Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

An Immersive Multi-Elevation Multi-Seasonal Dataset for 3D Reconstruction and Visualization

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces a 12,300-image, multi-season, multi-elevation campus dataset and a calibration pipeline that registers all of it into one campus-wide reconstruction.

desk verdict A genuinely useful dataset idea that is currently under-validated: the campus-wide alignment rests on an unchecked 60m anchor, and the paper ships no data or quantitative pose error. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14418 v1 pith:MSEWBMTC submitted 2024-12-19 cs.CV cs.LG

Xijun Liu , Yifan Zhou , Yuxiang Guo , Rama Chellappa , Cheng Peng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords 3Dreconstructiondatasetmulti-seasonimagerymulti-elevationcaptureneuralrenderingbenchmarkstructure-from-motioncalibrationdoppelgangermitigationunconstrainedscene
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 introduces a large-scale, real-world imagery collection of ten adjacent buildings on a university campus, with over 12,300 images taken across four seasons, day and night, different weather, and elevations from ground level to 120 meters. The authors argue that existing reconstruction benchmarks split up the properties a full evaluation needs: some offer appearance variation, others scale, others aerial or ground views, but none combine multi-appearance, multi-view, and multi-elevation in one real-world setting. The contribution is the dataset itself plus a multi-stage calibration pipeline that registers all images into a single campus-wide coordinate system, producing a coherent sparse reconstruction. If the claim holds, researchers can evaluate neural rendering and structure-from-motion methods under inconsistent illumination, repeated architecture, and extreme viewpoint changes without needing pixel-level test-view supervision.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the dataset's acquisition design combined with a three-stage calibration pipeline. The temporal adjacency constraint matches each ground image only to its 10 nearest video frames, cutting off the long-range matches that let visually similar front and back doors of a building collapse into one location; this is the doppelgänger mitigation. Ascending drone sequences, shot from ground level up to about 60 meters, give feature matchers an incremental perspective bridge between ground and aerial imagery. Finally, Procrustes alignment solves for a similarity transform that registers each building's local reconstruction onto an anchor coordinate system built from summer 60-meter aerial images, merging the campus into one frame. The dataset's defining structure is that every appearance condition is captured across many views, so a method can be handed a timestamp and asked to render held-out views gathered at that same time.

What would settle it

Survey a set of building corners with RTK GPS and compare them with the reconstructed camera and point positions after Procrustes alignment; if the median alignment error exceeds the pixel-projection tolerance that downstream rendering requires, the claim that the 60-meter aerial anchor is reliable collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a carefully planned acquisition — one multi-view appearance set per season, time of day, and weather condition per building, with handheld ground videos, circular drone flights at 60, 100, and 120 meters, and ascending drone sequences — supplies the missing benchmark for holistic scene reconstruction. The paper further claims that its calibration approach, which restricts ground-image matches to the 10 nearest video frames to suppress doppelgänger matches, uses ascending sequences to connect ground and aerial perspectives, and aligns each building's reconstruction to a summer 60-meter aerial anchor through Procrustes alignment, yields a coherent large-scale campus reconstruction at reasonable processing cost. The dataset is released as a testbed where repeated architectural motifs and appearance shifts make calibration genuinely hard rather than controlled away.

