Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

A Shape-Aware Total Body Photography System for In-focus Surface Coverage Optimization

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A total-body photography scanner that sets each camera's focus from the patient's estimated 3D body shape keeps 85–95% of the skin surface in focus at sub-0.075 mm/pixel resolution.

desk verdict A genuinely new EM-based focus selection for TBP, with a solid system proof-of-concept; the headline coverage numbers are model-relative and need an independent sharpness check. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16228 v1 pith:VF5IUDXQ submitted 2025-05-22 cs.CV

Wei-Lun Huang , Joshua Liu , Davood Tashayyod , Jun Kang , Amir Gandjbakhche , Misha Kazhdan , Mehran Armand This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords totalbodyphotographyskincancerscreeningfocusdistanceoptimizationdepthoffieldmulti-viewscanningexpectation-maximization3Dshapeestimationextended
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

Total-body photography (TBP) is used to screen people at high risk for skin cancer, but when cameras are close enough to resolve small lesions their depth of field is shallow, so curved body surfaces produce many blurred images. This paper claims that blur can be largely removed by solving a focus-selection problem: given the patient's 3D body shape and the calibrated camera poses, choose a focus distance per camera so that the total surface area lying inside at least one camera's sharp zone is maximized. The authors build a rotary rig with seven RGB and three depth cameras, estimate the body shape before scanning, and solve the focus selection with an alternating assignment-and-update (EM) procedure. They report 84.9% of the simulated surface in focus at 0.068 mm/pixel and 95.1% of a real mannequin in focus at 0.0566 mm/pixel, improvements over closest-distance, average-distance, and auto-focus protocols. If the results hold, whole-body imaging can reach the sharpness needed for automated lesion detection without pausing the scan to focus.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the depth-of-field frustum $V_s^c$ paired with a pointwise cost. For camera $c$ focused at distance $s$, $V_s^c$ is the set of points whose images are deemed acceptably sharp, with near and far limits from a thin-lens depth-of-field model and a hyperfocal distance doubled for safety. The cost $\kappa_s^c(p)$ in Eq. (1) is a weighted sum of a projected-area term, an optical-axis deviation term, and a binary term that is 1 outside $V_s^c$; the total objective $K(S)$ integrates the pointwise minimum over cameras. Because the binary term is piecewise constant in $s$, each EM update reduces to finding the focus interval containing the largest number of assigned points, making the solve fast enough to run in about five seconds. Importantly, the reported in-focus percentage is computed by exactly the same frustum membership that the optimization maximizes, so the metric and the objective coincide.

What would settle it

Run one full mannequin scan with slant-edge or contrast targets placed at known depths, measure local sharpness across all surface patches, and compare the independently measured out-of-focus area with the area predicted by membership in $V_s^c$; a substantial mismatch would show that the reported 85–95% in-focus coverage is an artifact of the depth-of-field model rather than true sharpness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that per-camera focus distance is the main controllable lever for sharp whole-body coverage, and that the right setting can be computed, not guessed. The paper defines a per-point cost $\kappa_s^c(p)$ that penalizes large projected surface area, distance from the optical axis, and points outside the depth-of-field frustum $V_s^c$, then minimizes the surface integral of the pointwise minimum over all cameras. The optimization is solved with the EM procedure: surface points are assigned to the camera that images them most cheaply, and each camera's focus distance is updated to the depth interval whose frustum contains the most assigned points. On 400 simulated body meshes this raises in-focus surface from 31.6% for closest focus and 68.5% for average focus to 84.9%; on a real mannequin the shape-aware method reaches 95.1% versus 38.4% and 80%. The authors also report that the gains are stable under realistic calibration noise, estimated-shape errors, and simulated postural sway, and qualitative crop comparisons show sharper hands, knees, inner arms, and thighs than auto-focus.

