REVIEW 1 cited by
Booster: a Benchmark for Depth from Images of Specular and Transparent Surfaces
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Estimating depth from images nowadays yields outstanding results, both in terms of in-domain accuracy and generalization. However, we identify two main challenges that remain open in this field: dealing with non-Lambertian materials and effectively processing high-resolution images. Purposely, we propose a novel dataset that includes accurate and dense ground-truth labels at high resolution, featuring scenes containing several specular and transparent surfaces. Our acquisition pipeline leverages a novel deep space-time stereo framework, enabling easy and accurate labeling with sub-pixel precision. The dataset is composed of 606 samples collected in 85 different scenes, each sample includes both a high-resolution pair (12 Mpx) as well as an unbalanced stereo pair (Left: 12 Mpx, Right: 1.1 Mpx), typical of modern mobile devices that mount sensors with different resolutions. Additionally, we provide manually annotated material segmentation masks and 15K unlabeled samples. The dataset is composed of a train set and two test sets, the latter devoted to the evaluation of stereo and monocular depth estimation networks. Our experiments highlight the open challenges and future research directions in this field.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
NTIRE 2025 Challenge on HR Depth from Images of Specular and Transparent Surfaces
In the NTIRE 2025 challenge, four stereo and four monocular teams improved depth estimates on transparent and mirror surfaces over baseline models, with the best monocular methods exceeding 85% on a strict accuracy metric.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.