestructurefrommotionstructuredlightprojector-camerasystemmultispectralimaging3Dreconstructionself-calibrationrelighting
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

The paper claims that a single off-the-shelf projector and a standard RGB camera, moved alternately around an object, can acquire both a dense 3D model and the inherent spectral reflectance of every reconstructed surface point. The projector plays a dual role: it projects gray-code patterns for self-calibrating multi-view structured-light reconstruction, and uniform color illuminations for multispectral observations. The central new idea is a spectral reflectance estimation model that divides out a geometry-based shading factor, computed from each 3D point's position, its normal, and the estimated projector location, so that shading and cast shadows are not baked into the recovered reflectance. If correct, this makes full spectral 3D scanning practical with inexpensive hardware and no pre-calibration.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the shading model of Eq. (10): s_k = (p_pro - p_k)/||p_pro - p_k||^3 · n_k, which expresses the fraction of projected light that reaches the camera as the dot product of the normalized lighting direction with the surface normal, scaled by inverse-square distance attenuation. It turns the projector's estimated position into a geometric prediction of shading, so the optimization over reflectance coefficients does not have to absorb per-view brightness variations. The second piece is the weighted bundle adjustment (Eqs. 1–2), which gives projector reprojection errors a larger weight (wp=100) so that the estimated projector poses, which feed the shading model, stay stable.

