Efficient 3D Reconstruction and Streaming for Group-Scale Multi-Client Live Telepresence

Michael Weinmann; Patrick Stotko; Reinhard Klein; Stefan Krumpen

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Efficient 3D Reconstruction and Streaming for Group-Scale Multi-Client Live Telepresence

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 By filtering unreliable depth data and pruning empty surface blocks, a live telepresence pipeline can stream one captured scene to more than 24 exploration clients at once.

desk verdict A solid systems paper with a genuine scalability win, but the >24-client claim is factually wrong for one scene and the benchmark clients omit the rendering pipeline; worth a revised version, not as printed. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03118 v2 pith:CTM7X727 submitted 2019-08-08 cs.HC cs.GR

Patrick Stotko , Stefan Krumpen , Michael Weinmann , Reinhard Klein This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HCcs.GR

keywords livetelepresence3DreconstructionTSDFvoxelblockshashingMarchingCubespruningdepthdiscontinuityfilteringmulti-clientstreamingvirtualreality

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

This paper argues that a live telepresence system built on voxel-block 3D reconstruction can serve a group of more than 24 remote exploration clients in the same live-captured scene, about six times more than the roughly 4 clients supported by the prior SLAMCast system, without added latency or new hardware. The route is not a new capture or transmission architecture but three filters that keep unreliable data out of the reconstruction and the stream: depth samples at discontinuities are discarded, voxel block allocation is virtually downsampled, and empty or unstable Marching Cubes blocks are pruned on the server. If true, group-scale immersive telepresence for education, entertainment, and collaboration becomes feasible on consumer hardware, and the same filters also improve standalone volumetric reconstruction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a three-part filtering pipeline around a sparse voxel-block truncated signed distance field (TSDF) scene representation. A depth-discontinuity filter discards depth samples whose values deviate strongly from their 7x7 neighborhood or whose neighborhood has too many missing measurements; a virtual downsampling step during voxel block allocation considers only every $c_a$-th pixel so fewer empty blocks are created; and a Marching Cubes voxel block pruning step on the server drops blocks whose MC index is $0$ or $255$ or whose TSDF fusion weight falls below a threshold, so only reliable surface blocks enter the stream. Together these filters shrink the streaming model and the update set, which is what raises client capacity.

What would settle it

Run the described server with 24 actual exploration clients that render the received blocks in VR on separate computers over a realistic network, and count how many can keep their local model within the one-second sync delay used in the paper; if that number is below 24, the claimed capacity does not transfer to real immersive use.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that filtering unreliable depth pixels before fusion, allocating voxel blocks from a virtually downsampled depth image, and pruning empty or low-weight Marching Cubes blocks in the server's streaming model collectively reduce the server's model size and the client request rate enough that the same pipeline that handled 3-5 clients can handle more than 24. In the evaluation, the full system lowered the required request rate to 12 Hz for most scenes and cut memory footprint by 25-60% compared with the base approach. The paper presents this as an optimization of an existing pipeline rather than a new reconstruction algorithm, and it demonstrates that each individual filter contributes a measurable gain in client count, latency, or visual quality.

Load-bearing premise

The measured client ceiling assumes that a benchmark client that discards every received block and runs on the same computer as all other benchmark clients behaves like a real exploration client that renders the scene on its own hardware.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

More than 24 users can explore the same live-captured scene at once on consumer hardware, supporting classroom, entertainment, and remote-collaboration settings.
The required client request rate drops to about 12 Hz for most tested scenes, so server bandwidth and per-request overhead are no longer the bottleneck they were at 100 Hz.
Reconstructed models become noticeably more compact, with reported memory reductions of 25-60%, while visual artifacts around depth discontinuities and poorly observed regions are reduced.
The same filters apply to standalone volumetric reconstruction, not just telepresence, improving runtime and memory there too.
Because latency between server and client stays low across the capture sequence, reconnecting clients can catch up quickly after network interruptions.