Load-bearing premise

Everything depends on the assumption that the depth-of-field frustum, computed from a thin-lens model with a doubled hyperfocal distance, correctly identifies which surface points will actually look sharp in the captured photos.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A scanner using this method needs no per-patient manual focus tuning: one 8-second depth capture and a 5-second solve determine all focus distances before the 80-second image capture.
  • At the reported resolutions, roughly 73% of the simulated body surface meets the 0.075 mm/pixel threshold often cited for reliable automated detection of small lesions.
  • The assignment map produced by the EM solve can be used directly for image navigation, letting a clinician select any surface point and jump to the camera that images it best.
  • Because the focus solve is robust to the expected real-world errors, the protocol should transfer to new subjects without recalibration beyond the one-time system calibration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same cost function could be inverted to optimize camera poses or angular camera density for a given body shape, a direction the paper lists as future work but does not implement.
  • The per-point camera assignment $\phi(p)$ could serve as a correspondence prior for longitudinal tracking of lesions across scans, since it already identifies which camera best images each surface point.
  • A clinical validation on human subjects with an independent sharpness metric (such as MTF or local contrast) would test whether the geometric in-focus proxy used here matches perceived image quality; the current evidence is one mannequin scan plus simulation.
  • Extending the cost function with a contrast or illumination term would let the same EM framework jointly optimize focus and lighting, directly addressing the paper's stated limitation on skin-tone contrast.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a shape-aware Total Body Photography (TBP) system that combines depth and RGB cameras on a rotating beam with 3D body-shape estimation and an EM-based optimization of per-camera focus distances. The cost function in Eq. (1) penalizes poor projected area, large optical-axis deviation, and points lying outside the depth-of-field frustum V_s^c; the minimization step in Eq. (10) reduces to maximizing, for each camera, the number of assigned sample points inside that frustum. The system is calibrated with incremental SfM and a ChArUco cuboid, and 3D shape is obtained by SMPL-NICP or TSDF reconstruction. Evaluation on 400 3DBodyTex meshes and one real mannequin scan reports roughly 85% and 95% in-focus surface area for simulation and real scan respectively, with average resolutions of 0.068 mm/pixel and 0.0566 mm/pixel. The paper also reports robustness to calibration noise, shape-estimation error, and postural sway, and compares against closest-focus, average-focus, and, qualitatively, auto-focus protocols.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it gives a clean formulation of focus-distance selection as a surface-coverage optimization problem, an efficient EM solver with a simple assignment step and a piecewise-constant minimization step, and a complete system pipeline that is evaluated on a large simulated population and in a real prototype. The robustness experiments in Section V-D are thoughtful and directly address the practical concerns of calibration error, shape-estimation error, and patient sway. The authors also provide a concrete resolution target (0.075 mm/pixel) motivated by lesion-detection requirements, which helps put the reported system resolution in context. However, the headline in-focus coverage percentages are computed with the same geometric depth-of-field model that the optimizer maximizes, and the only full-surface evidence against real image sharpness is qualitative. The real-scan evidence is a single mannequin acquisition, and the auto-focus comparison is not quantitative. These gaps limit the strength of the absolute coverage and superiority claims as currently stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [V-C1, Eq. (1), Eq. (10)] The headline in-focus surface percentages in Table I are computed with the same geometric DoF-frustum model that the shape-aware focus optimizer maximizes. Specifically, Eq. (10) selects S_c to maximize the sum of 1(p in V_s^c) over assigned points, and the Section V-C1 metric is the proportion of sampled points satisfying p in V_s^c for some camera. The only image-based support is the qualitative crops in Fig. 7; no independent sharpness metric (MTF, contrast, blur estimation) is reported over the surface for any method. Because the near and far DoF limits come from a thin-lens model with a manually doubled hyperfocal distance (Section IV), the absolute 84.9% and 95.1% coverage figures are not externally validated: if the model overstates true depth of field, the numbers overstate achieved sharpness, and if it is too conservative, the method may underuse available sharpness. Please add an independent validation of sharpness on real images (e.g., MTF or estimated blur over the assigned surface, or a calibration of the DoF model against the actual lens), or present the coverage values explicitly as predictions of the geometric model rather than as achieved sharpness.
  2. [Abstract; Section V-C4; Fig. 7] The claim that shape-aware focus outperforms auto-focus is not supported by quantitative evaluation. Table I compares only closest focus and average focus; auto-focus appears only as qualitative image crops in Fig. 7, where the precise AF focus point is unknown and the comparison is not repeated or scored. Since 'outperforms existing focus protocols (e.g. auto-focus)' is stated in the Abstract and Section V-C4, this should either be supported by a quantitative comparison on real captures (e.g., the same in-focus percentage or a full-surface sharpness metric for AF), or the claim should be softened to what the current evidence supports.
  3. [V-C3] The real-scan evidence consists of a single mannequin acquisition with no repeated trials and no variation in pose or body shape, so the real-row entries in Table I carry no uncertainty and cannot support a general claim about real-scan performance. The mannequin also has painted texture dots and lines that may make auto-focus easier, which is acknowledged in Fig. 7 but further complicates the qualitative AF comparison. At minimum, repeated scans of the same mannequin are needed; ideally the real validation should include multiple subjects or mannequins in different poses before the 95.1% coverage figure and the reported superiority over baseline protocols are presented as established results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [V-C2, V-C3] The percentage improvements stated in the text do not match Table I. For example, in the simulation row, K(S) changes from 4710 to 2986, which is a 36.6% reduction, not the stated 17%, and the in-focus area change from 31.6% to 84.9% is a 53.3 percentage-point increase, not a 53.3% increase. The same inconsistency appears in the real row. Please report changes consistently as relative changes or percentage-point changes.
  2. [V-D3, Fig. 8 caption] The standard deviations in Section V-D3 are reported as percentages ('sigma = 246%' and 'sigma = 257%') although the quantities are total costs; these should be expressed in the same units as the costs or as a coefficient of variation. Also, the caption of Fig. 8 contains the typo '3DBdoyTex' for '3DBodyTex'.
  3. [Algorithm 1] The algorithm is called 'Expectation-Minimization,' but the standard name for this alternating assignment/minimization procedure is Expectation-Maximization. In addition, the stopping-rule tolerance epsilon in Algorithm 1 is never assigned a numerical value; please state the value used in the experiments.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The indicator function 1(·) is used before it is defined; consider adding a brief definition in the list of notation, or using bold/blackboard notation to distinguish it from the scalar 1.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline in-focus coverage is the same DoF-frustum membership the optimizer maximizes; absolute sharpness is not independently measured.