Load-bearing premise

The campus-wide alignment rests on the assumption that the summer 60-meter aerial images are reliably calibrated and therefore form a trustworthy anchor; the paper asserts this reliability but gives no quantitative check of the anchor's accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reconstruction methods can now be tested on a real large-scale scene where illumination and appearance change while multi-view consistency is preserved, so held-out test views can be rendered from time metadata alone.
  • Structure-from-motion and feature-matching pipelines face a public stress test with repetitive architecture, where global matching fails and the paper's temporal constraint is shown to restore stable registration.
  • Multi-elevation coverage makes rooftop and upper-facade reconstruction a measurable benchmark instead of an unobserved region.
  • The 12,300-image collection supports fair comparison of appearance-conditioned neural radiance fields and Gaussian splatting variants on identical geometry.
  • Per-building registration followed by global alignment offers a template for scaling calibration to city-sized image collections.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An independent geolocation check, such as surveyed ground-control points, would turn the asserted reliability of the summer 60-meter aerial anchor into a measured error; the paper does not report one.
  • Since the temporal constraint exploits known video order, a natural extension is to test whether global-context learned matchers can drop that requirement, or to use this dataset to train doppelgänger-robust matching.
  • The repeated appearance sets make the dataset a plausible training ground for time-conditioned appearance models, an evaluation the paper does not itself run.
  • The campus's uniform architectural style is a deliberate difficulty but also a domain restriction; conclusions drawn here may not transfer to heterogeneous city scenes without separate validation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a real-world dataset of over 12,300 images of ten buildings on the Johns Hopkins University Homewood Campus, acquired over one year across four seasons, daytime and nighttime, and elevations from ground level to 120m. The authors propose a three-stage calibration pipeline: temporal-adjacency-constrained matching for ground-level video frames to mitigate doppelganger matches, integration of drone ascending sequences to bridge ground and aerial perspectives, and Procrustes alignment of per-building reconstructions into a campus-wide anchor frame defined by summer 60m aerial images. The central claim is that this pipeline produces a coherent large-scale sparse reconstruction, and that the dataset enables benchmarking of reconstruction methods under appearance, scale, and viewpoint variation. Registration counts are compared against SIFT, SuperGlue, LoFTR, and RoMA, and qualitative sparse point-cloud visualizations are provided.

Significance. If the poses and alignments are accurate, the dataset fills a genuine gap: existing reconstruction benchmarks are either small-scale or controlled, single-elevation, or lack per-acquisition appearance consistency. The multi-season, multi-elevation coverage with organized appearance groups is valuable for evaluating NeRF/3DGS methods and structure-from-motion under appearance change. The pipeline ideas—temporal adjacency to avoid doppelganger matches and ascending sequences to connect ground and aerial views—are sensible and potentially useful. However, the paper currently substantiates the central claim only with qualitative figures and registration counts; no quantitative pose accuracy, reprojection error, external georeferencing check, or reconstruction benchmark is reported. The contribution is therefore conditional on additional verification.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.3, Eq. (1)] The campus-wide coordinate system rests entirely on the assertion that the summer 60m aerial subset is 'reliably calibrated,' yet no quantitative evidence is given: the paper reports no number of aerial images used in the anchor, no reprojection error, no loop-closure statistics, no comparison with GPS/RTK or known campus distances, and no sensitivity analysis of the Procrustes fit. Because Eq. (1) aligns only camera-center positions, any scale, rotation, or translation error in the anchor propagates identically into all ten building reconstructions. Please provide quantitative validation of the anchor and of the final inter-building alignment, such as residuals of the Procrustes fit, known-distance checks, or pose error against an independent survey.
  2. [4.1, Table 2] The doppelganger-mitigation claim is supported only by the number of images that register, not by whether the registrations are geometrically correct. Table 2 shows that several methods register all or nearly all images (e.g., LoFTR for Ames, Clark, Garland, Hackerman, and Mason), so the count alone cannot distinguish correct alignment from visually plausible but wrong matches. Please report pose accuracy against known building geometry, loop-closure consistency, or a quantitative comparison of reconstructions with and without the k=10 temporal adjacency constraint. In addition, Table 2's 'G' and 'D' columns are not consistently populated, and some rows show registered counts exceeding the stated number of images, making the comparison hard to interpret.
  3. [5 and Figures 1-2] The paper's central claim of 'a coherent, large-scale sparse reconstruction' is demonstrated only through sparse point-cloud figures. No reconstruction benchmark is run on the dataset, and no metric such as mean reprojection error, track length, pose uncertainty, or novel-view synthesis quality is reported. For a dataset intended to be a benchmark, calibration quality must be quantified; otherwise readers cannot tell whether downstream failures are due to the data or to the algorithm. Please add calibration statistics and, ideally, baseline reconstruction results (SfM/NeRF/3DGS) that use the provided poses.
  4. [Dataset release (all sections)] The manuscript does not state where the dataset will be hosted, under what license, or what metadata are included (timestamps, elevation tags, building labels, GPS where available). For a dataset paper, these release details are essential for the claimed community impact. Please include a release plan and a brief data-card-style description of the files, formats, and intended usage.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The header 'mA mV Elevation' does not define the abbreviations, and the 'mE' property from the text is not made explicit in the table. Also, UrbanScene3D and Quad 6K are both cited as [4], which appears to be a citation error since [4] is the Crandall et al. SfM paper.
  2. [4.2] The statement 'All methods fail to register cross-view images correctly' is not supported by Table 2, where several methods register a large fraction of images; please clarify what 'correctly' means and whether the comparison withholds ascending sequences for all methods.
  3. [4.3] Eq. (1) uses the notation C^i_hall while the text defines the building-wise coordinate system as C^i_building; please make the notation consistent.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] There are minor typographical issues, e.g., 'welldesigned' in the abstract and 'time highlight' in the Figure 2 caption; a careful proofread would improve readability.
  5. [Conclusion] A limitations section is missing; in particular, the manuscript should acknowledge that the anchor accuracy is not quantitatively verified and that PII blurring may affect reconstruction quality in some regions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the dataset and calibration pipeline are self-contained, and the reconstruction figures are demonstrations rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