Reading between the lines

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

If real rendering clients behave like the benchmark discard clients, the 24-client number is likely optimistic; actual immersive users add GPU load and different request timing, so field deployments should expect a lower ceiling until re-measured.
The pruning threshold and downsampling factor are fixed empirically in the paper; an adaptive policy that tunes $c_w$ and $c_a$ per scene or per depth range could preserve the scalability gains while recovering some of the holes that aggressive downsampling can cause at long range.
The same block-level pruning idea could be applied to collaborative multi-client reconstruction, where submap fusion would benefit from ignoring unstable blocks without deleting geometry that later revisits might stabilize.
A natural stress test is to combine this server-side pruning with a real VR client on a laptop-class GPU, measuring both network and render latency under the same 12 Hz request rate.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper. It's a genuinely useful systems paper: three simple filters added to the SLAMCast pipeline—depth discontinuity rejection, virtual downsampling of voxel block allocation, and pruning of empty or unstable Marching Cubes blocks—lift the measured client ceiling from single digits to 18-28 across five scenes, with a clean ablation showing each filter's contribution. But the paper's own abstract and Section 6.1 claim 'more than 24 clients in all scenes,' while Table 1 reports 18 for the copyroom dataset. The headline is false for that dataset, and the conclusion repeats the overclaim.

The novelty is modest, and the authors say so: they are optimizing an existing system, not inventing new reconstruction or streaming methods. That's fine; the contribution is in the combination and the careful evaluation. Each filter is grounded in known ideas, and the measurements of latency, memory, and model size over time are concrete and mostly convincing. I trust the direction: the filters do reduce streaming load, and the factor of six improvement over their own baseline is plausible.

The soft spots are real but addressable. First, the scalability numbers come from a benchmark client that discards received data and runs all clients on one computer. This exercises the server's per-client state and streaming, but not the client-side rendering, mesh integration, request timing, or back-pressure that an immersive user would generate. So 'more than 24 users' is not actually demonstrated; the measured number is a server-capacity upper bound. That should be stated clearly, and ideally validated with a few real clients. Second, the threshold tuning isn't fully described; if the thresholds were chosen on the evaluation scenes, the generalization is uncertain. That's a minor point for an engineering paper, but worth noting. Third, no code or data are released, which limits reproducibility.

The main argument holds up. This is a paper for people building live telepresence or streaming voxel reconstruction systems; it gives them concrete, well-tested optimizations. If it came across my desk, I'd send it to reviewers. It needs a fix of the copyroom discrepancy and a more honest description of the scalability limit before it's accepted as stated, but it deserves a serious referee rather than a desk rejection.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes three optimizations to a SLAMCast-style volumetric telepresence pipeline: filtering depth discontinuities, virtual downsampling of voxel block allocation, and pruning of empty or unstable Marching Cubes voxel blocks on the server. Combined, these are claimed to allow more than 24 concurrent exploration clients in the same live-captured scene, about a factor of 6 more than the prior SLAMCast system, without additional latency or hardware changes. The claims are evaluated on five datasets using benchmark clients that discard received data.

Significance. The engineering direction is valuable: the proposed filters are simple, described concretely, and the ablation (B, B+DDF, B+VBAD, B+MCVBP, Ours) shows a clear stepwise reduction in model size, bandwidth, and latency. If the scalability claim were validated with realistic clients, the system would be a practical contribution to group-scale VR telepresence on consumer hardware. The paper also demonstrates the benefit of the filters for standalone volumetric reconstruction. However, the evaluation methodology currently prevents the headline result from being accepted as stated.

major comments (3)

[Abstract, Section 6.1, Table 1] The Abstract, Section 6.1, and Conclusion claim that the system supports 'more than 24 clients in all scenes', but Table 1 reports a maximum of 18 exploration clients for the copyroom dataset under Ours. The unqualified claim is therefore not supported by the data; the authors should either qualify the claim per dataset or explain why copyroom is exceptional.
[Section 6.1, Evaluation setup] The scalability and latency results are obtained with benchmark clients that discard all received data and run on the same computer as the other benchmark clients. This removes client-side mesh integration, rendering, and display, as well as the realistic request timing induced by rendering load. Consequently, the measured maximum of more than 24 clients and the claim of 'without introducing further latency' apply only to non-rendering clients, not to the immersive VR clients the system is designed for. The authors should either measure with at least one realistic rendering client or provide evidence that the discard benchmark is a faithful proxy (e.g., compare request timing and client-side resource usage).
[Section 6, Filter tuning] The filter thresholds (cd, ch, ca, cw) are 'determined empirically using several datasets' (Section 6), and the same datasets are used for the reported evaluation. Without a held-out validation set or a sensitivity analysis, the reported improvements may be optimistic and the transferability of the chosen thresholds is unclear. Please include a sensitivity analysis or validation on at least one held-out sequence.