What would settle it

Capture a matte, concave object (such as the inside of a cup) with known spectral reflectance using this system and compare the estimated reflectance in the concave region against a spectrometer reading. A systematic bias that grows toward the concavity, where interreflections are strongest, while convex regions match, would falsify the no-interreflection assumption; a glossy object whose estimated reflectance deviates would falsify the Lambertian assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the shading factor at a surface point can be computed directly from the estimated geometry as s_k = (p_pro - p_k)/||p_pro - p_k||^3 · n_k, combining the Lambertian cosine law with the inverse-square falloff of a nearby point light source. Substituting this into a linear rendering model y = s C^T L B α lets the system solve for spectral reflectance coefficients α per 3D point while eliminating the shading and shadow effects that single-view methods 'bake in.' The authors demonstrate on real objects (a color chart, a clay sculpture, a stuffed toy) that the resulting reflectance curves match spectrometer ground truth and support relighting under novel light directions and spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The system assumes every surface reflects light diffusely (Lambertian), ambient light is negligible, and light does not interreflect between surface points; any deviation from these is absorbed into the estimated spectral reflectance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dense spectral 3D acquisition becomes possible with off-the-shelf projector and camera hardware, removing the need for calibrated multispectral cameras or light sources.
  • The recovered reflectance is a property of the surface, not of the lighting or viewpoint, so the same model supports relighting under arbitrary light directions and spectra.
  • Including projector pixel correspondences in the SfM bundle adjustment roughly doubles the reconstructed point-cloud density compared with camera-only correspondences.
  • The shading-aware estimation reduces the number of spectral bands needed: a six-band subset of the 21 available light-camera combinations already reaches near-minimal error.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The residual between the model's predicted and observed intensities could be mined as a signal for non-Lambertian or interreflection effects, pointing toward a future extension that estimates a per-point BRDF or global illumination rather than assuming Lambertian shading.
  • The system's reliance on a known illumination spectrum (measured by a spectrometer) could be relaxed by jointly estimating the projector's spectral power distribution, turning the hardware into a fully self-contained scanner.
  • Because the shading model uses the projector as a calibrated moving light source, Pro-Cam SSfM is effectively a self-calibrating photometric-stereo setup; the same geometric term could be used for normal refinement or for estimating the projector's radiometric falloff.
  • The method's per-point reflectance estimates, once corrected for interreflections, could serve as ground truth for single-image spectral recovery methods, which currently train on 'baked-in' shading.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper presents Pro-Cam SSfM, an acquisition system that uses an off-the-shelf RGB camera and an off-the-shelf projector for simultaneous dense 3D reconstruction and per-point spectral reflectance estimation. The camera and projector are alternately moved around the object; structured-light codes are matched across all cameras and projectors and fed to an SfM pipeline with weighted bundle adjustment (Eq. 1). The estimated projector poses and reconstructed 3D points and normals are then used in a physically-motivated shading model (Eq. 10) inside a linear least-squares reflectance estimation with a spectral smoothness regularizer (Eqs. 11-13). Experiments on a color chart and two real objects report denser point clouds than the prior method [30] and lower spectral-reflectance RMSE than two single-view baselines.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a practically useful low-cost spectral-3D scanning system: it avoids dedicated multispectral cameras or light sources, and it replaces fitted or ignored shading with a geometry-based shading factor derived from the inverse-square law and a Lambertian assumption. The derivation of Eq. (10) is sound and the reflectance optimization is a standard regularized linear inverse problem. The paper also offers a concrete demonstration that projector poses estimated during SfM can be reused for photometric modeling, which is a nice integration of geometric and photometric pipelines. However, the empirical validation currently conflates the proposed shading model with multi-view averaging, so the central claim that Eq. (10) enables recovery of inherent spectral reflectance is not yet established. The paper does not release code or data, which limits reproducibility, but the experimental protocol is otherwise reasonably standard.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Fig. 8(d)-(e), Eq. (12)] The comparison is unequal: the proposed method minimizes E_ren over all four projector-camera pairs, whereas the single-view baselines [18] and [5] are applied to projector-camera pair 4 only. This conflates the geometric shading factor of Eq. (10) with the benefit of averaging four independent observations, since each single-view estimate carries a different shading bias and averaging them could reduce RMSE even without a geometric model. To support the central claim, the authors should add an ablation: (i) the proposed method with the shading factor disabled (or set to 1) using the same four pairs; (ii) the proposed method using only pair 4; and, ideally, (iii) the baselines applied to all four pairs and averaged. The paper's own statement in Section 4.3 that without shading its accuracy would be similar to existing methods underscores that isolating the shading model is essential to the novelty claim.
  2. [Section 3.3.3, Fig. 9(d), Concluding Remarks] The model assumes Lambertian reflectance, negligible ambient light, and no interreflection. These are not merely boundary conditions: because the shading factor in Eq. (10) is computed deterministically from geometry rather than fitted, any violation of these assumptions is absorbed into the estimated reflectance, biasing the 'inherent spectral reflectance' claim. The paper acknowledges that interreflections cause errors in concave skirt regions of the clay sculpture, but it does not quantify the resulting reflectance bias. The authors should either add a controlled experiment on a concave or non-Lambertian target and report reflectance error as a function of concavity or material gloss, or explicitly restrict the claim to weakly interreflective matte scenes.
  3. [Section 4.3, Fig. 7] The band selection is performed on the same color chart used for the final RMSE evaluation: for each number of bands the paper reports the 'selected best band set' chosen by evaluating all possible band sets, which is a test-set selection and can overstate accuracy. The authors should use a separate validation set or a fixed predefined band set, or at least report the performance of a fixed band set (e.g., the six-band combination) on held-out patches or objects.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Concluding Remarks] The first sentence contains the typo 'fist' and should read 'first'.
  2. [Section 3.3.3] The word 'Lambartian' should be 'Lambertian'.
  3. [Section 4.1, Eq. (11)] The statement that Ceres is used to solve the 'non-linear optimization problem' of Eq. (11) is misleading because with known shading factors the problem is linear in the coefficient vector α_k; please clarify or justify the nonlinearity.
  4. [Section 4.3] Please clarify how baseline [5] is adapted to this setup: [5] is designed for single RGB images, so it should be stated whether it receives the RGB response under one illumination or the full 21-band vector, since that determines the fairness of the comparison.
  5. [Section 3.2.1] The threshold for connecting features from different projectors is defined in pixels but the image resolution and scale are not stated; please report the resolution and discuss how the 0.5-pixel threshold affects the number and accuracy of correspondences.
  6. [Figure 4] Please add axis labels and units to the plots of camera spectral sensitivity and illumination spectral power distributions; the current figure is difficult to interpret without them.
  7. [Section 4.4] The clay sculpture and stuffed toy results are presented qualitatively; please provide quantitative spectral-reflectance RMSE against ground truth for these objects, or state explicitly that only qualitative evaluation is intended.
  8. [Eq. (13)] The smoothness term E_ssm should be written with an explicit norm and the operator D should be defined precisely (e.g., a second-difference matrix) so that the dimension of the regularization is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the shading factor is computed from geometry rather than fitted, and the central reflectance-estimation result is validated against ground truth without depending on a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The shading factor in Eq. (10) is computed from the reconstructed 3D point, the point normal, and the estimated projector position under an explicit Lambertian/inverse-square-law model; it is not fitted to the spectral reflectance data and is not defined in terms of the output reflectance. The reflectance coefficients are then optimized from observed multispectral intensities via the rendering cost in Eqs. (11)-(12), using an external basis model ([18,40]) and independently measured/known illuminant and camera sensitivities. The only author-overlapping citations are [30], [26], and [36]; [30] is used as a baseline and extension point rather than as load-bearing authority, and the paper directly compares against it with density evaluation. The acknowledged limitations (known illumination spectrum and neglected interreflections) are model limitations, not circular reasoning. The comparison of our method using all four projector-camera pairs against single-view baselines using pair 4 is a validation confound that could affect the strength of the empirical claim, but it is not a circularity of the derivation chain, so it does not raise the circularity score. Overall, no prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard computer vision and physics assumptions: Lambertian reflectance, no interreflection, known illumination and camera sensitivity, and a low-dimensional spectral basis. These are reasonable for a proof-of-concept but are not validated across a broad range of materials. The free parameters (gamma, wp, basis count, and the optionally selected band subset) are fitted or chosen with limited sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (5)
  • gamma = 0.06
    Smoothness weight for the spectral reflectance cost in Eq. (11), set empirically for the intensity range [0,1] (Section 4.1).
  • wp = 100
    Bundle adjustment weight for projector reprojection errors in Eq. (2), chosen as wp=100; authors note any value above 10 behaves similarly (Section 4.2).
  • Nb = 8
    Number of basis functions used for the spectral reflectance basis model (Section 3.3.2, Section 4.1); the basis is computed from 1269 Munsell chips by PCA.
  • feature connection threshold = 0.5 pixels
    Threshold used to decide when features from different projectors correspond in Section 3.2.1; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • spectral band subset (selected in Fig. 7) = not explicitly stated, but the best six-band set is reported
    In Section 4.3, Fig. 7, the authors evaluate all possible band sets and report the best one; if this subset is used for the reported results, it is a free parameter selected on the evaluation data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The object surface is Lambertian (reflectance is matte and camera-independent).
    Section 3.3.1 states 'Suppose the object surface is modeled by Lambertian reflectance'; used to derive the shading factor in Section 3.3.3.
  • domain assumption Ambient light is negligible and interreflections are omitted.
    Section 3.3.3: 'If we assume that the ambient light is negligible and omit interreflection from the model'; the conclusion lists interreflections as a limitation.
  • domain assumption The spectral power distributions of the seven projected illuminations and the camera spectral sensitivities are known.
    Section 3.3.1: 'we assume that the spectral power distributions of the projected illuminations and the camera sensitivity (i.e., CT and L) are known or preliminarily estimated'; in experiments they are measured with a spectrometer and taken from a database.
  • domain assumption Spectral reflectance lies in a low-dimensional linear subspace spanned by basis B.
    Section 3.3.2: 'the spectral reflectance of natural objects is well represented by a small number of basis functions [41]'; the basis is computed by PCA from Munsell chips.
  • domain assumption The projector and camera poses estimated by the SfM pipeline are accurate enough for the shading computation, and the camera response is linear.
    The rendering model (Section 3.3.1) assumes linear camera response (RAW format), and the shading factor uses the estimated projector positions and surface normals; no error propagation from SfM into reflectance is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pro-Cam SSfM: Projector-Camera System for Structure and Spectral Reflectance from Motion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24TA5WGR