  1. self definitional [Section V-C1 (Metrics), Eq. (10), Section IV]
    "The second metric is the percentage of in-focus surface area, measured by calculating the proportion of sampling points within any camera’s view frustum, denoted by P(p∈V_s^c))."

    Eq. (10) reduces the shape-aware focus minimization step to Sc = argmax Σ 1(p∈V_s^c), i.e., maximizing the number of assigned surface points inside the DoF frustum. The evaluation metric in V-C1 is exactly P(p∈V_s^c), the proportion of sampled points inside any such frustum. Therefore the reported 85%/95% in-focus coverage and the improvements over Closest/Average Focus on this metric are the optimization objective evaluated at its own optimum, not an independent measurement of image sharpness. The only independent sharpness evidence is the qualitative image crops in Fig. 7 for two body regions; no MTF/contrast/blur metric over the full surface is reported.

full rationale

The paper’s core algorithmic derivation—EM optimization of focus distances—is internally consistent and not parameter-fitted to the evaluation data. However, the headline quantitative claims (approximately 85%/95% in-focus surface and superiority over baselines in Table I) are measured with the same DoF-frustum membership that the optimizer directly maximizes in Eq. (10). Thus the central 'in-focus surface area' prediction reduces, by the paper’s own equations, to the objective function; this is partial circularity in the evaluation rather than in the derivation of the algorithm. The qualitative crops in Fig. 7 and the independently computed system resolution (mm/pixel) provide some external support, and the comparisons to Closest/Average Focus are meaningful as optimization benchmarks. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling was found. Score 6 reflects that one central quantitative claim is definitionally tied to the optimization objective, while the method itself has independent engineering content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a simplified optical model and hand-set thresholds. No new physical entities are introduced; the main uncertainty is the fidelity of the depth-of-field model and pose stability during scanning.

