Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 30 references

Mul2MAR: A Multi-Marker Mobile Augmented Reality Application for Improved Visual Perception

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

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

Pith's one-line read A mobile app using printed markers and cheap red-cyan glasses can render several textured 3D objects in stereo, giving AR depth perception without discomfort, the paper claims.

desk verdict A thin, self-cited extension of the author's 2014 anaglyph AR work; the multi-marker addition is routine, and the comfort claim is contradicted by the paper's own limitations section. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05953 v1 pith:DN6U32X7 submitted 2025-02-09 cs.GR cs.HC

Murat Kurt This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GRcs.HC
keywords augmentedrealitymarker-basedARanaglyph3Dred-cyanglassesmulti-markertrackingARToolKitOpenGLcolormaskingmobile
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that genuine stereo depth perception in augmented reality does not require expensive AR headsets: a regular mobile device, printable QR-like markers, and cheap red-cyan glasses suffice. It presents Mul2MAR, a marker-based AR application that renders several virtual objects—three furniture models—on multiple markers, with OpenGL producing separate left- and right-eye views that are color-masked and combined. The claim is that these combined views produce a convincing three-dimensional AR experience "without creating any uncomfortable situation for human eyes." If correct, the practical consequence is that 3D AR becomes accessible at almost no hardware cost.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the modification of the OpenGL modelview matrix obtained from ARToolKit (arGetTransMat, argConvGlpara, glLoadMatrixd): the matrix is shifted laterally for the left and right eye positions before loading, and glColorMask(true, false, false, false) versus glColorMask(false, true, true, false) separates the two views into the red and cyan channels. QR-code-like markers are used instead of plain black-and-white patterns to improve detection. A second, less principled component is the manual translation and scaling of objects in code to align them with their markers.

What would settle it

Take the app and a marker board that places the three QR-like markers in a layout not used in the paper, render a frame, and compare projected virtual-object positions against ground truth from a calibrated camera; if the objects drift from their markers, or if a user study measuring stereo acuity and comfort (for example, a forced-choice depth discrimination task) shows no depth benefit or reports discomfort, the central claims fail for general scenes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a complete stereo AR pipeline can be assembled from ARToolKit marker tracking, OpenGL rendering, and anaglyph color filtering: the device camera sees one marker scene, while the OpenGL camera is shifted to left- and right-eye viewpoints, and glColorMask selects red for one eye and cyan for the other. Multiple objects placed on several QR-like markers are then perceived in depth when viewed through red-cyan glasses, and the color fringing seen without the glasses disappears with them. The author reports that this was validated on single- and multi-object scenes using three furniture objects with assigned material properties and textures.

Load-bearing premise

The multi-marker result rests on hand-tuned per-object translations and scalings described in Section 4; if those adjustments are specific to the tested furniture scenes, the claim that multiple objects render correctly does not extend to new marker layouts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, 3D AR on phones becomes nearly free: print a marker, buy red-cyan glasses, and run the app.
  • The same color-masking approach can be toggled on and off with a slight adjustment, so users can switch between normal and stereoscopic AR views.
  • Multiple objects can be displayed at once, not just single-marker demos, which extends the technique beyond trivial one-object examples.
  • Because the pipeline relies only on ARToolKit tracking and OpenGL rendering, it runs on ordinary mobile hardware without specialized depth sensors.
  • The results suggest that the stated future work—faster QR detection and deep-learning enhancements—could improve stability without changing the core stereoscopic mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not include a user study measuring depth perception or comfort; "without uncomfortable situation" is an assertion, and a quantitative stereo-acuity test would be the natural next step.
  • Because registration relies on hand-tuned object translations per scene, an automated calibration procedure (for example, estimating marker-relative poses from the printed layout) would be needed before the multi-marker claim generalizes to arbitrary marker arrangements.
  • The approach inherits the known limitations of anaglyph stereo, such as color rivalry, so the claimed improvement in visual perception is likely strongest for low-chroma textured objects and less reliable for highly saturated or red-dominant scenes.
  • A direct comparison with head-mounted AR displays on the same depth-discrimination task would clarify whether the inexpensive anaglyph route provides practically useful depth or merely a novelty effect.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper describes Mul2MAR, a mobile marker-based augmented reality application that uses ARToolKit for QR-style marker tracking and OpenGL for rendering. Left- and right-eye views are generated by shifting the gl_para matrix and are separated with glColorMask for viewing through red-cyan anaglyph glasses. The authors render several textured furniture objects with single and multiple markers and claim, in the abstract and conclusion, that the application provides satisfactory 3D AR perception without causing any uncomfortable situation for human eyes. Validation is presented as screenshots (Figures 4 and 5) and a citation to the authors' own prior work [Güngör and Kurt 2014].