@misc{pith2026190808185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pro-Cam SSfM: Projector-Camera System for Structure and Spectral Reflectance from Motion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24TA5WGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08185}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose a novel projector-camera system for practical and low-cost acquisition of a dense object 3D model with the spectral reflectance property. In our system, we use a standard RGB camera and leverage an off-the-shelf projector as active illumination for both the 3D reconstruction and the spectral reflectance estimation. We first reconstruct the 3D points while estimating the poses of the camera and the projector, which are alternately moved around the object, by combining multi-view structured light and structure-from-motion (SfM) techniques. We then exploit the projector for multispectral imaging and estimate the spectral reflectance of each 3D point based on a novel spectral reflectance estimation model considering the geometric relationship between the reconstructed 3D points and the estimated projector positions. Experimental results on several real objects demonstrate that our system can precisely acquire a dense 3D model with the full spectral reflectance property using off-the-shelf devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08185 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. From multi-view structured light and multispectral im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Data acquisition procedure of Pro-Cam SSfM. (a) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Geometric relationship between the projector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Camera spectral sensitivity and spectral power distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 3D reconstruction results: (a) The synthesized top-view image to schematically show the layout of the moved projector and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: RMSE for the 24 patches of the colorchart when using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectral reflectance estimation results on the 24 patches of the colorchart. As can be seen in (d) and (e), the existing single-view [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results of the spectral 3D acquisition on a stuffed toy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Results of the spectral 3D acquisition on a clay sculpture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    Fast spectral reflectance recovery using DLP projector