free parameters (4)
  • Cost weights w_i = w1 = w2 = w3 = 1/3
    Eq. 1 combines projected area, optical axis deviation, and focus proximity with equal weights chosen by hand; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Projected area threshold epsilon_1 = 2.47e-6 mm^2
    Section V-C1 sets the threshold as the projected area at 450 mm distance and 60 degree incidence; it defines what counts as well-captured in the cost and in-focus metric.
  • Optical axis deviation threshold epsilon_2 = 450 mm
    Section V-C1 sets the threshold to the radius of the cylindrical camera network; it affects how strongly off-axis points are penalized.
  • Depth of field tightening factor = 2
    Section IV doubles the hyperfocal distance from 2860 mm to 5720 mm for tighter control; this directly shrinks the view frustum and changes all in-focus percentages.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A surface point is acceptably sharp if and only if it lies between the near and far depth-of-field limits of at least one camera assigned to it.
    Defines in-focus in Eq. 1 and all evaluation metrics (Section III-A, Fig. 1b).
  • domain assumption Projected area and optical axis deviation for a surface point are independent of the camera focus distance.
    Used to reduce Eq. 9 to Eq. 10; requires no focus breathing and a pinhole-like projection model.
  • domain assumption The subject's 3D shape estimated before capture (TSDF or SMPL-NICP) remains aligned with the body during the 80 second image capture.
    Section V-D3 tests only small postural sway; large movement or wobble is excluded from intended use (Section VI-D).
  • domain assumption The poses estimated by the calibration cuboid and incremental SfM are accurate enough for focus selection.
    Section V-A reports average 2.16 mm and 0.21 degree repeatability; robustness experiments show 0.06% affected area.
  • ad hoc to paper Cost weights and thresholds need no tuning across the 400 scanned body shapes.
    The same epsilon and weight values are used throughout; the paper does not test sensitivity to these choices.
  • domain assumption The alternating expectation-minimization updates in Algorithm 1 converge to a fixed point whose cost is close to the global optimum for the cost in Eq. 4.
    The minimization uses coordinate-descent-style EM; the paper provides no global convergence guarantee, only empirical robustness experiments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Shape-Aware Total Body Photography System for In-focus Surface Coverage Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VF5IUDXQ

@misc{pith2026250516228,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Shape-Aware Total Body Photography System for In-focus Surface Coverage Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VF5IUDXQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16228}
}
read the original abstract

Total Body Photography (TBP) is becoming a useful screening tool for patients at high risk for skin cancer. While much progress has been made, existing TBP systems can be further improved for automatic detection and analysis of suspicious skin lesions, which is in part related to the resolution and sharpness of acquired images. This paper proposes a novel shape-aware TBP system automatically capturing full-body images while optimizing image quality in terms of resolution and sharpness over the body surface. The system uses depth and RGB cameras mounted on a 360-degree rotary beam, along with 3D body shape estimation and an in-focus surface optimization method to select the optimal focus distance for each camera pose. This allows for optimizing the focused coverage over the complex 3D geometry of the human body given the calibrated camera poses. We evaluate the effectiveness of the system in capturing high-fidelity body images. The proposed system achieves an average resolution of 0.068 mm/pixel and 0.0566 mm/pixel with approximately 85% and 95% of surface area in-focus, evaluated on simulation data of diverse body shapes and poses as well as a real scan of a mannequin respectively. Furthermore, the proposed shape-aware focus method outperforms existing focus protocols (e.g. auto-focus). We believe the high-fidelity imaging enabled by the proposed system will improve automated skin lesion analysis for skin cancer screening.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16228 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization for the cost-determining factors and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Proposed pipeline. The system calibration is performed to acquire the poses of high-resolution RGB cameras and depth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the (a) proposed shape-aware imaging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the error for 3D shape estimation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of (a) an example data from the 3DBody [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison of (a) pointwise cost, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparison for body parts that are difficult to capture in focus. Two anatomical sites are evaluated: the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of (a) the simulation data with pose [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Total body skin imaging as an aid to melanoma detection

    A. C. Halpern, “Total body skin imaging as an aid to melanoma detection.” inSeminars in cutaneous medicine and surgery, vol. 22, no. 1, 2003, pp. 2–8

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    The importance of total-body photography and sequential digital dermatoscopy for monitoring patients at increased melanoma risk,

    T. Deinlein, C. Michor, R. Hofmann-Wellenhof, K. Schmid-Zalaudek, and R. Fink-Puches, “The importance of total-body photography and sequential digital dermatoscopy for monitoring patients at increased melanoma risk,”JDDG: Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 692–697, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    The value of total body pho- tography for the early detection of melanoma: a systematic review,