Significance. If the perceptual claim were established, the application would be a useful low-cost demonstration that commodity mobile devices plus red-cyan glasses can produce a stereo AR experience. The paper is candid about a number of limitations in Section 5 and about the ad hoc nature of multi-marker placement in Section 4. However, the manuscript supplies no machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or falsifiable measurements: there is no user study, no parallax or fusion-range measurement, no marker-detection statistics, no latency measurement, and no comfort/discomfort protocol. The contribution as written is therefore a qualitative demo note, and the abstract and conclusion make claims that go substantially beyond the evidence provided.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The load-bearing claim that the application provides “satisfactory 3D AR perception” and works “without creating any uncomfortable situation for human eyes” is not tested. The only evidence offered is the rendered screenshots and the sentence “When the scene is viewed with red-cyan glasses (see Figure 3), the visual perception of three-dimensional AR is provided [Güngör and Kurt 2014].” No stereo-acuity test, no user study, no comfort/discomfort metric, no measurement of viewing distance or interpupillary distance, and no parallax or fusion-range measurement is reported. Citation to the authors' own prior work does not validate this implementation, since the present application is a different system with different markers and scene configurations.
  2. [Section 5] Section 5 explicitly concedes two downsides: “prolonged use of glasses may cause temporary colour impairment on each eye” and “people who use prescribed glasses may not be able to use 3D glasses easily.” These statements are in tension with the abstract's unconditional claim of operating “without creating any uncomfortable situation for human eyes.” At minimum, the central claim must be qualified to the tested viewing durations and user group; as written, the paper's own limitations contradict the headline claim.
  3. [Section 4] The multi-marker contribution is validated only through manual per-scene adjustments: “To solve this problem we made changes on the code, translating the objects on their positions of markers and scaling them.” No automatic registration, calibration procedure, or repeatability test is described, and no detection statistics are given despite the admission that “the system could not fully recognized some markers and objects were not displayed correctly by using these markers.” Consequently, the paper does not show that multiple virtual objects are correctly registered for arbitrary marker configurations, cameras, or users.
  4. [Section 3] The stereo camera description is incomplete in a way that matters for the comfort claim. The text says the camera is “shifted to the left and right eye points by modifying gl_para vector,” but it does not specify the interocular distance, the projection matrix, the near/far plane values, the focus-plane distance, or how the zero-parallax plane is established. These are exactly the parameters that control perceived depth and stereo discomfort, so the description provides no basis for assessing whether comfortable fusion with red-cyan glasses is achieved.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 4 caption] The caption refers to panels (b), (c), (e), (f), (h), and (k), but the figure labels jump from (h) to (k) without showing (i) or (j); please renumber the panels so that every referenced label exists.
  2. [Reproducibility details] The paper does not report the mobile device model, screen size, camera resolution, ARToolKit version, or the exact source-code modifications used to produce Figures 4 and 5; these details are needed to reproduce or interpret the results.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract uses “3D AR perception” as if it were a well-defined measurable outcome; please define the intended perceptual quality metric or replace this phrase with the observable that was actually recorded.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central '3D AR perception is obtained' claim is supported by a self-citation at the exact point of the result statement, and the multi-marker success is produced by hand-fitted object transforms rather than an independent predictive test; Section 5's own caveats undercut the no-discomfort claim.