    Shuai Han, Imari Sato, Takahiro Okabe, and Yoichi Sato. Fast spectral reflectance recovery using DLP projector. Int. Journal of Computer Vision, 110(2):172–184, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [30]

    Robust, precise, and calibration-free shape acquisition with an off- the-shelf camera and projector

    Chunyu Li, Akihiko Torii, and Masatoshi Okutomi. Robust, precise, and calibration-free shape acquisition with an off- the-shelf camera and projector. Proc. of IEEE Conf. on Con- sumer Electronics (ICCE), pages 1–6, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [5]

    Sparse recovery of hyper- spectral signal from natural RGB images

    Boaz Arad and Ohad Ben-Shahar. Sparse recovery of hyper- spectral signal from natural RGB images. Proc. of European Conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 19–34, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [1]

    http://cs.joensuu.fi/ ˜spectral/databases/ download/munsell spec matt.htm

    Munsell colors matt. http://cs.joensuu.fi/ ˜spectral/databases/ download/munsell spec matt.htm

    work page

  5. [2]

    In de- fense of shallow learned spectral reconstruction from RGB images

    Jonas Aeschbacher, Jiqing Wu, and Radu Timofte. In de- fense of shallow learned spectral reconstruction from RGB images. Proc. of IEEE Int, Conf. on Computer Vision (ICCV) Workshops, pages 471–479, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [3]

    Ceres solver

    Sameer Agarwal and Keir Mierle. Ceres solver. http://ceres- solver.org

    work page

  7. [4]

    Aliaga and Yi Xu

    Daniel G. Aliaga and Yi Xu. Photogeometric structured light: A self-calibrating and multi-viewpoint framework for accurate 3D modeling. Proc. of IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 1–8, 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [6]

    Seung-Hwan Baek, Incheol Kim, Diego Gutierrez, and Min H. Kim. Compact single-shot hyperspectral imaging using a prism. ACM Trans. on Graphics , 36(6):217:1–12, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [7]

    Generation and application of hyperspectral 3D plant models: Methods and challenges