    A. Hornung, T. Steeb, A. Wessely, T. J. Brinker, T. Breakell, M. Erd- mann, C. Berking, and M. V . Heppt, “The value of total body pho- tography for the early detection of melanoma: a systematic review,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 4, p. 1726, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    A nar- rative review: opportunities and challenges in artificial intelligence skin image analyses using total body photography,

    C. A. Primiero, G. G. Rezze, L. J. Caffery, C. Carrera, S. Podlipnik, N. Espinosa, S. Puig, M. Janda, H. P. Soyer, and J. Malvehy, “A nar- rative review: opportunities and challenges in artificial intelligence skin image analyses using total body photography,”Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Image quality assessment of digital image capturing devices for melanoma detection,

    B. Dugonik, A. Dugonik, M. Marovt, and M. Golob, “Image quality assessment of digital image capturing devices for melanoma detection,” Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 2876, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    A new total body scanning system for automatic change detection in multiple pigmented skin lesions,

    K. Korotkov, J. Quintana, S. Puig, J. Malvehy, and R. Garcia, “A new total body scanning system for automatic change detection in multiple pigmented skin lesions,”IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 317–338, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Skin lesion detection algorithms in whole body images,

    M. H. Strzelecki, M. Str ˛ akowska, M. Kozłowski, T. Urba ´nczyk, D. Wielowieyska-Szybi ´nska, and M. Kociołek, “Skin lesion detection algorithms in whole body images,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 19, p. 6639, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Monitoring of pigmented skin lesions using 3d whole body imaging,

    D. Ahmedt-Aristizabal, C. Nguyen, L. Tychsen-Smith, A. Stacey, S. Li, J. Pathikulangara, L. Petersson, and D. Wang, “Monitoring of pigmented skin lesions using 3d whole body imaging,”Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 232, p. 107451, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    The abcd rule of der- matoscopy: high prospective value in the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic skin lesions,

    F. Nachbar, W. Stolz, T. Merkle, A. B. Cognetta, T. V ogt, M. Landthaler, P. Bilek, O. Braun-Falco, and G. Plewig, “The abcd rule of der- matoscopy: high prospective value in the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic skin lesions,”Journal of the American Academy of Der- matology, ...

    1994

  2. [10]

    Argenziano, G

    G. Argenziano, G. Fabbrocini, P. Carli, V . De Giorgi, E. Sammarco, and M. Delfino, “Epiluminescence microscopy for the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic skin lesions: comparison of the abcd rule of dermatoscopy and a new 7-point checklist based on pattern analysis,”Archives o...

    1998

  3. [11]

    Ugly duckling sign as a major factor of efficiency in melanoma detection,

    C. Gaudy-Marqueste, Y . Wazaefi, Y . Bruneu, R. Triller, L. Thomas, G. Pellacani, J. Malvehy, M.-F. Avril, S. Monestier, M.-A. Richard, et al., “Ugly duckling sign as a major factor of efficiency in melanoma detection,”JAMA dermatology, vol. 153, no. 4, pp. 279–284, 2017. 12 I...

    2017

  4. [12]

    Can self- training identify suspicious ugly duckling lesions?

    M. Mohseni, J. Yap, W. Yolland, A. Koochek, and S. Atkins, “Can self- training identify suspicious ugly duckling lesions?” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 1829–1836

    2021

  5. [13]

    End-to-end ugly duckling sign detection for melanoma identifi- cation with transformers,

    Z. Yu, V . Mar, A. Eriksson, S. Chandra, P. Bonnington, L. Zhang, and Z. Ge, “End-to-end ugly duckling sign detection for melanoma identifi- cation with transformers,” inMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Stra...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Using deep learning for dermatologist-level detection of suspicious pigmented skin lesions from wide-field images,

    L. R. Soenksen, T. Kassis, S. T. Conover, B. Marti-Fuster, J. S. Birken- feld, J. Tucker-Schwartz, A. Naseem, R. R. Stavert, C. C. Kim, M. M. Senna,et al., “Using deep learning for dermatologist-level detection of suspicious pigmented skin lesions from wide-field images,”Scien...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Revisiting autofocus for smartphone cameras,

    A. Abuolaim, A. Punnappurath, and M. S. Brown, “Revisiting autofocus for smartphone cameras,” inProceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 523–537