minor comments (5)

[Section 6.1] The sentence 'which allows for running all benchmark clients on a single computer without an overhead' is vague; please specify what overhead is avoided (e.g., no rendering, no mesh integration, no display costs).
[Table 1 caption] The notation 'M MC/P MC A (M T SDF)' is not explained; please add a sentence clarifying that the two numbers under Model Size correspond to the MC model size and the update-set size, with the TSDF size in parentheses.
[Section 6.2, Figures 4 and 5] The label 'S MC US' is used but not defined; please define it as the update set size P_MC_A to avoid confusion.
[Section 4.1, Eq. (1)] The set-builder condition mixes an existential quantifier over neighbors with a condition on the whole neighborhood; please clarify the logical precedence or split the condition into two explicit clauses.
[Section 6.3] The reported improvements of '10-40%' for runtime and '25-60%' for memory would be more useful if accompanied by a per-dataset table with exact values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports empirical engineering optimizations measured against its own prior system as a baseline, with no load-bearing reduction of a derived claim to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's contributions are three concrete algorithmic filters applied to reconstruction and server streaming components: depth-discontinuity filtering with user thresholds c_h and c_d, virtual downsampling at voxel block allocation with factor c_a, and pruning of empty or unstable Marching Cubes blocks with weight threshold c_w. Each contribution is evaluated empirically in Table 1 and Figures 4-6 against a Base variant described as equivalent to the authors' prior SLAMCast system. The reported maximum exploration-client counts are measurements taken under stated benchmark conditions, not quantities derived from the thresholds or from SLAMCast. The thresholds are admittedly tuned empirically ('The filter sizes and thresholds as described above were determined empirically using several datasets'), which is ordinary system parameter selection rather than a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The comparison baseline [27] is the authors' own prior work, and the paper does rely on it as the foundation, but this is a self-citation that serves as an experimental baseline and implementation substrate, not as an unverified theorem that forces the outcome. The scalability headline is vulnerable to an evaluation-scope criticism: the benchmark clients discard received data and run on one machine, so the claimed 'more than 24 clients' may not generalize to rendering, immersive VR clients. That is an empirical validity concern about what was demonstrated, not a circularity in which a prediction is equivalent to an input by construction. No equation in the paper reduces a claimed result to its own definition, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz argument is imported from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. The analysis is therefore self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity: every quantitative claim is backed by direct measurement against a stated baseline, and the improvements are not forced by the way the system or metrics are defined.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All components are built from prior volumetric reconstruction and streaming work; the paper introduces no new physical quantity, particle, force, or formal object. The free parameters are the four filter thresholds plus the request-rate protocol used in the scalability benchmark. The load-bearing assumptions are the reliability of depth-outlier filtering, the safety of allocation downsampling, the stability criterion for Marching Cubes blocks, and the fidelity of discard-based benchmark clients.

free parameters (5)

cd = 0.2 m
Depth-difference threshold in Eq. (1) used to reject samples at depth discontinuities; set empirically and applied to evaluation datasets.
ch = 0.25
Allowed fraction of missing depth values in the neighborhood in Eq. (1); empirically chosen.
ca = 4
Stride for virtual downsampling of the depth image during voxel block allocation (Sect. 4.2); balances block compactness against hole risk.
cw = 2.0
Minimum TSDF fusion weight for a voxel to be considered stable in Eqs. (2) and (3); empirically chosen.
Client request rate = 12 Hz to 200 Hz per dataset and variant
In Table 1 the request rate is adapted per approach and scene to keep streaming delay at most one second; lower rates in Ours reduce server load and contribute to the higher maximum client counts.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Depth pixels at strong discontinuities or with many missing neighbors are unreliable outliers and can be discarded without harming reconstruction.
Defines the outlier set Do in Eq. (1), Section 4.1; the choice of thresholds is empirical and not sensor-independent.
domain assumption Virtually downsampling the depth image during voxel block allocation, while fusing the full image, does not prevent allocation of the blocks needed for a complete model.
Section 4.2; the authors acknowledge in Section 6.4 that too aggressive downsampling can create holes in the final model.
domain assumption MC voxel blocks whose Marching Cubes index is 0 or 255, or whose TSDF fusion weight is below cw, can be ignored or pruned without losing reliable geometry.
Eqs. (2) and (3), Sections 4.3 and 5; the stability threshold cw is a user-chosen empirical value.
domain assumption A benchmark client that discards all received data and runs on one machine is a faithful proxy for real exploration clients.
Section 6 benchmark setup; this is the weakest premise for the scalability claim because real clients render and display the VR scene.
domain assumption The scene is static and captured by a single moving RGB-D camera, as in SLAMCast.
Section 3 and Section 6.4; fast camera movement can cause misalignments and dynamic scenes are not handled.
standard math Volumetric TSDF fusion with voxel block hashing and Marching Cubes extraction works as described in the cited prior work.
The system inherits these standard algorithms from references [9,12,15,23] without new proof.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient 3D Reconstruction and Streaming for Group-Scale Multi-Client Live Telepresence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CTM7X727