    Jan Behmann, Anne-Katrin Mahlein, Stefan Paulus, Jan Dupuis, Heiner Kuhlmann, Erich-Christian Oerke, and Lutz Pl¨umer. Generation and application of hyperspectral 3D plant models: Methods and challenges. Machine Vision and Applications, 27(5):611–624, 2016

    2016

  2. [8]

    A prism-mask system for multispectral video acquisi- tion

    Xun Cao, Hao Du, Xin Tong, Qionghai Dai, and Stephen Lin. A prism-mask system for multispectral video acquisi- tion. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, 33(12):2423–2435, 2011

    2011

  3. [9]

    Integration of 3D and multispectral data for cultural heritage applications: Survey and perspectives

    Camille Simon Chane, Alamin Mansouri, Franck Marzani, and Frank Boochs. Integration of 3D and multispectral data for cultural heritage applications: Survey and perspectives. Image and Vision Computing, 31(1):91–102, 2013

    2013

  4. [10]

    Multi-spectral imaging by optimized wide band illumination

    Cui Chi, Hyunjin Yoo, and Moshe Ben-Ezra. Multi-spectral imaging by optimized wide band illumination. Int. Journal of Computer Vision, 86:140–151, 2010

    2010

  5. [11]

    Meshlab: An open-source mesh processing tool

    Paolo Cignoni, Marco Callieri, Massimiliano Corsini, Mat- teo Dellepiane, Fabio Ganovelli, and Guido Ranzuglia. Meshlab: An open-source mesh processing tool. Proc. of Eurographics Italian Chapter Conference , pages 129–136, 2008

    2008

  6. [12]

    Tone reproduction and physically based spectral rendering

    Kate Devlin, Alan Chalmers, Alexander Wilkie, and Werner Purgathofer. Tone reproduction and physically based spectral rendering. Eurographics State of The Art Report , pages 1– 23, 2002

    2002

  7. [13]

    Spectral reflectance recovery from a single RGB image

    Ying Fu, Yongrong Zheng, Lin Zhang, and Hua Huang. Spectral reflectance recovery from a single RGB image. IEEE Trans. on Computational Imaging , 4(3):382–394, 2018

    2018

  8. [14]

    One- shot entire shape acquisition method using multiple projec- tors and cameras

    Ryo Furukawa, Ryusuke Sagawa, Hiroshi Kawasaki, Kazuhiro Sakashita, Yasushi Yagi, and Naoki Asada. One- shot entire shape acquisition method using multiple projec- tors and cameras. Proc. of Pacific-Rim Symposium on Image and Video Technology (PSIVT), pages 107–114, 2010

    2010

  9. [15]

    Accurate, dense, and robust multiview stereopsis.IEEE Trans

    Yasutaka Furukawa and Jean Ponce. Accurate, dense, and robust multiview stereopsis.IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 32(8):1362–1376, 2010

    2010

  10. [16]

    Mar ´ın-Jim´enez

    Sergio Garrido-Jurado, Rafael Mu ˜noz-Salinas, Fran- cisco Jos ´e Madrid-Cuevas, and Manuel J. Mar ´ın-Jim´enez. Simultaneous reconstruction and calibration for multi-view structured light scanning. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 39:120–131, 2016

    2016

  11. [17]

    Structured-light 3D surface imaging: A tutorial

    Jason Geng. Structured-light 3D surface imaging: A tutorial. Advances in Optics and Photonics, 3(2):128–160, 2011

    2011

  12. [19]

    Measuring spectral reflectance and 3D shape using multi- primary image projector

    Keita Hirai, Ryosuke Nakahata, and Takahiko Horiuchi. Measuring spectral reflectance and 3D shape using multi- primary image projector. Proc. of Int. Conf. on Image and Signal Processing (ICISP), pages 137–147, 2016

    2016

  13. [20]

    Surface reconstruction from unor- ganized points

    Hugues Hoppe, Tony DeRose, Tom Duchamp, John McDon- ald, and Werner Stuetzle. Surface reconstruction from unor- ganized points. Proc. of SIGGRAPH, pages 71–78, 1992

