skip to main content
research-article

Virtual Rephotography: Novel View Prediction Error for 3D Reconstruction

Published:06 January 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The ultimate goal of many image-based modeling systems is to render photo-realistic novel views of a scene without visible artifacts. Existing evaluation metrics and benchmarks focus mainly on the geometric accuracy of the reconstructed model, which is, however, a poor predictor of visual accuracy. Furthermore, using only geometric accuracy by itself does not allow evaluating systems that either lack a geometric scene representation or utilize coarse proxy geometry. Examples include a light field and most image-based rendering systems. We propose a unified evaluation approach based on novel view prediction error that is able to analyze the visual quality of any method that can render novel views from input images. One key advantage of this approach is that it does not require ground truth geometry. This dramatically simplifies the creation of test datasets and benchmarks. It also allows us to evaluate the quality of an unknown scene during the acquisition and reconstruction process, which is useful for acquisition planning. We evaluate our approach on a range of methods, including standard geometry-plus-texture pipelines as well as image-based rendering techniques, compare it to existing geometry-based benchmarks, demonstrate its utility for a range of use cases, and present a new virtual rephotography-based benchmark for image-based modeling and rendering systems.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

tog-24.mp4

mp4

337 MB

References

  1. Henrik Aanæs, Rasmus Ramsbøl Jensen, George Vogiatzis, Engin Tola, and Anders Bjorholm Dahl. 2016. Large-scale data for multiple-view stereopsis. IJCV 120, 2, 153--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Tunç Ozan Aydın, Rafał Mantiuk, Karol Myszkowski, and Hans-Peter Seidel. 2008. Dynamic range independent image quality assessment. In SIGGRAPH. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Soonmin Bae, Aseem Agarwala, and Frédo Durand. 2010. Computational rephotography. ACM Transactions on Graphics 29, 3, 24:1--24:15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Simon Baker, Daniel Scharstein, J. P. Lewis, Stefan Roth, Michael J. Black, and Richard Szeliski. 2011. A database and evaluation methodology for optical flow. IJCV 92, 1, 1--31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Kai Berger, Christian Lipski, Christian Linz, Anita Sellent, and Marcus Magnor. 2010. A ghosting artifact detector for interpolated image quality assessment. In International Symposium on Consumer Electronics. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Chris Buehler, Michael Bosse, Leonard McMillan, Steven Gortler, and Michael F. Cohen. 2001. Unstructured Lumigraph rendering. In SIGGRAPH. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Fatih Calakli, Ali O. Ulusoy, Maria I. Restrepo, Gabriel Taubin, and Joseph L. Mundy. 2012. High resolution surface reconstruction from multi-view aerial imagery. In 3DIMPVT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Neill D. Campbell, George Vogiatzis, Carlos Hernández, and Roberto Cipolla. 2008. Using multiple hypotheses to improve depth-maps for multi-view stereo. In ECCV. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Scott Daly. 1993. The visible differences predictor: An algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity. In Digital Images and Human Vision.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Andrew Fitzgibbon, Yonatan Wexler, and Andrew Zisserman. 2005. Image-based rendering using image-based priors. IJCV 63, 2, 141--151. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Wolfgang Förstner. 1996. 10 pros and cons against performance characterization of vision algorithms. In Workshop on Performance Characteristics of Vision Algorithms.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Simon Fuhrmann and Michael Goesele. 2011. Fusion of depth maps with multiple scales. In SIGGRAPH Asia. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Simon Fuhrmann, Fabian Langguth, Nils Moehrle, Michael Waechter, and Michael Goesele. 2015. MVE -- An image-based reconstruction environment. Computers 8 Graphics 53, Part A (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Yasutaka Furukawa, Brian Curless, Steven M. Seitz, and Richard Szeliski. 2010. Towards internet-scale multi-view stereo. In CVPR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Yasutaka Furukawa and Jean Ponce. 2010. Accurate, dense, and robust multi-view stereopsis. PAMI 32, 8, 1362--1376. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Michael Goesele, Noah Snavely, Brian Curless, Hugues Hoppe, and Steven M. Seitz. 2007. Multi-view stereo for community photo collections. In ICCV. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Steven J. Gortler, Radek Grzeszczuk, Richard Szeliski, and Michael F. Cohen. 1996. The Lumigraph. In SIGGRAPH. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Stefan Guthe, Douglas Cunningham, Pascal Schardt, and Michael Goesele. 2016. Ghosting and popping detection for image-based rendering. In 3DTV Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Tom Haber, Christian Fuchs, Philippe Bekaert, Hans-Peter Seidel, Michael Goesele, and Hendrik P. A. Lensch. 2009. Relighting objects from image collections. In CVPR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Christian Hofsetz, Kim Ng, George Chen, Peter McGuinness, Nelson Max, and Yang Liu. 2004. Image-based rendering of range data with estimated depth uncertainty. Computer Graphics and Applications 24, 4, 34--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Yuan Hongxing, Guo Li, Yu Li, and Cheng Long. 2010. Multi-view reconstruction using band graph-cuts. Journal of Computer-Aided Design 8 Computer Graphics 4 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Christof Hoppe, Manfred Klopschitz, Markus Rumpler, Andreas Wendel, Stefan Kluckner, Horst Bischof, and Gerhard Reitmayr. 2012a. Online feedback for structure-from-motion image acquisition. In BMVC. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Christof Hoppe, Andreas Wendel, Stefanie Zollmann, Katrin Pirker, Arnold Irschara, Horst Bischof, and Stefan Kluckner. 2012b. Photogrammetric camera network design for micro aerial vehicles. In Computer Vision Winter Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Michael Kazhdan, Matthew Bolitho, and Hugues Hoppe. 2006. Poisson surface reconstruction. In SGP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Johannes Kopf, Michael F. Cohen, and Richard Szeliski. 2014. First-person hyper-lapse videos. In SIGGRAPH. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Yvan G. Leclerc, Quang-Tuan Luong, and Pascal Fua. 2000. Measuring the self-consistency of stereo algorithms. In ECCV. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Marc Levoy and Pat Hanrahan. 1996. Light field rendering. In SIGGRAPH. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Rafał Mantiuk. 2013. Quantifying image quality in graphics: Perspective on subjective and objective metrics and their performance. In SPIE, Vol. 8651.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Rafał Mantiuk, Kil Joong Kim, Allan G. Rempel, and Wolfgang Heidrich. 2011. HDR-VDP-2: A calibrated visual metric for visibility and quality predictions in all luminance conditions. In SIGGRAPH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Paul Merrell, Amir Akbarzadeh, Liang Wang, Philippos Mordohai, Jan-Michael Frahm, Ruigang Yang, David Nistér, and Marc Pollefeys. 2007. Real-time visibility-based fusion of depth maps. In ICCV. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Ken Perlin. 2002. Improving noise. In SIGGRAPH. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Jens Preiss, Felipe Fernandes, and Philipp Urban. 2014. Color-image quality assessment: From prediction to optimization. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 23, 3, 1366--1378. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Ganesh Ramanarayanan, James Ferwerda, Bruce Walter, and Kavita Bala. 2007. Visual equivalence: Towards a new standard for image fidelity. In SIGGRAPH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Michael Schwarz and Marc Stamminger. 2009. On predicting visual popping in dynamic scenes. In Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Steven M. Seitz, Brian Curless, James Diebel, Daniel Scharstein, and Richard Szeliski. 2006. A comparison and evaluation of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms. In CVPR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Qi Shan, Riley Adams, Brian Curless, Yasutaka Furukawa, and Steven M. Seitz. 2013. The visual Turing test for scene reconstruction. In 3DV.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Noah Snavely, Steven M. Seitz, and Richard Szeliski. 2006. Photo tourism: Exploring photo collections in 3D. In SIGGRAPH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Christoph Strecha, Wolfgang von Hansen, Luc Van Gool, Pascal Fua, and Ulrich Thoennessen. 2008. On benchmarking camera calibration and multi-view stereo for high resolution imagery. In CVPR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Richard Szeliski. 1999. Prediction error as a quality metric for motion and stereo. In ICCV. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. James Tompkin, Min H. Kim, Kwang In Kim, Jan Kautz, and Christian Theobalt. 2013. Preference and artifact analysis for video transitions of places. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 10, 3, 13:1--13:19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Kathleen Tuite, Noah Snavely, Dun-yu Hsiao, Nadine Tabing, and Zoran Popović. 2011. PhotoCity: Training experts at large-scale image acquisition through a competitive game. In SIGCHI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Peter Vangorp, Gaurav Chaurasia, Pierre-Yves Laffont, Roland Fleming, and George Drettakis. 2011. Perception of visual artifacts in image-based rendering of façades. In Eurographics Symposium on Rendering. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Peter Vangorp, Christian Richardt, Emily A. Cooper, Gaurav Chaurasia, Martin S. Banks, and George Drettakis. 2013. Perception of perspective distortions in image-based rendering. In SIGGRAPH. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Kenneth Vanhoey, Basile Sauvage, Pierre Kraemer, Frédéric Larue, and Jean-Michel Dischler. 2015. Simplification of meshes with digitized radiance. The Visual Computer 31, 6, 1011--1021. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Michael Waechter, Nils Moehrle, and Michael Goesele. 2014. Let there be color! Large-scale texturing of 3D reconstructions. In ECCV.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhou Wang, Alan C. Bovik, Hamid R. Sheikh, and Eero P. Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13, 4, 600--612. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Robert H. Webb, Diane E. Boyer, and Raymond M. Turner. 2010. Repeat Photography. Island Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Yizhou Yu, Paul Debevec, Jitendra Malik, and Tim Hawkins. 1999. Inverse global illumination: Recovering reflectance models of real scenes from photographs. In SIGGRAPH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Ramin Zabih and John Woodfill. 1994. Non-parametric local transforms for computing visual correspondence. In ECCV. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Matthias Zwicker, Hanspeter Pfister, Jeroen van Baar, and Markus Gross. 2001. Surface splatting. In SIGGRAPH. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Virtual Rephotography: Novel View Prediction Error for 3D Reconstruction

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Graphics
        ACM Transactions on Graphics  Volume 36, Issue 1
        February 2017
        165 pages
        ISSN:0730-0301
        EISSN:1557-7368
        DOI:10.1145/2996392
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 6 January 2017
        • Accepted: 1 September 2016
        • Revised: 1 July 2016
        • Received: 1 November 2015
        Published in tog Volume 36, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader