Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 33 references

High Dynamic Range Novel View Synthesis with Single Exposure

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces Mono-HDR-3D, a meta-algorithm that synthesizes high-dynamic-range (HDR) novel views from single-exposure low-dynamic-range (LDR) training images by learning an LDR-to-HDR color converter plus a closed-loop HDR-to-LDR…

desk verdict The paper frames a genuinely new problem, but its own ablations show the headline 'single-exposure, no HDR supervision' claim is false: remove the HDR loss and PSNR collapses from 38.57 to 13.50 dB. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01212 v2 pith:NYLPXJSI submitted 2025-05-02 cs.CV eess.IV

Kaixuan Zhang , Hu Wang , Minxian Li , Mingwu Ren , Mao Ye , Xiatian Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVeess.IV
keywords single-exposureHDR-NVSHDRnovelviewsynthesislowdynamicrangeclosed-loopsupervisioncameraresponsemodel3DGaussiansplattingneuralradiancefieldsLDR-to-HDRconversion
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

High-dynamic-range novel view synthesis normally requires multiple exposures per viewpoint to capture the full brightness range. This paper claims that a single exposure per view is enough, by introducing Mono-HDR-3D, a meta-algorithm that first builds an ordinary LDR 3D scene model and then lifts it to HDR with a camera-imaging-aware LDR-to-HDR color converter, while a second HDR-to-LDR converter closes the loop for supervision. The authors report that Mono-HDR-GS, the 3D Gaussian splatting instantiation, reaches 38.57 dB HDR PSNR on synthetic scenes, 3.27 dB above HDR-GS, and that the same machinery works with NeRF. The caveat visible in the paper's own ablations is that the closed-loop loss alone is not sufficient: removing the HDR ground-truth term drops HDR PSNR from 38.57 to 13.50 dB, so the method's practical strength combines LDR geometry with HDR supervision when it is available.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of color converters L2H-CC and H2L-CC, both designed as small MLPs whose layer structure and activations mirror the physical LDR formation equation $I_l = (\Delta t/g)\cdot I_h + I_0 + \epsilon - I_{\mathrm{overflow}}$ for unsaturated pixels and saturation at $I_{\max}$ for clipped ones. L2H-CC approximates the inverse mapping (scaling by $g/\Delta t$, offset correction, noise term) with ReLU-constrained nonnegative outputs, and H2L-CC approximates the forward scaling and offset with ReLU and Tanh activations. The closed loop formed by rendering an HDR image, converting it to LDR, and comparing with the LDR training image is what the paper claims enables optimization without HDR ground truth; the losses are an LDR reconstruction loss, an optional HDR loss in the $\mu$-law domain, and an H2L consistency loss.