    1992

  14. [21]

    A 3D reconstruction method with color reproduction from multi-band and multi-view images

    Shuya Ito, Koichi Ito, Takafumi Aoki, and Masaru Tsuchida. A 3D reconstruction method with color reproduction from multi-band and multi-view images. Proc. of Asian Conf. on Computer Vision (ACCV), pages 236–247, 2016

    2016

  15. [22]

    From RGB to spectrum for natural scenes via manifold-based mapping

    Yan Jia, Yinqiang Zheng, Lin Gu, Art Subpa-Asa, Antony Lam, Yoichi Sato, and Imari Sato. From RGB to spectrum for natural scenes via manifold-based mapping. Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 4705– 4713, 2017

    2017

  16. [23]

    What is the space of spectral sensitivity functions for digi- tal color cameras? Proc

    Jun Jiang, Dengyu Liu, Jinwei Gu, and Sabine S ¨usstrunk. What is the space of spectral sensitivity functions for digi- tal color cameras? Proc. of Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 168–179, 2013

    2013

  17. [24]

    Poisson surface reconstruction

    Michael Kazhdan, Matthew Bolitho, and Hugues Hoppe. Poisson surface reconstruction. Proc. of Eurographics Sym- posium on Geometry Processing, pages 61–70, 2006

    2006

  18. [25]

    Screened Poisson sur- face reconstruction

    Michael Kazhdan and Hugues Hoppe. Screened Poisson sur- face reconstruction. ACM Trans. on Graphics, 32(3):29:1– 13, 2013

    2013

  19. [26]

    Multi-view inverse rendering under arbitrary illumination and albedo

    Kichang Kim, Akihiko Torii, and Masatoshi Okutomi. Multi-view inverse rendering under arbitrary illumination and albedo. Proc. of European Conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 750–767, 2016

    2016

  20. [27]

    Kim, Todd Alan Harvey, David S

    Min H. Kim, Todd Alan Harvey, David S. Kittle, Holly Rush- meier, Julie Dorsey, Richard O. Prum, and David J. Brady. 3D imaging spectroscopy for measuring hyperspectral pat- terns on solid objects. ACM Trans. on Graphics, 31(4):38:1– 11, 2012

    2012

  21. [28]

    Kim, Holly Rushmeier, John Ffrench, Irma Passeri, and David Tidmarsh

    Min H. Kim, Holly Rushmeier, John Ffrench, Irma Passeri, and David Tidmarsh. Hyper3D: 3D graphics software for examining cultural artifacts. ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 7(3):14:1–19, 2014

    2014

  22. [29]

    Masahiro Kitahara, Takahiro Okabe, Christian Fuchs, and Hendrik P. A. Lensch. Simultaneous estimation of spectral reflectance and normal from a small number of images.Proc. of Int. Conf. on Computer Vision Theory and Applications (VISAPP), pages 303–313, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    3D plant modelling via hyperspectral imaging

    Jie Liang, Ali Zia, Jun Zhou, and Xavier Sirault. 3D plant modelling via hyperspectral imaging. Proc. of IEEE Int, Conf. on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVW), pages 172– 177, 2013

    2013

  24. [32]

    Manolis Lourakis and Antonis A. Argyros. SBA: A software package for generic sparse bundle adjustment. ACM Trans. on Mathematical Software, 36(1):2:1–30, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Toward a 3D multispectral scanner: An application to multimedia

    Alamin Mansouri, Alexandra Lathuiliere, Franck Marzani, Yvon V oisin, and Pierre Gouton. Toward a 3D multispectral scanner: An application to multimedia. IEEE Multimedia, 14(1):40–47, 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Combining shape from shading and stereo: A vari- ational approach for the joint estimation of depth, illumina- tion and albedo

    Daniel Maurer, Yong Chul Ju, Michael Breuß, and Andr ´es Bruhn. Combining shape from shading and stereo: A vari- ational approach for the joint estimation of depth, illumina- tion and albedo. Proc. of British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), pages 76–1–14, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Variational reflectance estimation from multi-view images

