IntelliCap: Intelligent Guidance for Consistent View Sampling

Ayaka Yasunaga; Dieter Schmalstieg; Hideo Saito; Shohei Mori

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 43 references

IntelliCap: Intelligent Guidance for Consistent View Sampling

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Guided AR capture beats unguided scanning for 3D view synthesis

desk verdict The system is a real step forward for AR-guided capture in open scenes, but the paper never isolates its headline LLM ranking—Ours differs from SC in both guidance and image count, and the closest-to-GT result double-counts the test views. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13043 v1 pith:WJMRQQIW submitted 2025-08-18 cs.CV

Ayaka Yasunaga , Hideo Saito , Dieter Schmalstieg , Shohei Mori This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords viewsampling3DGaussiansplattingneuralradiancefieldsaugmentedrealityguidancelargelanguagemodelsview-dependenteffectssemanticsegmentationnovelsynthesis

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 claims that the weak point in high-quality 3D scene reconstruction is not the rendering algorithm but how a human chooses camera viewpoints, and that a situated augmented-reality guide can fix that. Its IntelliCap system shows two complementary hints live during capture: striped overlays on unvisited scene geometry for spatial coverage, and 3D spheres around objects that likely need dense angular coverage for view-dependent appearance. Object categories come from semantic segmentation and are scored by a large language model on five appearance axes, with only high-scoring objects receiving spheres. In a user study with 12 participants across three real scenes, images collected with this combined guidance yielded the best PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS for both 3D Gaussian splatting and Nerfacto, compared with no guidance and spatial-only guidance. The practical consequence, if the claim holds, is that non-expert camera operators can collect view-synthesis data with more consistent quality than current best practice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the 3D sphere proxy, a sphere anchored to a detected object whose surface is subdivided into view-sample patches. Each patch corresponds to one viewing direction, and a patch becomes transparent when the user has captured that direction, so the sphere acts as a progress meter for angular coverage. The spheres are generated only for objects whose category exceeds an LLM-computed priority threshold, where priority is the average of scores on geometric complexity, texture complexity, size, specularity, and transparency. A second visualization, the pink-white striped overlay on the live mesh, tracks spatial coverage. The two are combined by merging nearby spheres, hiding spheres behind occluders, and suppressing spheres outside a comfortable capture distance.

What would settle it

Run the same scenes and participants but replace the LLM priority list with a random or fixed ordering while matching the number of captured images to the guided condition; if PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS stay statistically indistinguishable, the LLM ranking is not the active ingredient. Alternatively, compute per-object view-synthesis error and check whether objects above the priority threshold show disproportionately large error reductions relative to objects below it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that combining spatial coverage guidance with LLM-ranked angular coverage guidance produces view samples that render better than conventional capture strategies in real open scenes. For 3D Gaussian splatting, the guided condition reached a mean PSNR of 18.891 dB versus 17.086 dB for spatial-only and 16.338 dB for no guidance, with the same ordering on SSIM and LPIPS, and the Nerfacto results show the same ordering. The authors attribute the gain to the angular component: without it, users tend to stay at one height and miss reflective and transparent objects, whereas the spherical proxies push them to capture those objects from many directions. They also introduce an evaluation design in which ground-truth views are captured independently by an examiner, arguing that splitting a single operator's trajectory unfairly favors that trajectory.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, stated in Section 3.2, is that a large language model scoring a fixed set of object categories on five appearance axes correctly predicts which objects need denser angular sampling; if those scores are wrong, the spheres steer users to the wrong objects and the measured gains could mostly reflect the larger number of images taken in the guided condition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Capture guidance for 3D Gaussian splatting and NeRF can shift from taking as many photos as possible to targeted, on-the-fly instructions that tell a non-expert when an object's angular coverage is complete.
The same object-priority scoring could be ported to automated next-best-view planners, because it separates the question of which objects matter from the question of where the camera should stand.
Evaluating view-sampling strategies fairly requires independent ground-truth capture by a second person; the paper reports that standard same-trajectory splits inflate PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS scores substantially, by about 37%, 15%, and 49% respectively.
The closed-vocabulary limitation means the method's benefit is currently bounded by the set of object categories the segmentation model recognizes; expanding to open-vocabulary recognition is a stated future direction.