What would settle it

Train Mono-HDR-GS on the synthetic scenes using only single-exposure LDR images with no HDR ground truth, then measure HDR PSNR against held-out HDR images; if it stays near 13.5 dB instead of near 38.6 dB, the claim that the closed loop alone enables single-exposure HDR-NVS is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Mono-HDR-3D's central claim is that the LDR image formation process can be inverted and learned as two color converters, making single-exposure HDR-NVS tractable. Starting from single-exposure LDR training images, the framework learns an LDR 3D model in the usual way, then applies L2H-CC, a per-color MLP whose structure mirrors the inverse camera formula $I_h = (g/\Delta t)(I_l - I_0 + I_{\mathrm{overflow}}) - (g/\Delta t)\epsilon$, to obtain HDR radiance at each rendered point. The H2L-CC module re-encodes the rendered HDR image back to LDR through the forward formation model, so the HDR branch can be optimized against LDR training views even without HDR ground truth. The authors position this as a meta-algorithm that can wrap any differentiable 3D representation, and they instantiate it with both NeRF and 3DGS. On the synthetic benchmark, Mono-HDR-GS reports the best HDR results, with the closed loop contributing a modest additional gain when HDR ground truth is already present.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the closed-loop HDR-to-LDR reconstruction loss can supervise HDR estimation without any HDR ground-truth images; the paper's own ablations instead show that removing the HDR-supervision term drops HDR PSNR from 38.57 dB to 13.50 dB, so the success depends on HDR supervision when it exists.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If valid, the single-exposure setting removes the multi-exposure capture pipeline, avoiding ghosting, alignment, and storage costs in HDR-NVS.
  • Because Mono-HDR-3D is a meta-algorithm, any future differentiable 3D scene representation can be given HDR capability by adding the two converters.
  • The reported 38.57 dB HDR PSNR and 0.975 SSIM on synthetic scenes would make single-exposure HDR-NVS competitive with multi-exposure HDR-GS while using less capture effort.
  • The closed-loop term's +0.38 dB gain when HDR ground truth is available suggests the LDR-to-HDR consistency can serve as a regularizer in other HDR inverse problems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's 'unsupervised' framing is stronger than its evidence: at LDR/HDR ratio 1/0 (no HDR images), Mono-HDR-GS reaches only 13.50 dB, close to HDR-GS's 10.51 dB, so the closed loop should be described as a regularizer rather than a standalone supervision source.
  • The same camera-formation-inspired converter pair could be transferred to single-image HDR reconstruction or to inverse rendering tasks where a forward physical model is known, using the loop as a cycle-consistency loss.
  • A natural next test is exposure generalization: train on one exposure time and evaluate HDR rendering at held-out exposure times, since the current experiments train and test at the same exposure time.
  • For real deployments, the assumption that a single global color mapping per scene suffices will likely fail in scenes with mixed lighting or severe saturation; a spatially varying or confidence-weighted version of L2H-CC is a testable extension.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the single-exposure HDR-NVS problem, in which only single-exposure LDR images are assumed available for training, and proposes Mono-HDR-3D, a meta-algorithm built on an LDR-to-HDR color converter (L2H-CC) and an HDR-to-LDR closed-loop converter (H2L-CC). The method is instantiated with NeRF and 3DGS backbones, and experiments report large improvements over HDR-NeRF and HDR-GS on synthetic and real datasets. However, the experimental protocol contradicts the core problem statement: the main results use HDR ground-truth supervision, and the paper's own ablations show that removing the HDR loss collapses HDR PSNR from 38.57 dB to 13.50 dB.

Significance. If the single-exposure, LDR-only claim were supported, the work would be significant: it would remove the multi-exposure capture burden of existing HDR-NVS methods and could serve as a plug-in for NeRF and 3DGS. The paper is clearly written, the camera-imaging motivation is sensible, and the ablation study is unusually thorough, with multiple loss settings and LDR/HDR data ratios reported. What is missing, though, is a demonstration that the method actually works in the setting it advertises. The headline numbers are obtained with HDR ground-truth supervision, and the pure-LDR ablation (Table 6, 1/0) reaches only 13.50 dB PSNR, which is not a usable HDR reconstruction. Because the central claim of the paper is directly contradicted by its own experiments, the significance of the contribution as presented cannot be sustained without major changes to both the method and the evaluation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Section 1, Eq. (9), Table 6] The abstract and Section 1 state that 'only single exposure LDR images are available during training' and that the H2L-CC closed loop enables learning 'in the case of no access to HDR ground-truth training data.' However, the total loss in Eq. (9) always includes alpha * L_hdr, and Table 6 shows that the headline result of 38.57 dB HDR PSNR corresponds to the LDR/HDR ratio 1/1, not to an LDR-only setting. The only pure-LDR row in Table 6 (ratio 1/0) yields 13.50 dB PSNR, so the paper's central claim of operating without HDR ground truth is not supported by any reported experiment.
  2. [Section 4.3, Table 5, rows 4-7] The loss ablation directly contradicts the 'unsupervised closed loop' narrative. Removing L_hdr while keeping L_ldr and L_h2l (Table 5, row 5) drops HDR PSNR from 38.57 to 13.50 dB, whereas adding L_h2l to L_ldr + L_hdr (row 4 vs. row 7) only improves PSNR by 0.38 dB. Thus the closed-loop term L_h2l is not a substitute for HDR supervision; it is a minor refinement on top of an HDR-supervised solution. The paper's own observations in Section 4.3, calling L_hdr 'the foundational component' and stating that HDR data is 'irreplaceable,' further confirm this conclusion.
  3. [Section 2 (problem formulation), Section 4.1] The problem in Eq. (1) asks for a model that maps single-exposure LDR images to HDR novel views, but the evaluation protocol always provides HDR ground truth for the training views: Tables 1, 3, 4, and 5 report results on the synthetic dataset where HDR images are available, and Table 6 artificially mixes LDR and HDR supervision. No experiment evaluates the setting in which only single-exposure LDR images are accessible during training and HDR images are held out entirely; the 1/0 row of Table 6 is the closest, and its 13.50 dB PSNR shows that the method does not solve the stated problem.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 6] The notation 'LDR / HDR ratio' is ambiguous: it is not clear whether the ratio refers to the number of images, the number of scenes, or the weighting of the respective loss terms. This should be defined explicitly.
  2. [Section 3.3] Equation (9) says L_hdr is used 'if available,' but the implementation details always set alpha = 0.6, and no experiment with alpha = 0 is reported as the main configuration. The paper should either clarify that the default setting includes HDR supervision or present a fully LDR-only variant as the primary result.
  3. [Table 1 and Section 4.1] There is a stray line 'Mono-HDR-GS-Syn-HDR' appearing directly after Table 1 in the submitted text; it appears to be a leftover fragment or a broken table/figure element and should be removed or properly integrated.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3)] The term 'Unsaturation' in Eq. (3) should be written as 'unsaturation' or 'unsaturated pixels' for consistency with the surrounding text, and the definition of I_ideal versus I_overflow could be stated more carefully to avoid confusion about which quantity is physically observed.
  5. [Section 4.3, Table 5 row 1] Row 1 of Table 5 reports no numbers for L_ldr alone; since the caption says 'Results are averaged across exposures and scenes,' it would be helpful to state explicitly that training with only L_ldr failed to produce valid HDR outputs, rather than leaving the entry as dashes.
  6. [Section 4.3, observation (IV)] The claim that Mono-HDR-GS at 1/0 ratio 'generates marginally better results than HDR-GS trained solely on HDR images' is misleading: the 13.50 dB result is low in absolute terms, and the comparison does not speak to the quality of HDR reconstruction in the intended single-exposure setting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper's headline HDR-NVS result depends on HDR ground-truth supervision, but that is an internal inconsistency, not a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, no load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction. The camera imaging model in Eq. (3) is cited from Hasinoff et al. and used only as an architectural prior for L2H-CC and H2L-CC; Eqs. (5) and (6) are algebraic inverses that motivate network structure, not a proof that HDR radiance can be recovered from LDR images. The closed-loop loss L_h2l enforces only LDR reconstruction consistency through the learned H2L-CC, so it cannot by itself determine HDR values; the paper's own ablations confirm this: L_h2l alone yields 11.87 dB and L_ldr + L_h2l yields 13.50 dB HDR PSNR (Table 5, rows 3 and 5). The reported 38.57 dB result is obtained with the full objective Eq. (9), including L_hdr with alpha = 0.6, and Eq. (11) explicitly measures error against ground-truth HDR images in the mu-law domain. Thus the abstract's statement that 'only single exposure LDR images are available during training' is contradicted by the evaluation protocol, and the headline 3.27 dB gain over HDR-GS at the 1/1 LDR/HDR ratio is an HDR-supervised comparison rather than a demonstration of the claimed LDR-only closed loop. This is a significant experimental-validity problem and a mismatch between the problem statement and the reported setup, but it is not one of the enumerated circularity patterns: the test-view HDR predictions are not equal to training inputs by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior citations. The paper is largely self-contained against external baselines and datasets, with no circular derivation chain to flag.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on a standard camera model, a strong per-pixel mapping assumption, and the availability of HDR ground truth during training despite the stated problem. The free parameters are few, but the HDR supervision requirement is the decisive dependency.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (HDR loss weight) = 0.6
    Weight of the HDR loss in Eq. (9); set by cross-validation and essential to the reported quality.
  • beta (H2L loss weight) = 0.01/0.05
    Weight of the closed-loop H2L loss in Eq. (9); set by cross-validation for Mono-HDR-NeRF/Mono-HDR-GS.
  • lambda (D-SSIM weight) = not specified (inherited from 3DGS)
    Weight balancing L1 and D-SSIM in Eq. (10); taken from the underlying 3DGS baseline.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LDR image formation model in Eq. (3): Il = (Delta_t/g)*Ih + I0 + epsilon for unsaturated pixels, and capped at Imax for saturated pixels.
    This model is cited from Hasinoff et al. and forms the basis for the L2H-CC and H2L-CC module designs. If the real camera response deviates significantly, the architectural prior weakens.
  • domain assumption Pixel-wise color conversion: HDR values are recoverable from LDR colors alone via a per-pixel mapping.
    L2H-CC and H2L-CC operate on per-pixel colors without spatial context, ignoring known evidence that single-image HDR reconstruction benefits from spatial context.
  • domain assumption The LDR 3D scene model provides sufficient geometry and appearance to support lifting to HDR.
    The method assumes that an LDR 3D model trained on single-exposure images contains enough information to compute HDR radiance at each point.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High Dynamic Range Novel View Synthesis with Single Exposure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NYLPXJSI