    2018

  8. [16]

    Online lens motion smoothing for video autofocus,

    A. Abuolaim and M. Brown, “Online lens motion smoothing for video autofocus,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2020, pp. 147–155

    2020

  9. [17]

    Standardized positioning of patients (poses) for whole body cutaneous photography,

    A. C. Halpern, A. A. Marghoob, T. W. Bialoglow, W. Witmer, and W. Slue, “Standardized positioning of patients (poses) for whole body cutaneous photography,”Journal of the American Academy of Derma- tology, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 593–598, 2003

    2003

  10. [18]

    Flexible depth of field photography,

    S. Kuthirummal, H. Nagahara, C. Zhou, and S. K. Nayar, “Flexible depth of field photography,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 58–71, 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    A method to increase the depth of focus by two step image processing,

    G. Häusler, “A method to increase the depth of focus by two step image processing,”Optics Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 38–42, 1972

    1972

  12. [20]

    Clinical perspective of 3d total body photography for early detection and screening of melanoma,

    J. E. Rayner, A. M. Laino, K. L. Nufer, L. Adams, A. P. Raphael, S. W. Menzies, and H. P. Soyer, “Clinical perspective of 3d total body photography for early detection and screening of melanoma,”Frontiers in Medicine, vol. 5, p. 152, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Performance of an automated total body mapping algorithm to detect melanocytic lesions of clinical relevance,

    J. K. Winkler, K. S. Kommoss, F. Toberer, A. Enk, L. V . Maul, A. A. Navarini, J. Hudson, G. Salerni, A. Rosenberger, and H. A. Haenssle, “Performance of an automated total body mapping algorithm to detect melanocytic lesions of clinical relevance,”European Journal of Cancer, ...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Melanoma screening with serial whole body photographic change detection using melanoscan® technology,

    R. J. Drugge, C. Nguyen, E. D. Drugge, L. Gliga, P. A. Broderick, S. A. McClain, and C. C. Brown, “Melanoma screening with serial whole body photographic change detection using melanoscan® technology,” Dermatology Online Journal, vol. 15, no. 6, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Total body photography for skin cancer screening,

    L. T. Dengel, G. R. Petroni, J. Judge, D. Chen, S. T. Acton, A. T. Schroen, and C. L. Slingluff Jr, “Total body photography for skin cancer screening,”International journal of dermatology, vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 1250–1254, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    An improved skin lesion matching scheme in total body photography,

    K. Korotkov, J. Quintana, R. Campos, A. Jesús-Silva, P. Iglesias, S. Puig, J. Malvehy, and R. Garcia, “An improved skin lesion matching scheme in total body photography,”IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 586–598, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Skin lesion matching algorithm for application in full body imaging systems,

    M. Strakowska and M. Kociołek, “Skin lesion matching algorithm for application in full body imaging systems,” inInternational Conference on Information Technologies in Biomedicine. Springer, 2022, pp. 222– 233

    2022

  18. [26]

    Orthorectification of skin nevi images by means of 3d model of the human body,

    P. M. Szczypi ´nski and K. Sprawka, “Orthorectification of skin nevi images by means of 3d model of the human body,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 24, p. 8367, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Automated detection of new or evolving melanocytic lesions using a 3d body model,

    F. Bogo, J. Romero, E. Peserico, and M. J. Black, “Automated detection of new or evolving melanocytic lesions using a 3d body model,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention. Springer, 2014, pp. 593–600

    2014

  20. [28]

    Skin3d: Detection and longitudinal tracking of pigmented skin lesions in 3d total-body textured meshes,

    M. Zhao, J. Kawahara, K. Abhishek, S. Shamanian, and G. Hamarneh, “Skin3d: Detection and longitudinal tracking of pigmented skin lesions in 3d total-body textured meshes,”Medical Image Analysis, vol. 77, p. 102329, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Skin lesion correspondence localization in total body photography,

    W.-L. Huang, D. Tashayyod, J. Kang, A. Gandjbakhche, M. Kazhdan, and M. Armand, “Skin lesion correspondence localization in total body photography,” inInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 2023, pp. 260–269

    2023

  22. [30]