Reading between the lines

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

I would test the LLM ranking directly: hold the number of captured photos constant and compare the guided condition against a condition with random or fixed object priorities; if rendering quality does not drop, the active ingredient is extra quantity or coverage rather than semantic ranking.
Because the LLM scores are assigned per category rather than per instance, they could be precomputed and published as a reusable capture-priority table for common object categories, then validated against per-object view-dependent error.
The same dual-proxy design could be adapted to outdoor or dynamic scenes by suppressing moving categories such as people and cars and using reachability constraints for distant spheres, which the paper lists as future work.

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

Here's my take for your file. The paper is worth a serious referee, but the central claim needs to be read with care.

What's actually new: IntelliCap combines a spatial-coverage mesh (camera sees missing areas as pink stripes) with spherical proxies around objects that get denser angular sampling, and uses an LLM to score object categories (specularity, transparency, etc.) to decide which objects get spheres. That combination for open multi-object scenes is not in the prior work they cite, which is single-object or forward-facing. The user study is also a genuine attempt to evaluate a moving-target task: they collect 12 participants across three conditions, then render 3DGS and Nerfacto and compare against an independent examiner's ground-truth views. Using a second person's capture to build the test set is a real improvement over the usual 'split the same trajectory' evaluation.

The results are consistent: Ours beats SC and NV on all three metrics for both renderers. And the paper is honest about limitations, including that it doesn't fully use the LLM scores.

Now the soft spots, in proportion.

First, the Ours condition bundles the spheres, the LLM ranking, and significantly more images (320±169 vs 231±131, p=0.02). So the Table 2 gap over SC is compatible with a 'more training views' effect. The paper notes NV and Ours had similar image counts, which argues against count alone explaining Ours vs NV, but it doesn't isolate the LLM ranking from the mere presence of angular targets. There's no condition with spheres but without LLM scoring. The LLM threshold and the number of subsurfaces N are undisclosed, and the LLM is non-deterministic.

Second, the auxiliary 'closeness to ground truth' evidence is double-edged. The same GT views define the Table 2 metrics, and renderers generalize best near training views. So Ours training views being closest to GT (0.239m vs 0.320/0.337m) is consistent with, and may partly explain, the quality advantage—not independent confirmation.

Third, no inferential statistics on the quality metrics. With n=12, that's underpowered for detecting anything but large effects.

These don't sink the paper. The system likely does help people capture better data. But the distinctive mechanism—LLM-prioritized angular coverage—is not actually demonstrated. A matched-count comparison or an ablation with spheres but fixed (or randomized) object ranking would settle it.

Recommendation: send to peer review. A good reviewer should ask for that ablation, for confidence intervals on Table 2, and for the undisclosed parameters. If the authors can supply a sphere-without-LLM condition, this becomes a much stronger paper.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents IntelliCap, an AR-based guidance system for human image capture for novel view synthesis. The system combines a spatial-coverage mesh visualization (pink-white stripes over unreconstructed regions) with spherical proxies placed around objects whose semantic categories have been scored by an LLM (Detectron2 categories, five appearance axes, averaged score). The authors report a within-subjects user study (N=12, three scenes) comparing no guidance (NV), spatial coverage only (SC), and the full system (Ours), with 3DGS and Nerfacto reconstructions evaluated by PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS against ground-truth views collected by an examiner. Table 2 reports that Ours achieves the best means on all six metric/model combinations (e.g., 3DGS PSNR 18.891 vs 17.086 for SC and 16.338 for NV), and the paper claims superior performance in real scenes compared to conventional view sampling strategies.

Significance. The problem addressed—helping non-expert humans capture view sets for 3DGS/NeRF in open scenes—is timely and under-studied, and the use of an external examiner-collected ground-truth set is a genuine methodological improvement over evaluating on participant-captured views. The paper also uses two renderers and three standard metrics, reports usability statistics from a repeated-measures design, and is unusually candid about its limitations, including the under-utilization of the LLM scores and the closed vocabulary. If the performance claim is causally attributable to the proposed guidance, this would be a useful contribution to human-in-the-loop acquisition. However, the current experimental design does not isolate the mechanism responsible for the observed quality gains, and the central quantitative claim is therefore not yet established at the level the abstract asserts.

major comments (4)