  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; Section 3 (Method), paragraph on red-cyan viewing]
    "We show that 3D AR perception can be obtained by using our inexpensive AR application [Güngör and Kurt 2014]. — When the scene is viewed with red-cyan glasses (see Figure 3), the visual perception of three-dimensional AR is provided [Güngör and Kurt 2014]."

    The paper's central perceptual claim is stated and immediately attributed to the authors' own prior conference paper [Güngör and Kurt 2014] (Cengiz Güngör and Murat Kurt). No independent user study, stereo-acuity test, fusion-distance measurement, or external benchmark is presented anywhere in the paper, so the only support for '3D AR perception can be obtained' is the same-author citation at the exact point of the claim. The present screenshots show color-shifted images, but perception is never measured; the assertion is imported from the authors' earlier authority rather than derived from the reported data.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (Results), paragraph describing multi-object placement]
    "To solve this problem we made changes on the code, translating the objects on their positions of markers and scaling them. Thus, we managed to made several combinations of the objects and were able to render realistic 3D images, which can be seen in Figure 4 and Figure 5."

    The multi-marker rendering result is obtained by manually editing object translations and scalings until the displayed images look correct. These hand-fitted transforms are then cited as evidence that the technique works ('we could render multiple objects with our mobile AR technique' in Section 5), without any independent test on new marker arrangements, new objects, new users, or new viewing conditions. The claimed success is therefore the direct output of the fitted adjustments, not a prediction of a general multi-marker registration method.

full rationale

The paper is a short system description rather than a controlled study, so most of its technical detail (ARToolKit marker detection, glColorMask-based anaglyph rendering, gl_para shifts for left/right eyes) is ordinary implementation material and is not circular. The circularity is concentrated in the validation: the abstract's central claim 'We show that 3D AR perception can be obtained' is supported only by a citation to the authors' own 2014 paper at exactly the point where the result is stated, and the Section 4 multi-object success is produced by hand-editing object positions and scales, then presented as a demonstrated result. Section 5 also lists two downsides of red-cyan glasses — 'prolonged use of glasses may cause temporary colour impairment on each eye' and 'people who use prescribed glasses may not be able to use 3D glasses easily' — which directly contradicts the abstract's 'without creating any uncomfortable situation for human eyes' claim; this is an internal inconsistency rather than a circularity, but it further reduces the evidentiary weight of the comfort claim. No external benchmark, user study, or quantitative perception metric is reported. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the central perception result rests on self-citation and hand-fitted demonstration, while the implementation pipeline itself is concrete and reproducible.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the system uses existing libraries, glasses, and markers. The only free choices are the unreported numerical settings listed above.

free parameters (2)
  • left/right eye camera offset (interocular shift) = not reported
    Determines the stereo parallax and hence the perceived depth; chosen ad hoc in the OpenGL camera shift described in Section 3, but no value is given.
  • manual translation and scaling adjustments for multiple objects = not reported
    Used in Section 4 to fix misaligned multi-marker placements; hand-tuned per scene with no recorded values.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption ARToolKit correctly estimates marker poses from the chosen QR-like markers.
    The entire rendering pipeline relies on correct pose matrices from arGetTransMat; this is not independently validated in the paper.
  • domain assumption glColorMask with (true,false,false,false) and (false,true,true,false) produces a proper anaglyph channel separation on the target mobile GPUs.
    Used in Section 3 to create left and right eye images; no device-specific testing or color calibration is reported.
  • domain assumption Red-cyan anaglyph glasses create a comfortable depth illusion for the intended users.
    The physiological basis of stereo fusion is assumed from prior work; the paper provides no user test for comfort, despite claiming no discomfort.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mul2MAR: A Multi-Marker Mobile Augmented Reality Application for Improved Visual Perception." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DN6U32X7