    3dbodytex: Textured 3d body dataset,

    A. Saint, E. Ahmed, K. Cherenkova, G. Gusev, D. Aouada, B. Ottersten, et al., “3dbodytex: Textured 3d body dataset,” in2018 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). IEEE, 2018, pp. 495–504

    2018

  23. [31]

    Multi-focus image fusion: A survey of the state of the art,

    Y . Liu, L. Wang, J. Cheng, C. Li, and X. Chen, “Multi-focus image fusion: A survey of the state of the art,”Information Fusion, vol. 64, pp. 71–91, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    An automated device for the digitization and 3d modelling of insects, combining extended-depth-of-field and all-side multi-view imaging,

    B. Ströbel, S. Schmelzle, N. Blüthgen, and M. Heethoff, “An automated device for the digitization and 3d modelling of insects, combining extended-depth-of-field and all-side multi-view imaging,”ZooKeys, no. 759, p. 1, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Fixed-lens camera setup and calibrated image registration for multifocus multiview 3d reconstruction,

    S. A. H. Chowdhury, C. Nguyen, H. Li, and R. Hartley, “Fixed-lens camera setup and calibrated image registration for multifocus multiview 3d reconstruction,”Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 33, pp. 7421–7440, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Extending the depth of field of imaging systems using depth sensing camera,

    F. Skuka, A. N. Toprak, and D. Karaboga, “Extending the depth of field of imaging systems using depth sensing camera,”Signal, Image and Video Processing, pp. 1–9, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Field curvature correction using focal sweep,

    S. Matsunaga and S. K. Nayar, “Field curvature correction using focal sweep,”IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 259–269, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    A flexible new technique for camera calibration,

    Z. Zhang, “A flexible new technique for camera calibration,”IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1330–1334, 2000

    2000

  29. [37]

    Charuco board-based omnidirectional camera calibration method,

    G. H. An, S. Lee, M.-W. Seo, K. Yun, W.-S. Cheong, and S.-J. Kang, “Charuco board-based omnidirectional camera calibration method,” Electronics, vol. 7, no. 12, p. 421, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Automatic generation and detection of highly reliable fiducial markers under occlusion,

    S. Garrido-Jurado, R. Muñoz-Salinas, F. J. Madrid-Cuevas, and M. J. Marín-Jiménez, “Automatic generation and detection of highly reliable fiducial markers under occlusion,”Pattern Recognition, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 2280–2292, 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Adaptive structure from motion with a contrario model estimation,

    P. Moulon, P. Monasse, and R. Marlet, “Adaptive structure from motion with a contrario model estimation,” inComputer Vision–ACCV 2012: 11th Asian Conference on Computer Vision, Daejeon, Korea, November 5-9, 2012, Revised Selected Papers, Part IV 11. Springer, 2013, pp. 257–270

    2012

  32. [40]

    Robust methods for accurate and efficient 3d modeling from unstructured imagery,

    J. L. Schönberger, “Robust methods for accurate and efficient 3d modeling from unstructured imagery,” Ph.D. dissertation, ETH Zurich, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Smpl: A skinned multi-person linear model,

    M. Loper, N. Mahmood, J. Romero, G. Pons-Moll, and M. J. Black, “Smpl: A skinned multi-person linear model,” inSeminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2, 2023, pp. 851–866

    2023

  34. [42]

    Dynamic mesh recovery from partial point cloud sequence,

    H. Jang, M. Kim, J. Bae, and Y . M. Kim, “Dynamic mesh recovery from partial point cloud sequence,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 15 074–15 084

    2023

  35. [43]

    Nicp: Neural icp for 3d human registration at scale,

    R. Marin, E. Corona, and G. Pons-Moll, “Nicp: Neural icp for 3d human registration at scale,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Method for registration of 3-d shapes,

    P. J. Besl and N. D. McKay, “Method for registration of 3-d shapes,” inSensor fusion IV: control paradigms and data structures, vol. 1611. Spie, 1992, pp. 586–606

    1992

  37. [45]

    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,” inProceedings of the 23rd annual confer- ence on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, 1996, pp. 303– 312

    1996

  38. [46]

    The ball-pivoting algorithm for surface reconstruction,

    F. Bernardini, J. Mittleman, H. Rushmeier, C. Silva, and G. Taubin, “The ball-pivoting algorithm for surface reconstruction,”IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 349–359, 1999