@misc{pith2026250501212,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High Dynamic Range Novel View Synthesis with Single Exposure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NYLPXJSI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01212}
}
read the original abstract

High Dynamic Range Novel View Synthesis (HDR-NVS) aims to establish a 3D scene HDR model from Low Dynamic Range (LDR) imagery. Typically, multiple-exposure LDR images are employed to capture a wider range of brightness levels in a scene, as a single LDR image cannot represent both the brightest and darkest regions simultaneously. While effective, this multiple-exposure HDR-NVS approach has significant limitations, including susceptibility to motion artifacts (e.g., ghosting and blurring), high capture and storage costs. To overcome these challenges, we introduce, for the first time, the single-exposure HDR-NVS problem, where only single exposure LDR images are available during training. We further introduce a novel approach, Mono-HDR-3D, featuring two dedicated modules formulated by the LDR image formation principles, one for converting LDR colors to HDR counterparts, and the other for transforming HDR images to LDR format so that unsupervised learning is enabled in a closed loop. Designed as a meta-algorithm, our approach can be seamlessly integrated with existing NVS models. Extensive experiments show that Mono-HDR-3D significantly outperforms previous methods. Source code will be released.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01212 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of (a, b) underexposure and (c, d) overexpo￾sure. ∆t: Exposure time. appealing representations of real-world scenes (Cai et al., 2024). It can encompass both the darkest shadows and the brightest highlights within a single frame. This capability is crucial in a number of fields such as creative media pro￾duction, photography, virtual reality, and augmented reality that require precise color reproduction, de… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of Mono-HDR-3D. (a) Given single exposure LDR training images with camera poses, we learn an LDR 3D scene model (e.g., NeRF or 3DGS). (b) Importantly, this LDR model is lifted up to an HDR counterpart via a camera imaging aware LDR-to￾HDR Color Converter (L2H-CC). (c) Further, a closed-loop design is formed by converting HDR images back to LDR counterparts with a latent HDR-to-LDR Color Converter (H2L-CC). … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Structure of our camera imaging aware LDR-to-HDR Color Converter (L2H-CC). c l i /c h i : LDR/HDR color; LO: Linear Operation, R: ReLU, SP: Softplus. ⊙ and ⊕: Element-wise multi￾plication and addition. where the term D(·) is responsible for linearly scaling the brightness values of HDR images to fit within the represen￾tation range of LDR images, while the term B(·) is to learn the offset and correction of LDR image… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Structure of our camera imaging aware HDR-to-LDR Color Converter (H2L-CC). I h /I l : HDR/LDR image; LO: Linear Operation, R: ReLU, T: Tanh, SM: Sigmoid. ⊕: Element-wise addition. random. We also adopt a residual structure (He et al., 2016), which stabilizes the learni…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of HDR NVS on both (a/b) synthetic and (c) real datasets. ∆t: Exposure time. 4.1. Quantitative evaluation Competitors. We compare Mono-HDR-3D with two latest state-of-the-art approaches: (1) HDR-NeRF (Huang et al., 2022), the first to synthesize HDR images o…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of LDR NVS on both (a/b) synthetic and (c) real datasets. ∆t: Exposure time. addressing such challenges. (II) Regarding the LDR NVS results, we observe a similar performance advantage with our models. This indicates that directly learning an HDR model from s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: HDR reconstruction comparison on synthetic datasets. ∆t: Exposure time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of LDR NVS on both (a/b) synthetic and (c) real datasets. ∆t: Exposure time. It can be observed that, HDR-NeRF suffers from color artifacts and blurriness when rendering LDR images, and may fail to converge, producing black outputs without multi-exposure dat…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    and Shashua, A