[§4.3 and Table 2] The central causal claim is unisolated because the Ours condition bundles several components: the sphere proxies, the LLM ranking, and a completion signal that led participants to capture significantly more images (SC: 231.67±131.31; Ours: 320.17±169.03; p=0.02, r=0.75). Since 3DGS and Nerfacto quality generally improve with the number and spatial coverage of training views, the Table 2 margins (e.g., 3DGS PSNR 18.891 vs 17.086; LPIPS 0.201 vs 0.253) are consistent with a pure capture-count effect. The paper needs either an ablation that presents spheres without LLM ranking, or an analysis that controls for image count (e.g., matching subsets, or a regression with capture count as a covariate), before the abstract claim that the proposed strategy yields superior performance can be supported.
[§3.2] The LLM-scoring mechanism that decides which objects receive spherical proxies is not specified reproducibly. The text reports a prompt template, five appearance axes, and that category labels are 'pre-scored by an LLM (e.g., MS Copilot)', but it does not state the threshold used to tag objects, the exact prompt, the LLM version or parameters, how non-determinism was handled, or whether the scores are cached. The Limitations section further concedes 'We do not fully utilize the LLM scores.' Without this information and without an ablation or sensitivity analysis of the threshold, the paper cannot substantiate the claim that LLM-prioritized angular coverage (rather than the mere presence of angular-sampling targets) is responsible for the results.
[§4.3 and Table 2] The auxiliary closeness-to-ground-truth analysis is double-edged and may itself explain the Table 2 improvements. The same ground-truth viewpoints are used both to compute the PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS scores and to measure how close each condition's training views are to those viewpoints; Ours has the smallest distance and angular difference (0.239 m and 12.4° vs 0.320/0.337 m and 18.5°/17.1°). Because radiance-field renderers generalize best near training views, this proximity can inflate the reported quality of Ours independently of any benefit of the guidance. The evaluation should use held-out viewpoints not present in the training set, or should statistically control for training-view-to-test-view distance.
[§4.2 Table 2] No inferential statistics are reported for the rendering-quality scores. Table 2 gives only means and standard deviations across what appear to be participant/scene replications, yet the paper's headline claim is that Ours 'outperforms the baselines in all image quality metrics.' With N=12 and three conditions, the differences (e.g., Nerfacto SSIM 0.616 vs 0.574) may or may not be reliable; the authors should report paired comparisons per participant (or per scene) with appropriate corrections, or a mixed model with participant and scene as random effects, to support the claim.

minor comments (6)

[§4.3] The text says NV and Ours collected a similar number of images, but no descriptive statistics for NV are given; only SC and Ours means are reported. Please provide the full table of counts and the pairwise test between NV and Ours.
[§3.2] The phrase 'pre-scored by an LLM (e.g., MS Copilot)' suggests the scores are computed offline, but the system description elsewhere implies online detection; clarify the offline/online split and whether the scores are deterministic across runs.
[§3.3] Several parameters (depth tolerance t=5.0 cm, sphere-display FoV thresholds of 20% and 100%, radius scaling k, merge radius cap) are introduced in prose; a table of all parameters with default values and units would improve reproducibility.
[§4.1] The ground-truth set size (20 images per scene) and the criterion 'randomly selected from the full stock' are not justified; please state the total stock size and the selection procedure.
[§4.3 / Figure 9] The post-task rankings (Q1–Q6) are summarized without a clear definition of the ranking scale and how ties were handled; please specify the scale and analysis procedure.
[General] Some symbols and Greek letters appear corrupted in the provided PDF (e.g., 'ﬂX', 'c 2', 'p 𝑚 0:01'); please ensure the camera-ready version renders all formulas correctly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central claim rests on an empirical user study with externally collected ground truth, not on definitions or fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its outcome metrics. The LLM category scores in Section 3.2 are an a priori semantic prior: 'The category labels are pre-scored by an LLM (e.g., MS Copilot 1).' They are not fitted to the PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS results or to any subset of the evaluation data, so the rendering-quality advantage of Ours is not a renamed version of the LLM scores. The sphere proxy representation is adapted from prior work by the authors ([3,19]), but that prior work is used as a visualization building block, not as evidence that Ours outperforms the baselines; the superiority claim is established by an independent user study with ground-truth views 'collected by another person (i.e., an examiner)' immediately after each trial. No equation in the paper defines the reported quality metrics in terms of the method's own outputs, and no fitted parameter is later reported as a prediction. The main interpretive risk is experimental rather than circular: Ours participants captured significantly more images than SC (320.17 vs 231.67, p=0.02), and the Ours condition bundles spatial coverage, angular spheres, and LLM ranking without an ablation isolating the LLM contribution. These are validity concerns about causal attribution, not instances of a result reducing to its inputs by construction. The Limitations section candidly notes that the authors 'do not fully utilize the LLM scores' and that the closed vocabulary is a limitation, which further confirms that the LLM prior is not the outcome variable in disguise.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system rests on several heuristic design choices (LLM scoring thresholds, sphere parameters, FoV display rules) that are not fitted or independently validated, and on domain assumptions about semantic priors and coverage sufficiency. These do not make the evaluation circular, but they bound the claim to the specific configuration tested.