@misc{pith2026250205953,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mul2MAR: A Multi-Marker Mobile Augmented Reality Application for Improved Visual Perception},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DN6U32X7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05953}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents an inexpensive Augmented Reality (AR) application which is aimed to use with mobile devices. Our application is a marker based AR application, and it can be used by inexpensive three dimensional (3D) red-cyan glasses. In our AR application, we combine left and right views without creating any uncomfortable situation for human eyes. We validate our mobile AR application on several objects, scenes, and views. We show that 3D AR perception can be obtained by using our inexpensive AR application [G\"ung\"or and Kurt 2014].

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05953 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A general overview of a marker-based AR system [ARToolKit 2024]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In order to avoid eyes to see the images of each other, the OpenGL filter methods are applied. For the left eye: glColorMask(true, false, false, false); and for the right eye: glColorMask(false, true, true, false); ACM Trans. Graph., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: February 2025 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Taking images of 3D objects for the left and the right eyes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A red-cyan glasses. In our AR application, when the scene is viewed without red-cyan glasses (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (b), (c), (e), (f), (h), and (k) were rendered by using our marker-based AR application. (a) were used to render (b) and (c). (d) were used to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multiple objects can be rendered by our mobile AR technique. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Hyper-Realist Rendering: A Theoretical Framework

    Hyper-Realist Rendering: A Theoretical Framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12853, Article arXiv:2401.12853 (Jan. 2024), arXiv:2401.12853 pages. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.12853 arXiv:2401.12853 [cs.GR] Apple

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.12853 2024

  2. [3]

    MelNet: A Real-Time Deep Learning Algorithm for Object Detection

    MelNet: A Real-Time Deep Learn- ing Algorithm for Object Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17972 , Article arXiv:2401.17972 (Jan. 2024), arXiv:2401.17972 pages. https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2401.17972 arXiv:2401.17972 [cs.CV] Ronald T Azuma

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.17972 2024

  3. [8]

    In Proceedings of the 28th Spring Conference on Computer Graphics (Budmerice, Slovakia) (SCCG ’12)

    Real-time kd-tree based importance sampling of environment maps. In Proceedings of the 28th Spring Conference on Computer Graphics (Budmerice, Slovakia) (SCCG ’12). ACM, New York, NY , USA, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1145/2448531.2448541 Gökçe Gök, Selin Küçük, Murat Kurt, and Ergin Tarı

    work page arXiv

  4. [9]

    http://www.google.com/glass/start/

    Google glass. http://www.google.com/glass/start/. Accessed: 2024-02-28. Cengiz Güngör and Murat Kurt

    work page 2024

  5. [10]

    LightFFDNets: Lightweight Convolutional Neural Networks for Rapid Facial Forgery Detection

    LightFFDNets: Lightweight Convolutional Neural Networks for Rapid Facial Forgery Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11826, Article arXiv:2411.11826 (Nov. 2024), arXiv:2411.11826 pages. https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2411.11826 arXiv:2411.11826 [cs.CV] Murat Kurt

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.11826 2024

  6. [21]

    https://www.metavision.com//

    Meta. https://www.metavision.com//. Accessed: 2024-02-28. Sermet Mir, Barı¸ s Yıldırım, and Murat Kurt

    work page 2024

  7. [24]

    Computers & Graphics 32, 2 (April 2008), 149–158

    Linear approxima- tion of Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions. Computers & Graphics 32, 2 (April 2008), 149–158. Huma Shoaib and S. Waqar Jaffry

    work page 2008

  8. [26]

    In Proceedings of the 26th Spring Conference on Computer Graphics (Budmerice, Slovakia) (SCCG ’10)

    Adaptive sampling for environment mapping. In Proceedings of the 26th Spring Conference on Computer Graphics (Budmerice, Slovakia) (SCCG ’10). ACM, New York, NY , USA, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1145/1925059.1925073 Tanaboon Tongbuasirilai, Jonas Unger, Joel Kronander, and Murat Kurt

    work page arXiv

Show all 30 references
  1. [27]