@misc{pith2026190803118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient 3D Reconstruction and Streaming for Group-Scale Multi-Client Live Telepresence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CTM7X727}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03118}
}

read the original abstract

Sharing live telepresence experiences for teleconferencing or remote collaboration receives increasing interest with the recent progress in capturing and AR/VR technology. Whereas impressive telepresence systems have been proposed on top of on-the-fly scene capture, data transmission and visualization, these systems are restricted to the immersion of single or up to a low number of users into the respective scenarios. In this paper, we direct our attention on immersing significantly larger groups of people into live-captured scenes as required in education, entertainment or collaboration scenarios. For this purpose, rather than abandoning previous approaches, we present a range of optimizations of the involved reconstruction and streaming components that allow the immersion of a group of more than 24 users within the same scene - which is about a factor of 6 higher than in previous work - without introducing further latency or changing the involved consumer hardware setup. We demonstrate that our optimized system is capable of generating high-quality scene reconstructions as well as providing an immersive viewing experience to a large group of people within these live-captured scenes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03118 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Illustration of our novel highly scalable multi-client live telepresence system. While previous approaches are limited to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Overview of the major components of state-of-the-art live multi-client live telepresence systems. RGB-D image data acquired by a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** General volumetric 3D reconstruction pipeline. Our set of efficient filters designed to improve the performance and scalability of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Streaming progress and latency between server (S) and exploration client (EC) over time for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Streaming progress and latency between server (S) and exploration client (EC) over time for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of visual quality, mean runtime (and standard deviation) as well as memory requirements for each system variant. All [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

J. Chen, D. Bautembach, and S. Izadi. Scalable Real-time V olumetric Surface Reconstruction. ACM Trans. Graph., 32:113:1–113:16, 2013

work page 2013
[2]

A. Dai, M. Nießner, M. Zollh¨ofer, S. Izadi, and C. Theobalt. Bundle- Fusion: Real-time Globally Consistent 3D Reconstruction using On- the-ﬂy Surface Reintegration. ACM Trans. Graph., 36(3):24, 2017

work page 2017
[3]

Dou et al

M. Dou et al. Fusion4D: Real-time Performance Capture of Challeng- ing Scenes. ACM Trans. Graph., 35(4):114:1–114:13, 2016

work page 2016
[4]

A. J. Fairchild, S. P. Campion, A. S. Garc´ıa, R. Wolff, T. Fernando, and D. J. Roberts. A Mixed Reality Telepresence System for Collaborative Space Operation. IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 27(4):814–827, 2016

work page 2016
[5]

Fuchs, A

H. Fuchs, A. State, and J. Bazin. Immersive 3D Telepresence. Com- puter, 47(7):46–52, 2014

work page 2014
[6]

Golodetz, T

S. Golodetz, T. Cavallari, N. A. Lord, V . A. Prisacariu, D. W. Murray, and P. H. S. Torr. Collaborative Large-Scale Dense 3D Reconstruction with Online Inter-Agent Pose Optimisation. IEEE Trans. on Visualiza- tion and Computer Graphics , 24(11):2895–2905, Nov 2018

work page 2018
[7]