free parameters (7)

LLM score threshold for tagging objects = not specified
Section 3.2 says 'Once an object is found that exceeds a threshold, the object is tagged'; the threshold controls which objects get sphere proxies but no value or selection procedure is given.
Number of sphere subsurfaces N = not specified
Section 3.1 defines the sphere proxy as containing N subsurfaces but N is never set; it determines the angular sampling density per object.
Sphere FoV display thresholds = 20% and 100% of camera FoV
Section 3.3, sphere appears when it occupies more than 20% of FoV and disappears at 100%; these hand-set values affect user interaction.
Depth tolerance t for sphere transparency = 5.0 cm
Section 3.3, set by default; controls occlusion handling and soft edges of sphere proxies.
Sphere radius scaling factor k = not specified
Section 3.2, 'A scaling factor k ensures that the sphere fully encloses the object'; no value is given.
Sphere merge radius cap = not specified
Section 3.3, 'The radius of the new sphere is truncated at a maximum value'; the maximum is not disclosed.
Capture and keyframe intervals = 0.2 s and 5 s
Section 4.1, images are saved every 0.2 s and keyframes are sent every 5 s; these fixed timing choices affect coverage density.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Semantic category priors predict photometric and geometric complexity
Section 3.2 uses LLM category scores to decide which objects need denser sampling; this is not validated against actual complexity or an alternative ranking.
domain assumption Uniform distribution of subsurfaces on a sphere suffices for angular coverage
Section 3.2 relies on Saff and Kuijlaars point distribution for uniform subsurfaces; no quantitative justification ties this distribution to view-dependent rendering quality.
domain assumption Smartphone scene mesh (ARCore/ARKit) is accurate enough for spatial coverage feedback
Section 3.1 uses the native scene meshing API as the spatial proxy; the paper does not analyze mesh accuracy or its effect on guidance quality.
domain assumption Examiner ground truth collected immediately after each trial is unaffected by scene drift
Section 4.1 uses this procedure to minimize lighting and layout drift, but changing natural light between trials is acknowledged as a risk in the limitations.
domain assumption Metric scale calibration via one known bottle size is accurate for viewpoint distance comparisons
Section 4.2 uses Coherent Point Drift plus a known glass bottle size to compute metric distances; this relies on a single calibration object and assumes CPD scale matching is correct.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of IntelliCap: Intelligent Guidance for Consistent View Sampling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WJMRQQIW

@misc{pith2026250813043,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: IntelliCap: Intelligent Guidance for Consistent View Sampling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WJMRQQIW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13043}
}