    The Visual Computer 36, 4 (April 2020), 855–872

    Compact and intuitive data-driven BRDF models. The Visual Computer 36, 4 (April 2020), 855–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00371-019-01664-z Tanaboon Tongbuasirilai, Jonas Unger, and Murat Kurt

    2020 doi

  2. [28]

    InProceedings of the IEEE Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVW ’17)

    Efficient BRDF Sampling Using Projected Deviation Vector Parameterization. InProceedings of the IEEE Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVW ’17). IEEE Computer Society, Venice, Italy, 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCVW.2017.26 Özkan Anıl Töral, Serk...

    doi

  3. [29]

    https://www.vuzix.com/

    Vuzix. https://www.vuzix.com/. Accessed: 2024-02-28. Greg Ward, Murat Kurt, and Nicolas Bonneel

    2024

  4. [30]

    InProceedings of the 2nd Eurographics Workshop on Material Appearance Modeling: Issues and Acquisition (MAM ’14) , Reinhard Klein and Holly Rushmeier (Eds.)

    Reducing Anisotropic BSDF Measurement to Common Practice. InProceedings of the 2nd Eurographics Workshop on Material Appearance Modeling: Issues and Acquisition (MAM ’14) , Reinhard Klein and Holly Rushmeier (Eds.). Eurographics Association, Lyon, France, 5–8. https://doi.org/...

    doi

  5. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15245, Article arXiv:2401.15245 (Jan

    GenPluSSS: A Genetic Algorithm Based Plugin for Measured Subsurface Scattering Representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15245, Article arXiv:2401.15245 (Jan. 2024), arXiv:2401.15245 pages. https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2401.15245 arXiv:2401.15245 [cs.GR] ACM Trans. Graph., ...

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [1968]

    In Proceedings of the Fall Joint Computer Conference(San Francisco, California)(AFIPS ’68 (Fall, part I))

    A Head-Mounted Three Dimensional Display. In Proceedings of the Fall Joint Computer Conference(San Francisco, California)(AFIPS ’68 (Fall, part I)). ACM, New York, NY , USA, 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1145/1476589.1476686 László Szécsi, László Szirmay-Kalos, Murat Kurt, and B...

  7. [1997]

    Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments 6, 4 (1997), 355–385

    A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments 6, 4 (1997), 355–385. Ahmet Bilgili, Aydın Öztürk, and Murat Kurt

    1997

  8. [2006]

    In Proceedings of the 4th Theory and Practice of Computer Graphics (TPCG ’06), Louise M

    Polynomial Approximation of Blinn-Phong Model. In Proceedings of the 4th Theory and Practice of Computer Graphics (TPCG ’06), Louise M. Lever and Mary McDerby (Eds.). Eurographics Association, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom, 55–61. https://doi.org/10.2312/ LocalChapterEvents/TP...

  9. [2008]

    SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics 42, 3 (August 2008), 1–18

    Representing BRDFs using SOMs and MANs. SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics 42, 3 (August 2008), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/1408626.1408630 Murat Kurt and Dave Edwards

    2008

  10. [2009]

    SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics 43, 2 (May 2009), 1–7

    A survey of BRDF models for computer graphics. SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics 43, 2 (May 2009), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 1629216.1629222 ACM Trans. Graph., V ol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: February

    2009

  11. [2010]

    SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics 44, 1 (February 2010), 1–15

    An Anisotropic BRDF Model for Fitting and Monte Carlo Rendering. SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics 44, 1 (February 2010), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/1722991.1722996 Murat Kurt, Greg Ward, and Nicolas Bonneel

    2010

  12. [2011]

    Computer Graphics Forum 30, 8 (December 2011), 2427–2439

    A General BRDF Representation Based on Tensor Decomposition. Computer Graphics Forum 30, 8 (December 2011), 2427–2439. Ahmet Bilgili, Aydın Öztürk, and Murat Kurt

    2011

  13. [2013]

    In Proceedings of the 11th Theory and Practice of Computer Graphics (TPCG ’13) , Silvester Czanner and Wen Tang (Eds.)