Handa, T

A. Handa, T. Whelan, J. McDonald, and A. J. Davison. A Benchmark for RGB-D Visual Odometry, 3D Reconstruction and SLAM. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation , pp. 1524–1531, 2014

work page 2014
[8]

Henry, D

P. Henry, D. Fox, A. Bhowmik, and R. Mongia. Patch V olumes: Segmentation-Based Consistent Mapping with RGB-D Cameras. In Int. Conf. on 3D Vision, 2013

work page 2013

Show all 32 references

[9]

Izadi et al

S. Izadi et al. KinectFusion: Real-time 3D Reconstruction and Inter- action Using a Moving Depth Camera. In Proc. of the ACM Symp. on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 559–568, 2011

2011
[10]

Jones et al

B. Jones et al. RoomAlive: Magical Experiences Enabled by Scalable, Adaptive Projector-camera Units. In Proc. of the Annual Symp. on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 637–644, 2014

2014
[11]

K¨ahler, V

O. K¨ahler, V . A. Prisacariu, and D. W. Murray. Real-Time Large-Scale Dense 3D Reconstruction with Loop Closure. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 500–516, 2016

2016
[12]

K¨ahler, V

O. K¨ahler, V . A. Prisacariu, C. Y . Ren, X. Sun, P. Torr, and D. Murray. Very High Frame Rate V olumetric Integration of Depth Images on Mobile Devices. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 21(11):1241–1250, 2015

2015
[13]

K¨ahler, V

O. K¨ahler, V . A. Prisacariu, J. P. C. Valentin, and D. W. Murray. Hierar- chical V oxel Block Hashing for Efﬁcient Integration of Depth Images. In IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , pp. 1(1):192–197, 2016

2016
[14]

Keller, D

M. Keller, D. Leﬂoch, M. Lambers, S. Izadi, T. Weyrich, and A. Kolb. Real-Time 3D Reconstruction in Dynamic Scenes Using Point-Based Fusion. In Proc. of Joint 3DIM/3DPVT Conference, p. 8, 2013

2013
[15]

W. E. Lorensen and H. E. Cline. Marching Cubes: A High Resolution 3D Surface Construction Algorithm. In Proc. of the 14th Annual Conf. on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques , pp. 163–169, 1987

1987
[16]

Maier, R

R. Maier, R. Schaller, and D. Cremers. Efﬁcient Online Surface Correc- tion for Real-time Large-Scale 3D Reconstruction. In British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), 2017

2017
[17]

Maimone, J

A. Maimone, J. Bidwell, K. Peng, and H. Fuchs. Enhanced personal autostereoscopic telepresence system using commodity depth cameras. Computers & Graphics, 36(7):791 – 807, 2012

2012
[18]

Maimone and H

A. Maimone and H. Fuchs. Real-time volumetric 3D capture of room- sized scenes for telepresence. In Proc. of the 3DTV-Conference, 2012

2012
[19]

Molyneaux, S

D. Molyneaux, S. Izadi, D. Kim, O. Hilliges, S. Hodges, X. Cao, A. Butler, and H. Gellersen. Interactive Environment-Aware Handheld Projectors for Pervasive Computing Spaces. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Pervasive Computing, pp. 197–215, 2012

2012
[20]

Mossel and M

A. Mossel and M. Kr¨oter. Streaming and exploration of dynamically changing dense 3d reconstructions in immersive virtual reality. In Proc. of IEEE Int. Symp. on Mixed and Augmented Reality , pp. 43–48, 2016

2016
[21]

R. A. Newcombe et al. KinectFusion: Real-Time Dense Surface Mapping and Tracking. In Proc. of IEEE Int. Symp. on Mixed and Augmented Reality. IEEE, 2011

2011
[22]

R. A. Newcombe, D. Fox, and S. M. Seitz. DynamicFusion: Recon- struction and tracking of non-rigid scenes in real-time. In IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 343–352, 2015

2015
[23]

Nießner, M

M. Nießner, M. Zollh¨ofer, S. Izadi, and M. Stamminger. Real-time 3D Reconstruction at Scale Using V oxel Hashing. ACM Trans. Graph., 32(6):169:1–169:11, 2013

2013
[24]