read the original abstract

Novel view synthesis from images, for example, with 3D Gaussian splatting, has made great progress. Rendering fidelity and speed are now ready even for demanding virtual reality applications. However, the problem of assisting humans in collecting the input images for these rendering algorithms has received much less attention. High-quality view synthesis requires uniform and dense view sampling. Unfortunately, these requirements are not easily addressed by human camera operators, who are in a hurry, impatient, or lack understanding of the scene structure and the photographic process. Existing approaches to guide humans during image acquisition concentrate on single objects or neglect view-dependent material characteristics. We propose a novel situated visualization technique for scanning at multiple scales. During the scanning of a scene, our method identifies important objects that need extended image coverage to properly represent view-dependent appearance. To this end, we leverage semantic segmentation and category identification, ranked by a vision-language model. Spherical proxies are generated around highly ranked objects to guide the user during scanning. Our results show superior performance in real scenes compared to conventional view sampling strategies.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := STRINGS d dc pc.str doi.urlstr INTEGERS nth.dash doi.string.pos doilen FUNCTION add.doi doi empty "\ doi 'd := "" 'doi.urlstr := #0 'nth.dash := #1 'doi.string.pos := d text.length 'doilen := nth.dash #3 < d doi.string.pos #1 substring 'dc := #1 doi.string.pos + 'doi.string.pos := dc "/" = #1 nth.dash + 'nth....
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := STRINGS d dc pc.str doi.urlstr INTEGERS nth.dash doi.string.pos doilen FUNCTION add.doi doi empty "\ doi 'd := "" 'doi.urlstr := #0 'nth.dash := #1 'doi.string.pos := d text.length 'doilen := nth.dash #3 < d doi.string.pos #1 substring 'dc := #1 doi.string.pos + 'doi.string.pos := dc "/" = #1 nth.dash + 'nth....
[3]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := STRINGS d dc pc.str doi.urlstr INTEGERS nth.dash doi.string.pos doilen FUNCTION add.doi doi empty "\ doi 'd := "" 'doi.urlstr := #0 'nth.dash := #1 'doi.string.pos := d text.length 'doilen := nth.dash #3 < d doi.string.pos #1 substring 'dc := #1 doi.string.pos + 'doi.string.pos := dc "/" = #1 nth.dash + 'nth....
[4]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := STRINGS d dc pc.str doi.urlstr INTEGERS nth.dash doi.string.pos doilen FUNCTION add.doi doi empty "\ doi 'd := "" 'doi.urlstr := #0 'nth.dash := #1 'doi.string.pos := d text.length 'doilen := nth.dash #3 < d doi.string.pos #1 substring 'dc := #1 doi.string.pos + 'doi.string.pos := dc "/" = #1 nth.dash + 'nth....
[5]

Birklbauer and O

C. Birklbauer and O. Bimber. Active guidance for light-field photography on smartphones. Computers and Graphics (C&G) , 53(PB):127–135, dec 2015

work page 2015
[6]

J.-X. Chai, X. Tong, S.-C. Chan, and H.-Y. Shum. Plenoptic sampling. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH) , pp. 307--318, 2000

work page 2000
[7]

Davis, M

A. Davis, M. Levoy, and F. Durand. Unstructured light fields. In Computer Graphics Forum , vol. 31, pp. 305--314. Wiley Online Library, 2012

work page 2012
[8]

O. Erat, M. Hoell, K. Haubenwallner, C. Pirchheim, and D. Schmalstieg. Real-time view planning for unstructured lumigraph modeling. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG) , 25(11):3063--3072, 2019

work page 2019

Show all 43 references

[9]

L. Fink, D. R \"u ckert, L. Franke, J. Keinert, and M. Stamminger. Livenvs: Neural view synthesis on live rgb-d streams. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH) Asia , pp. 1--11, 2023

2023
[10]

L. Goli, C. Reading, S. Sell \'a n, A. Jacobson, and A. Tagliasacchi. Bayes' rays: Uncertainty quantification for neural radiance fields. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pp. 20061--20070, 2024

2024
[11]

Hanson, A

A. Hanson, A. Tu, V. Singla, M. Jayawardhana, M. Zwicker, and T. Goldstein. Pup 3d-gs: Principled uncertainty pruning for 3d gaussian splatting. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2025

2025
[12]

S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland. Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in Psychology , vol. 52, pp. 139--183. Elsevier, 1988

1988
[13]

Ishikawa, H

R. Ishikawa, H. Saito, D. Kalkofen, and S. Mori. Multi-layer scene representation from composed focal stacks. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG) , 29(11):4719--4729, 2023. doi: 10 .1pt . . .4pt 1109 / / TVCG .1pt . . .4pt 2023 .1pt . . .4pt 3320248

2023
[14]

L. Jin, X. Chen, J. Rückin, and M. Popović. Neu-nbv: Next best view planning using uncertainty estimation in image-based neural rendering. In Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pp. 11305--11312, 2023. doi: 10 .1pt . . .4pt 1109 / / IROS55552 .1pt . ....