    1999

  39. [47]

    Openmvg: Open mul- tiple view geometry,

    P. Moulon, P. Monasse, R. Perrot, and R. Marlet, “Openmvg: Open mul- tiple view geometry,” inReproducible Research in Pattern Recognition: First International Workshop, RRPR 2016, Cancún, Mexico, December 4, 2016, Revised Selected Papers 1. Springer, 2017, pp. 60–74

    2016

  40. [48]

    Openmvs: Multi-view stereo reconstruction library,

    D. Cernea, “Openmvs: Multi-view stereo reconstruction library,”City, vol. 5, no. 7, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    Bodyfitr: robust automatic 3d human body fitting,

    A. Saint, K. Cherenkova, G. Gusev, D. Aouada, B. Ottersten,et al., “Bodyfitr: robust automatic 3d human body fitting,” in2019 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, 2019, pp. 484–488

    2019

  42. [50]

    Feedforward ankle strategy of balance during quiet stance in adults,

    P. Gatev, S. Thomas, T. Kepple, and M. Hallett, “Feedforward ankle strategy of balance during quiet stance in adults,”The Journal of physiology, vol. 514, no. 3, pp. 915–928, 1999

    1999

  43. [51]

    Self-supervised 3d human mesh recovery from noisy point clouds,

    X. Zuo, S. Wang, Q. Sun, M. Gong, and L. Cheng, “Self-supervised 3d human mesh recovery from noisy point clouds,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07539, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Joint coordination during quiet stance: effects of vision,

    V . Krishnamoorthy, J.-F. Yang, and J. P. Scholz, “Joint coordination during quiet stance: effects of vision,”Experimental brain research, vol. 164, pp. 1–17, 2005

    2005

  45. [53]

    Motor equivalent control of the center of mass in response to support surface perturbations,

    J. Scholz, G. Schöner, W. Hsu, J. Jeka, F. Horak, and V . Martin, “Motor equivalent control of the center of mass in response to support surface perturbations,”Experimental brain research, vol. 180, pp. 163–179, 2007

    2007

  46. [54]

    Human postural control,

    Y . Ivanenko and V . S. Gurfinkel, “Human postural control,”Frontiers in neuroscience, vol. 12, p. 171, 2018. HUANGet al.: A SHAPE-AW ARE TOTAL BODY PHOTOGRAPHY SYSTEM FOR IN-FOCUS SURFACE COVERAGE OPTIMIZATION 13

    2018

  47. [55]

    Control and estimation of posture during quiet stance depends on multijoint coordination,

    W.-L. Hsu, J. P. Scholz, G. Schoner, J. J. Jeka, and T. Kiemel, “Control and estimation of posture during quiet stance depends on multijoint coordination,”Journal of neurophysiology, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 3024– 3035, 2007

    2007

  48. [56]

    Time required for a complete skin examination with and without dermoscopy: a prospective, randomized multicenter study,

    I. Zalaudek, H. Kittler, A. A. Marghoob, A. Balato, A. Blum, S. Dalle, G. Ferrara, R. Fink-Puches, C. M. Giorgio, R. Hofmann-Wellenhof, et al., “Time required for a complete skin examination with and without dermoscopy: a prospective, randomized multicenter study,”Archives of ...

    2008

  49. [57]

    Motion-based motion deblurring,

    S. K. Nayar and M. Ben-Ezra, “Motion-based motion deblurring,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 689–698, 2004

    2004

  50. [58]

    Sex differences in the postural sway characteristics of young and elderly subjects during quiet natural standing,

    J.-W. Kim, G.-M. Eom, C.-S. Kim, D.-H. Kim, J.-H. Lee, B. K. Park, and J. Hong, “Sex differences in the postural sway characteristics of young and elderly subjects during quiet natural standing,”Geriatrics & gerontology international, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 191–198, 2010

    2010

  51. [59]

    Automatic change detection in multiple pigmented skin lesions,

    K. Korotkov, “Automatic change detection in multiple pigmented skin lesions,” Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat de Girona, jul 2014, direc- tor: Rafael García Campos; Legal Deposit: Gi. 1344-2014; Handle: http://hdl.handle.net/10803/260162

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.