    Jean M ´elou, Yvain Qu ´eau, Jean-Denis Durou, Fabien Cas- tan, and Daniel Cremers. Variational reflectance estimation from multi-view images. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 60(9):1527–1546, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    A practical one-shot multispectral imaging system using a single image sensor

    Yusuke Monno, Sunao Kikuchi, Masayuki Tanaka, and Masatoshi Okutomi. A practical one-shot multispectral imaging system using a single image sensor. IEEE Trans. on Image Processing, 24(10):3048–3059, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Nayar, Gurunandan Krishnan, Michael D

    Shree K. Nayar, Gurunandan Krishnan, Michael D. Gross- berg, and Ramesh Raskar. Fast separation of direct and global components of a scene using high frequency illumi- nation. ACM Trans. on Graphics, 25(3):935–944, 2006

    2006

  30. [38]

    Rang H. M. Nguyen, Dilip K. Prasad, and Michael S. Brown. Training-based spectral reconstruction from a single RGB image. Proc. of European Conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 186–201, 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Hy- perspectral photometric stereo for a single capture

    Keisuke Ozawa, Imari Sato, and Masahiro Yamaguchi. Hy- perspectral photometric stereo for a single capture. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 34(3):384–394, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Grossberg, and Shree K

    Jong-Il Park, Moon-Hyun Lee, Michael D. Grossberg, and Shree K. Nayar. Multispectral imaging using multiplexed illumination. Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 1–8, 2007

    2007

  33. [41]

    Jussi P. S. Parkkinen, Jarmo Hallikainen, and Timo Jaaske- lainen. Characteristic spectra of Munsell colors. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 6(2):318–322, 1989

    1989

  34. [42]

    A state of the art in structured light patterns for surface profilometry

    Joaquim Salvi, Sergio Fernandez, Tomislav Pribanic, and Xavier Llado. A state of the art in structured light patterns for surface profilometry. Pattern Recognition, 43(8):2666– 2680, 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm

    Johannes L. Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure- from-motion revisited. Proc. of IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 4104–4113, 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    Seitz, Brian Curless, James Diebel, Daniel Scharstein, and Richard Szeliski

    Steven M. Seitz, Brian Curless, James Diebel, Daniel Scharstein, and Richard Szeliski. A comparison and eval- uation of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms. Proc. of IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 519–528, 2006

    2006

  37. [45]

    HSCNN+: Advanced CNN-based hyperspectral recov- ery from RGB images

    Zhan Shi, Chang Chen, Zhiwei Xiong, Dong Liu, and Feng Wu. HSCNN+: Advanced CNN-based hyperspectral recov- ery from RGB images. Proc. of IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops , pages 939–947, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Seitz, and Richard Szeliski

    Noah Snavely, Steven M. Seitz, and Richard Szeliski. Photo tourism: Exploring photo collections in 3D. ACM Trans. on Graphics, 25(3):835–846, 2006

    2006

  39. [47]

    A multi-camera, multi-projector super- resolution framework for structured light

    Michael Weinmann, Christopher Schwartz, Roland Ruiters, and Reinhard Klein. A multi-camera, multi-projector super- resolution framework for structured light. Proc. of Int. Conf. on 3D Imaging, Modeling, Processing, Visualization and Transmission (3DIMPVT), pages 397–404, 2011

    2011

  40. [48]

    Brown, Marc Pollefeys, and Seon Joo Kim

    Seoung Wug Oh, Michael S. Brown, Marc Pollefeys, and Seon Joo Kim. Do it yourself hyperspectral imaging with everyday digital cameras. Proc. of IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 2461–2469, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    3D re- construction from hyperspectral images

    Ali Zia, Jie Liang, Jun Zhou, and Yongsheng Gao. 3D re- construction from hyperspectral images. Proc. of IEEE Win- ter Conf. on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 318–325, 2015

    2015

Pith tools

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