This paper introduces a dataset and a multi-stage calibration pipeline; it does not derive a quantitative result from fitted parameters. The anchor coordinate system in Sec. 4.3 is an SfM output on a subset of aerial images, and the Procrustes alignment (Eq. 1) transforms each building's reconstruction into that frame. This is a standard alignment procedure, not a definitional equivalence: no quantity is defined in terms of the target claim, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Figures 1 and 2 show the pipeline's own output as a demonstration; this is a verification gap (no external benchmark is used to validate the poses), not circularity. The only self-citations are related-work pointers ([19], [20]) to the authors' prior neural-rendering papers; they are not load-bearing for the dataset's construction or claims. No circular step can be exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the reliability of the anchor coordinate system and the temporal adjacency constraint, both asserted without quantitative validation. No fitted model parameters or new entities are introduced; the free parameter is the hand-chosen adjacency window size.

free parameters (1)
  • temporal adjacency window k = 10
    Chosen by hand in Sec. 4.1: each image is only matched with its 10 nearest frames in the video.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Summer 60m aerial images can be reliably calibrated with standard SfM
    Sec. 4.3 uses a subset of summer aerial images as the anchor coordinate system, asserting reliability without quantitative verification.
  • domain assumption Consecutive video frames share sufficient overlap and temporal adjacency prevents doppelganger matches
    Sec. 4.1 relies on 10-frame adjacency to avoid repeated-structure mismatches; this assumes overlap and the absence of matching ambiguity within the window.
  • domain assumption Ascending drone sequences provide gradual perspective change bridging ground and aerial features
    Sec. 4.2 claims ascending sequences allow features to be traced upward, but no quantitative feature-trajectory evaluation is given.
  • standard math Procrustes alignment between building-wise and campus-wise coordinates is valid when using the same camera subset
    Eq. (1) minimizes the similarity transform residual; standard Procrustes assumes the point correspondences are correct, and here they are the same summer aerial cameras.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Immersive Multi-Elevation Multi-Seasonal Dataset for 3D Reconstruction and Visualization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MSEWBMTC

@misc{pith2026241214418,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Immersive Multi-Elevation Multi-Seasonal Dataset for 3D Reconstruction and Visualization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MSEWBMTC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14418}
}
read the original abstract

Significant progress has been made in photo-realistic scene reconstruction over recent years. Various disparate efforts have enabled capabilities such as multi-appearance or large-scale modeling; however, there lacks a welldesigned dataset that can evaluate the holistic progress of scene reconstruction. We introduce a collection of imagery of the Johns Hopkins Homewood Campus, acquired at different seasons, times of day, in multiple elevations, and across a large scale. We perform a multi-stage calibration process, which efficiently recover camera parameters from phone and drone cameras. This dataset can enable researchers to rigorously explore challenges in unconstrained settings, including effects of inconsistent illumination, reconstruction from large scale and from significantly different perspectives, etc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14418 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A visualization of the reconstructed Johns Hopkins Homewood campus based on our collected imagery over one year. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of the sparse reconstruction of Mason Hall [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of visual ambiguities, or “doppelg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Wavelet-GS: 3D Gaussian Splatting with Wavelet Decomposition

    cs.GR 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Wavelet-GS splits a 3D point cloud into low- and high-frequency wavelet parts, trains each with its own strategy, plus a relight module, reporting gains over prior 3DGS variants on four datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P

    Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P. Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022, pages 5460–5469. IEEE, 2022. 1, 2

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Lang, Sourabh V ora, Venice Erin Liong, Qiang Xu, Anush Krishnan, Yu Pan, Gi- ancarlo Baldan, and Oscar Beijbom