    Avidan, S. and Shashua, A. Novel view synthesis in tensor space. In Proceedings of IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 1034--1040, 1997

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    T., Mildenhall, B., Tancik, M., Hedman, P., Martin-Brualla, R., and Srinivasan, P

    Barron, J. T., Mildenhall, B., Tancik, M., Hedman, P., Martin-Brualla, R., and Srinivasan, P. P. Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 5855--5864, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Blender, 2025

    Blender Foundation . Blender, 2025. URL https://www.blender.org

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Cai, Y., Xiao, Z., Liang, Y., Qin, M., Zhang, Y., Yang, X., Liu, Y., and Yuille, A. L. Hdr-gs: Efficient high dynamic range novel view synthesis at 1000x speed via gaussian splatting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 0 68453--68471, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Debevec, P. E. and Malik, J. Recovering High Dynamic Range Radiance Maps from Photographs. Association for Computing Machinery, 1 edition, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Intrinsic single-image hdr reconstruction

    Dille, S., Careaga, C., and Aksoy, Y. Intrinsic single-image hdr reconstruction. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 161--177. Springer, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    4d gaussian splatting: Towards efficient novel view synthesis for dynamic scenes

    Duan, Y., Wei, F., Dai, Q., He, Y., Chen, W., and Chen, B. 4d gaussian splatting: Towards efficient novel view synthesis for dynamic scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03307, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    K., and Unger, J

    Eilertsen, G., Kronander, J., Denes, G., Mantiuk, R. K., and Unger, J. Hdr image reconstruction from a single exposure using deep cnns. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 36 0 (6): 0 1--15, 2017 a

    2017

  2. [10]

    K., and Unger, J

    Eilertsen, G., Kronander, J., Denes, G., Mantiuk, R. K., and Unger, J. Hdr image reconstruction from a single exposure using deep cnns. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 36 0 (6), November 2017 b . ISSN 0730-0301

    2017

  3. [11]

    Nerf: Neural radiance field in 3d vision, a comprehensive review, 2023

    Gao, K., Gao, Y., He, H., Lu, D., Xu, L., and Li, J. Nerf: Neural radiance field in 3d vision, a comprehensive review, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    J., Kowalski, M., Johnson, M., Shotton, J., and Valentin, J

    Garbin, S. J., Kowalski, M., Johnson, M., Shotton, J., and Valentin, J. Fastnerf: High-fidelity neural rendering at 200fps. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 14346--14355, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Comparison of single image hdr reconstruction methods—the caveats of quality assessment