2023
[15]

Keetha, J

N. Keetha, J. Karhade, K. M. Jatavallabhula, G. Yang, S. Scherer, D. Ramanan, and J. Luiten. Splatam: Splat track & map 3d gaussians for dense rgb-d slam. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pp. 21357--21366, 2024

2024
[16]

Kerbl, G

B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimkuehler, and G. Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. on Graphics (TOG) , 42:1 -- 14, 2023

2023
[17]

Kopanas and G

G. Kopanas and G. Drettakis. Improving NeRF Quality by Progressive Camera Placement for Free-Viewpoint Navigation . In M. Guthe and T. Grosch, eds., Vision, Modeling, and Visualization . The Eurographics Association, 2023. doi: 10 .1pt . . .4pt 2312 / / vmv .1pt . . .4pt 20231222

2023
[18]

J. R. Lewis. The system usability scale: past, present, and future. Int. Journal of Human--Computer Interaction , 34(7):577--590, 2018

2018
[19]

Y. Li, Z. Kuang, T. Li, G. Zhou, S. Zhang, and Z. Yan. Activesplat: High-fidelity scene reconstruction through active gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21955 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[20]

Matsuki, R

H. Matsuki, R. Murai, P. H. Kelly, and A. J. Davison. Gaussian splatting slam. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pp. 18039--18048, 2024

2024
[21]

Matsuki, R

H. Matsuki, R. Murai, P. H. J. Kelly, and A. J. Davison. G aussian S platting SLAM . In Proc. Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2024

2024
[22]

Mildenhall, P

B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, R. Ortiz-Cayon, N. K. Kalantari, R. Ramamoorthi, R. Ng, and A. Kar. Local light field fusion: Practical view synthesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines. ACM Trans. on Graphics (TOG) , 2019

2019
[23]

P. Mohr, S. Mori, T. Langlotz, B. H. Thomas, D. Schmalstieg, and D. Kalkofen. Mixed Reality Light Fields for Interactive Remote Assistance , p. 1–12. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2020

2020
[24]

M\"uller, A

T. M\"uller, A. Evans, C. Schied, and A. Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding. ACM Trans. on Graphics (TOG) , 41(4):102:1--102:15, July 2022. doi: 10 .1pt . . .4pt 1145 / / 3528223 .1pt . . .4pt 3530127

2022
[25]

Myronenko and X

A. Myronenko and X. Song. Point set registration: Coherent point drift. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI) , 32(12):2262--2275, 2010

2010
[26]

R. A. Newcombe, S. Izadi, O. Hilliges, D. Molyneaux, D. Kim, A. J. Davison, P. Kohi, J. Shotton, S. Hodges, and A. Fitzgibbon. Kinectfusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking. In Proc. Int. Symp. on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) , pp. 127--136. Ieee, 2011

2011
[27]

R. A. Newcombe, S. J. Lovegrove, and A. J. Davison. Dtam: Dense tracking and mapping in real-time. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pp. 2320--2327, 2011. doi: 10 .1pt . . .4pt 1109 / / ICCV .1pt . . .4pt 2011 .1pt . . .4pt 6126513

2011
[28]

R. Ng. Fourier slice photography. In ACM Trans. on Graphics (TOG) , vol. 24, pp. 735--744. ACM, 2005

2005
[29]

E. B. Saff and A. B. Kuijlaars. Distributing many points on a sphere. The Mathematical Intelligencer , 19:5--11, 1997

1997
[30]

Schischka, H

N. Schischka, H. Schieber, M. A. Karaoglu, M. Gorgulu, F. Grötzner, A. Ladikos, N. Navab, D. Roth, and B. Busam. Dynamon: Motion-aware fast and robust camera localization for dynamic neural radiance fields. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 10(1):548--555, 2025

2025
[31]

J. L. Sch\" o nberger and J.-M. Frahm. Structure-from-motion revisited. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2016

2016
[32]

Sucar, S

E. Sucar, S. Liu, J. Ortiz, and A. Davison. iMAP : Implicit mapping and positioning in real-time. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2021

2021
[33]

J. Sun, Z. Wang, S. Zhang, X. He, H. Zhao, G. Zhang, and X. Zhou. OnePose : One-shot object pose estimation without CAD models. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2022

2022
[34]

S \"u nderhauf, J

N. S \"u nderhauf, J. Abou-Chakra, and D. Miller. Density-aware NeRF ensembles: Quantifying predictive uncertainty in neural radiance fields. pp. 9370--9376, 2023

2023
[35]

Tancik, E

M. Tancik, E. Weber, E. Ng, R. Li, B. Yi, J. Kerr, T. Wang, A. Kristoffersen, J. Austin, K. Salahi, A. Ahuja, D. McAllister, and A. Kanazawa. Nerfstudio: A modular framework for neural radiance field development. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (...