    Holger Caesar, Varun Bankiti, Alex H. Lang, Sourabh V ora, Venice Erin Liong, Qiang Xu, Anush Krishnan, Yu Pan, Gi- ancarlo Baldan, and Oscar Beijbom. nuscenes: A multi- modal dataset for autonomous driving. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2020, Seattle, WA, USA, June 13-19, 2020 , pages 11618–11628. Computer V...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Hallucinated neural radiance fields in the wild

    Xingyu Chen, Qi Zhang, Xiaoyu Li, Yue Chen, Ying Feng, Xuan Wang, and Jue Wang. Hallucinated neural radiance fields in the wild. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022, pages 12933–12942. IEEE, 2022. 1, 2

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Crandall, Andrew Owens, Noah Snavely, and Dan Huttenlocher

    David J. Crandall, Andrew Owens, Noah Snavely, and Dan Huttenlocher. Discrete-continuous optimization for large- scale structure from motion. In The 24th IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2011, Colorado Springs, CO, USA, 20-25 June 2011, pages 3001–

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Roma: Robust dense feature matching

    Johan Edstedt, Qiyu Sun, Georg B ¨okman, M ˚arten Wadenb¨ack, and Michael Felsberg. Roma: Robust dense feature matching. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2024, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16-22, 2024, pages 19790–19800. IEEE, 2024. 4

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Generalized procrustes analysis

    John C Gower. Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychome- trika, 40:33–51, 1975. 4

    work page 1975

  7. [7]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. CoRR, abs/2308.04079, 2023. 1

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Tanks and temples: benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction

    Arno Knapitsch, Jaesik Park, Qian-Yi Zhou, and Vladlen Koltun. Tanks and temples: benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction. ACM Trans. Graph. , 36(4):78:1–78:13,

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Wildgaussians: 3d gaussian splatting in the wild

    Jonas Kulhanek, Songyou Peng, Zuzana Kukelova, Marc Pollefeys, and Torsten Sattler. Wildgaussians: 3d gaussian splatting in the wild. CoRR, abs/2407.08447, 2024. 1, 2

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Matrixcity: A large- scale city dataset for city-scale neural rendering and beyond

    Yixuan Li, Lihan Jiang, Linning Xu, Yuanbo Xiangli, Zhen- zhi Wang, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. Matrixcity: A large- scale city dataset for city-scale neural rendering and beyond. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023, ...

    2023

  3. [11]

    KITTI-360: A novel dataset and benchmarks for urban scene understanding in 2d and 3d

    Yiyi Liao, Jun Xie, and Andreas Geiger. KITTI-360: A novel dataset and benchmarks for urban scene understanding in 2d and 3d. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 45(3):3292– 3310, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  4. [12]

    Scannet: A fast and dense scan- ning framework for metastastic breast cancer detection from whole-slide image

    Huangjing Lin, Hao Chen, Qi Dou, Liansheng Wang, Jing Qin, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Scannet: A fast and dense scan- ning framework for metastastic breast cancer detection from whole-slide image. In 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Ap- plications of Computer Vision, WACV 2018, Lake Ta...

    2018

  5. [13]

    Citygaussian: Real-time high- quality large-scale scene rendering with gaussians

    Yang Liu, He Guan, Chuanchen Luo, Lue Fan, Junran Peng, and Zhaoxiang Zhang. Citygaussian: Real-time high- quality large-scale scene rendering with gaussians. CoRR, abs/2404.01133, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    David G. Lowe. Distinctive image features from scale- invariant keypoints.Int. J. Comput. Vis., 60(2):91–110, 2004. 3, 4

    2004

  7. [15]

    A large-scale outdoor multi- modal dataset and benchmark for novel view synthesis and implicit scene reconstruction

    Chongshan Lu, Fukun Yin, Xin Chen, Wen Liu, Tao Chen, Gang Yu, and Jiayuan Fan. A large-scale outdoor multi- modal dataset and benchmark for novel view synthesis and implicit scene reconstruction. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, Franc...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Noha Radwan, Mehdi S. M. Sajjadi, Jonathan T. Barron, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Daniel Duck- worth. Nerf in the wild: Neural radiance fields for uncon- strained photo collections. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, v...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Kim, and Johannes Kopf

    Andreas Meuleman, Yu-Lun Liu, Chen Gao, Jia-Bin Huang, Changil Kim, Min H. Kim, and Johannes Kopf. Progres- sively optimized local radiance fields for robust view synthe- sis. In CVPR, 2023. 2

    2023

  10. [18]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. In Andrea Vedaldi, Horst Bischof, Thomas Brox, and Jan-Michael Frahm, editors, Computer Vision - EC...