    Hanji, P., Mantiuk, R., Eilertsen, G., Hajisharif, S., and Unger, J. Comparison of single image hdr reconstruction methods—the caveats of quality assessment. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 Conference Proceedings, pp.\ 1--8, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    W., Durand, F., and Freeman, W

    Hasinoff, S. W., Durand, F., and Freeman, W. T. Noise-optimal capture for high dynamic range photography. In IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 553--560. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    Photomatrix pro 6, 2025

    HDRsoft Team . Photomatrix pro 6, 2025. URL https://www.hdrsoft.com

    2025

  8. [16]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., and Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 770--778, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Hdr-nerf: High dynamic range neural radiance fields

    Huang, X., Zhang, Q., Feng, Y., Li, H., Wang, X., and Wang, Q. Hdr-nerf: High dynamic range neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 18398--18408, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    View transformation and novel view synthesis based on deep learning

    Jiang, L. View transformation and novel view synthesis based on deep learning. PhD thesis, Loughborough University, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    K., Ramamoorthi, R., et al

    Kalantari, N. K., Ramamoorthi, R., et al. Deep high dynamic range imaging of dynamic scenes. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 36 0 (4): 0 144--1, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Kerbl, B., Kopanas, G., Leimk \"u hler, T., and Drettakis, G. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42 0 (4): 0 139--1, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Dcdr-unet: Deformable convolution based detail restoration via u-shape network for single image hdr reconstruction

    Kim, J., Zhu, Z., Bau, T., and Liu, C. Dcdr-unet: Deformable convolution based detail restoration via u-shape network for single image hdr reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 5909--5918, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Vision transformer for nerf-based view synthesis from a single input image

    Lin, K.-E., Lin, Y.-C., Lai, W.-S., Lin, T.-Y., Shih, Y.-C., and Ramamoorthi, R. Vision transformer for nerf-based view synthesis from a single input image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pp.\ 806--815, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Joint hdr denoising and fusion: A real-world mobile hdr image dataset

    Liu, S., Zhang, X., Sun, L., Liang, Z., Zeng, H., and Zhang, L. Joint hdr denoising and fusion: A real-world mobile hdr image dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 13966--13975, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    P., Tancik, M., Barron, J

    Mildenhall, B., Srinivasan, P. P., Tancik, M., Barron, J. T., Ramamoorthi, R., and Ng, R. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communications of the ACM, 65 0 (1): 0 99--106, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Gta: A geometry-aware attention mechanism for multi-view transformers

    Miyato, T., Jaeger, B., Welling, M., and Geiger, A. Gta: A geometry-aware attention mechanism for multi-view transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10375, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    High dynamic range imaging

    Reinhard, E. High dynamic range imaging. In Computer Vision: A Reference Guide, pp.\ 1--6. Springer, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Rosu, R. A. and Behnke, S. Neuralmvs: Bridging multi-view stereo and novel view synthesis. In International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, pp.\ 1--7. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Schonberger, J. L. and Frahm, J.-M. Structure-from-motion revisited. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 4104--4113, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    and Rani, P

    Tiwari, G. and Rani, P. A review on high-dynamic-range imaging with its technique. International Journal of Signal Processing, Image Processing and Pattern Recognition, 8 0 (9): 0 93--100, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    and Yoon, K.-J

    Wang, L. and Yoon, K.-J. Deep learning for hdr imaging: State-of-the-art and future trends. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44 0 (12): 0 8874--8895, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    C., Sheikh, H

    Wang, Z., Bovik, A. C., Sheikh, H. R., and Simoncelli, E. P. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Process, 13 0 (4), 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    Deep hdr imaging via a non-local network

    Yan, Q., Zhang, L., Liu, Y., Zhu, Y., Sun, J., Shi, Q., and Zhang, Y. Deep hdr imaging via a non-local network. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29: 0 4308--4322, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    A unified hdr imaging method with pixel and patch level

    Yan, Q., Chen, W., Zhang, S., Zhu, Y., Sun, J., and Zhang, Y. A unified hdr imaging method with pixel and patch level. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 22211--22220, June 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.