2023
[36]

Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans. on Image Processing (TIP) , 13(4):600--612, 2004

2004
[37]

Wizadwongsa, P

S. Wizadwongsa, P. Phongthawee, J. Yenphraphai, and S. Suwajanakorn. NeX : Real-time view synthesis with neural basis expansion. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pp. 8534--8543, 2021

2021
[38]

Y. Wu, A. Kirillov, F. Massa, W.-Y. Lo, and R. Girshick. Detectron2. https://github.com/facebookresearch/detectron2, 2019

2019
[39]

W. Xiao, R. Santa Cruz, D. Ahmedt-Aristizabal, O. Salvado, C. Fookes, and L. Lebrat. Nerf director: Revisiting view selection in neural volume rendering. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2024

2024
[40]

X. Yang, T. Wang, H. Liu, Y. Jin, C. Lang, and Y. Li. Enhancing multimedia applications by removing dynamic objects in neural radiance fields. pp. 2070--2086, 2024

2024
[41]

Zhang, P

R. Zhang, P. Isola, A. A. Efros, E. Shechtman, and O. Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pp. 586--595, 2018

2018
[42]

Z. Zhu, S. Peng, V. Larsson, Z. Cui, M. R. Oswald, A. Geiger, and M. Pollefeys. Nicer-slam: Neural implicit scene encoding for rgb slam. In Proc. Int. Conf. on 3D Vision , March 2024

2024
[43]

Z. Zhu, S. Peng, V. Larsson, W. Xu, H. Bao, Z. Cui, M. R. Oswald, and M. Pollefeys. Nice-slam: Neural implicit scalable encoding for slam. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2022

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := STRINGS d dc pc.str doi.urlstr INTEGERS nth.dash doi.string.pos doilen FUNCTION add.doi doi empty "\ doi 'd := "" 'doi.urlstr := #0 'nth.dash := #1 'doi.string.pos := d text.length 'doilen := nth.dash #3 < d doi.string.pos #1 substring 'dc := #1 doi.string.pos + 'doi.string.pos := dc "/" = #1 nth.dash + 'nth....

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := STRINGS d dc pc.str doi.urlstr INTEGERS nth.dash doi.string.pos doilen FUNCTION add.doi doi empty "\ doi 'd := "" 'doi.urlstr := #0 'nth.dash := #1 'doi.string.pos := d text.length 'doilen := nth.dash #3 < d doi.string.pos #1 substring 'dc := #1 doi.string.pos + 'doi.string.pos := dc "/" = #1 nth.dash + 'nth....

[3] [3]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := STRINGS d dc pc.str doi.urlstr INTEGERS nth.dash doi.string.pos doilen FUNCTION add.doi doi empty "\ doi 'd := "" 'doi.urlstr := #0 'nth.dash := #1 'doi.string.pos := d text.length 'doilen := nth.dash #3 < d doi.string.pos #1 substring 'dc := #1 doi.string.pos + 'doi.string.pos := dc "/" = #1 nth.dash + 'nth....

[4] [4]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := STRINGS d dc pc.str doi.urlstr INTEGERS nth.dash doi.string.pos doilen FUNCTION add.doi doi empty "\ doi 'd := "" 'doi.urlstr := #0 'nth.dash := #1 'doi.string.pos := d text.length 'doilen := nth.dash #3 < d doi.string.pos #1 substring 'dc := #1 doi.string.pos + 'doi.string.pos := dc "/" = #1 nth.dash + 'nth....

[5] [5]

Birklbauer and O

C. Birklbauer and O. Bimber. Active guidance for light-field photography on smartphones. Computers and Graphics (C&G) , 53(PB):127–135, dec 2015

work page 2015

[6] [6]

J.-X. Chai, X. Tong, S.-C. Chan, and H.-Y. Shum. Plenoptic sampling. In Proc. Conf. on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH) , pp. 307--318, 2000

work page 2000

[7] [7]

Davis, M

A. Davis, M. Levoy, and F. Durand. Unstructured light fields. In Computer Graphics Forum , vol. 31, pp. 305--314. Wiley Online Library, 2012

work page 2012

[8] [8]

O. Erat, M. Hoell, K. Haubenwallner, C. Pirchheim, and D. Schmalstieg. Real-time view planning for unstructured lumigraph modeling. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG) , 25(11):3063--3072, 2019

work page 2019