    A Compact Tucker-Based Fac- torization Model for Heterogeneous Subsurface Scattering. In Proceedings of the 11th Theory and Practice of Computer Graphics (TPCG ’13) , Silvester Czanner and Wen Tang (Eds.). Eurographics Association, Bath, United Kingdom, 85–92. https://doi.org/...

    doi

  14. [2014]

    In Proceedings of REAL CORP 2014 (Vienna, Austria)

    ARchitecture-Augmented Reality Techniques and Use Cases in Architecture and Urban Planning. In Proceedings of REAL CORP 2014 (Vienna, Austria). 75–82. S. Cawood and M. Fiala

    2014

  15. [2016]

    In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 2016, Posters (Anaheim, Califor- nia) (SIGGRAPH ’16)

    A Data-Driven BSDF Frame- work. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 2016, Posters (Anaheim, Califor- nia) (SIGGRAPH ’16). ACM, New York, NY , USA, Article 31, 2 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2945078.2945109 Meta

    2016

  16. [2017]

    In Proceedings of the 5th Eurographics Workshop on Material Appearance Modeling: Issues and Acqui- sition (MAM ’17), Reinhard Klein and Holly Rushmeier (Eds.)

    Experimental Analysis of BSDF Models. In Proceedings of the 5th Eurographics Workshop on Material Appearance Modeling: Issues and Acqui- sition (MAM ’17), Reinhard Klein and Holly Rushmeier (Eds.). The Eurographics Association, Helsinki, Finland, 35–39. https://doi.org/10.2312...

    doi

  17. [2018]

    Journal of Science and Engineering 20, 58 (January 2018), 87–102

    A Survey of BSDF Measurements and Representations. Journal of Science and Engineering 20, 58 (January 2018), 87–102. Murat Kurt

    2018

  18. [2019]

    Journal of Science and Engineering 21, 63 (September 2019), 859–867

    Real-Time Shading with Phong BRDF Model. Journal of Science and Engineering 21, 63 (September 2019), 859–867. Murat Kurt

    2019

  19. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the 8th Eurographics Workshop on Mate- rial Appearance Modeling: Issues and Acquisition (MAM ’20) , Reinhard Klein and Holly Rushmeier (Eds.)

    A Genetic Algorithm Based Heterogeneous Subsurface Scatter- ing Representation. In Proceedings of the 8th Eurographics Workshop on Mate- rial Appearance Modeling: Issues and Acquisition (MAM ’20) , Reinhard Klein and Holly Rushmeier (Eds.). The Eurographics Association, London...

    doi

  20. [2021]

    The Visual Computer 37, 2 (February 2021), 307–323

    GenSSS: a genetic algorithm for measured subsurface scattering representation. The Visual Computer 37, 2 (February 2021), 307–323. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00371-020-01800-0 Murat Kurt and Muhammed Gökhan Cinsdikici

    2021 doi

  21. [2022]

    Journal of Science and Engineering 24, 72 (September 2022), 737–746

    An Analysis of Goniochromatic and Sparkle Effects on Multi-Layered Materials. Journal of Science and Engineering 24, 72 (September 2022), 737–746. Sermet Önel, Murat Kurt, and Aydın Öztürk

    2022

  22. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02246 , Article arXiv:2402.02246 (Feb

    ExTTNet: A Deep Learning Algorithm for Extracting Table Texts from Invoice Images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02246 , Article arXiv:2402.02246 (Feb. 2024), arXiv:2402.02246 pages. https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2402.02246 arXiv:2402.02246 [cs.CV] Ergun Akleman, Murat Kurt, Der...

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.