    2020

  11. [19]

    PDRF: progressively deblurring radiance field for fast scene reconstruction from blurry images

    Cheng Peng and Rama Chellappa. PDRF: progressively deblurring radiance field for fast scene reconstruction from blurry images. In Brian Williams, Yiling Chen, and Jennifer Neville, editors, Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence, AAAI 2023, Thirty-Fifth Co...

    2023

  12. [20]

    BAGS: blur agnostic gaussian splatting through multi-scale kernel mod- eling

    Cheng Peng, Yutao Tang, Yifan Zhou, Nengyu Wang, Xi- jun Liu, Deming Li, and Rama Chellappa. BAGS: blur agnostic gaussian splatting through multi-scale kernel mod- eling. In Ales Leonardis, Elisa Ricci, Stefan Roth, Olga Russakovsky, Torsten Sattler, and G ¨ul Varol, editors, ...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Superglue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks

    Paul-Edouard Sarlin, Daniel DeTone, Tomasz Malisiewicz, and Andrew Rabinovich. Superglue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2020, Seattle, WA, USA, June 13-19, 2020 , pages 4937–49...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Seitz, and Richard Szeliski

    Noah Snavely, Steven M. Seitz, and Richard Szeliski. Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d. ACM Trans. Graph., 25(3):835–846, 2006. 2, 3

    2006

  15. [23]

    Loftr: Detector-free local feature matching with transformers

    Jiaming Sun, Zehong Shen, Yuang Wang, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. Loftr: Detector-free local feature matching with transformers. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19- 25, 2021, pages 8922–8931. Computer Vision Foundation...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Mildenhall, Pratul P

    Matthew Tancik, Vincent Casser, Xinchen Yan, Sabeek Prad- han, Ben P. Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Jonathan T. Bar- ron, and Henrik Kretzschmar. Block-nerf: Scalable large scene neural view synthesis. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR...

    2022

  17. [25]

    Megascenes: Scene-level view synthesis at scale

    Joseph Tung, Gene Chou, Ruojin Cai, Guandao Yang, Kai Zhang, Gordon Wetzstein, Bharath Hariharan, and Noah Snavely. Megascenes: Scene-level view synthesis at scale. In Ales Leonardis, Elisa Ricci, Stefan Roth, Olga Russakovsky, Torsten Sattler, and G ¨ul Varol, editors, Comput...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Mega-nerf: Scalable construction of large-scale nerfs for virtual fly- throughs

    Haithem Turki, Deva Ramanan, and Mahadev Satya- narayanan. Mega-nerf: Scalable construction of large-scale nerfs for virtual fly- throughs. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022 , pages 12912–12921....

    2022

  19. [27]

    Jiacong Xu, Yiqun Mei, and Vishal M. Patel. Wild-gs: Real- time novel view synthesis from unconstrained photo collec- tions. CoRR, abs/2406.10373, 2024. 1, 2

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Freenerf: Im- proving few-shot neural rendering with free frequency regu- larization

    Jiawei Yang, Marco Pavone, and Yue Wang. Freenerf: Im- proving few-shot neural rendering with free frequency regu- larization. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023, pages 8254–8263. IEEE, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  21. [29]

    Blendedmvs: A large- scale dataset for generalized multi-view stereo networks

    Yao Yao, Zixin Luo, Shiwei Li, Jingyang Zhang, Yufan Ren, Lei Zhou, Tian Fang, and Long Quan. Blendedmvs: A large- scale dataset for generalized multi-view stereo networks. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, CVPR 2020, Seattle, WA, USA, J...

    2020

  22. [30]

    Gaussian in the wild: 3d gaussian splatting for unconstrained image collections

    Dongbin Zhang, Chuming Wang, Weitao Wang, Peihao Li, Minghan Qin, and Haoqian Wang. Gaussian in the wild: 3d gaussian splatting for unconstrained image collections. In Ales Leonardis, Elisa Ricci, Stefan Roth, Olga Russakovsky, Torsten Sattler, and G ¨ul Varol, editors, Comput...

    2024

  23. [3008]

    IEEE Computer Society, 2011. 2, 3

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.