Orts-Escolano et al

S. Orts-Escolano et al. Holoportation: Virtual 3D Teleportation in Real-time. In Proc. of the Annual Symp. on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 741–754, 2016

2016
[25]

Reichl, J

F. Reichl, J. Weiss, and R. Westermann. Memory-Efﬁcient Interac- tive Online Reconstruction From Depth Image Streams. Computer Graphics F orum, 35(8):108–119, 2016

2016
[26]

Roth and M

H. Roth and M. V ona. Moving volume kinectfusion. In Proc. of the British Machine Vision Conference, pp. 112.1–112.11, 2012

2012
[27]

Stotko, S

P. Stotko, S. Krumpen, M. B. Hullin, M. Weinmann, and R. Klein. SLAMCast: Large-Scale, Real-Time 3D Reconstruction and Stream- ing for Immersive Multi-Client Live Telepresence. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(5):2102–2112, 2019

2019
[28]

Vasudevan, G

R. Vasudevan, G. Kurillo, E. Lobaton, T. Bernardin, O. Kreylos, R. Ba- jcsy, and K. Nahrstedt. High-Quality Visualization for Geographically Distributed 3-D Teleimmersive Applications. IEEE Trans. on Multime- dia, 13(3):573–584, 2011

2011
[29]

Whelan, H

T. Whelan, H. Johannsson, M. Kaess, J. J. Leonard, and J. McDonald. Robust Real-Time Visual Odometry for Dense RGB-D Mapping. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation , pp. 5724–5731, 2013

2013
[30]

Whelan, M

T. Whelan, M. Kaess, M. Fallon, H. Johannsson, J. Leonard, and J. McDonald. Kintinuous: Spatially Extended KinectFusion. In RSS Workshop on RGB-D: Advanced Reasoning with Depth Cameras , 2012

2012
[31]

Whelan, M

T. Whelan, M. Kaess, H. Johannsson, M. Fallon, J. J. Leonard, and J. McDonald. Real-time large-scale dense RGB-D SLAM with volu- metric fusion. The Int. Journal of Robotics Research , 34(4-5):598–626, 2015

2015
[32]

Zhou and V

Q.-Y . Zhou and V . Koltun. Dense Scene Reconstruction with Points of Interest. ACM Trans. Graph., 32(4):112, 2013

2013

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

J. Chen, D. Bautembach, and S. Izadi. Scalable Real-time V olumetric Surface Reconstruction. ACM Trans. Graph., 32:113:1–113:16, 2013

work page 2013

[2] [2]

A. Dai, M. Nießner, M. Zollh¨ofer, S. Izadi, and C. Theobalt. Bundle- Fusion: Real-time Globally Consistent 3D Reconstruction using On- the-ﬂy Surface Reintegration. ACM Trans. Graph., 36(3):24, 2017

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Dou et al

M. Dou et al. Fusion4D: Real-time Performance Capture of Challeng- ing Scenes. ACM Trans. Graph., 35(4):114:1–114:13, 2016

work page 2016

[4] [4]

A. J. Fairchild, S. P. Campion, A. S. Garc´ıa, R. Wolff, T. Fernando, and D. J. Roberts. A Mixed Reality Telepresence System for Collaborative Space Operation. IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 27(4):814–827, 2016

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Fuchs, A

H. Fuchs, A. State, and J. Bazin. Immersive 3D Telepresence. Com- puter, 47(7):46–52, 2014

work page 2014

[6] [6]

Golodetz, T

S. Golodetz, T. Cavallari, N. A. Lord, V . A. Prisacariu, D. W. Murray, and P. H. S. Torr. Collaborative Large-Scale Dense 3D Reconstruction with Online Inter-Agent Pose Optimisation. IEEE Trans. on Visualiza- tion and Computer Graphics , 24(11):2895–2905, Nov 2018

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Handa, T

A. Handa, T. Whelan, J. McDonald, and A. J. Davison. A Benchmark for RGB-D Visual Odometry, 3D Reconstruction and SLAM. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation , pp. 1524–1531, 2014

work page 2014

[8] [8]

Henry, D

P. Henry, D. Fox, A. Bhowmik, and R. Mongia. Patch V olumes: Segmentation-Based Consistent Mapping with RGB-D Cameras. In Int. Conf. on 3D Vision, 2013

work page 2013