Dense Semi-rigid Scene Flow Estimation from RGBD Images
By Julian Quiroga, Thomas Brox, Frederic Devernay, James L. Crowley. 2014
128 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Aerospace Engineering, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Aerospace Engineering
- Deqing Sun
- Eddy Ilg
- Margret Keuper
- Tonmoy Saikia
- Erik B. Sudderth
- Hanspeter Pfister
- Wanqing Li
- Thomas Brox
In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
- Wanqing Li
- Pichao Wang
- Philip O. Ogunbona
- Luc Van Gool
- Zhimin Gao
- Ming-Hsuan Yang
- Chang-Fu Tang
- Dacheng Tao
Citations in the corpus
- Scene Flow to Action Map: A New Representation for RGB-D Based Action Recognition with Convolutional Neural Networks (2017, methodology): “In contrast to optical flow which provides the projection of the scene motion onto the image plane, scene flow [41, 6, 26, 8, 11, 37, 32] estimates the actual 3D motion field.”
- SE3-nets: Learning rigid body motion using deep neural networks (2016, neutral): “We also vary the table size to introduce background variations.”
- Occlusions, Motion and Depth Boundaries with a Generic Network for Disparity, Optical Flow or Scene Flow Estimation (2018, methodology): “Scene flow estimation was popularized for the first time by the work of Vedula et al. [45] and was later dominated by variational methods [15] [33] [47].”
- FlowNet3D: Learning Scene Flow in 3D Point Clouds (2018, unknown): “With the recent advent of commodity depth sensors, it has become feasible to estimate scene flow from monocular RGB-D images [9], by generalizing variational 2D flow algorithms to 3D [10, 14] and exploiting more geometric cues provided by the depth channel [21, 11, 23].”
- Layered RGBD scene flow estimation (2015, methodology): “Teddy Cones RMS AAE RMS AAE Proposed (K = 4) 0.09 0.17 0.12 0.13 SRSF [27] 0.49 0.46 0.45 0.37 Hadfield and Bowden [17] 0.52 1.36 0.59 1.61 Basha et al. [7] (2 views) 0.57 1.01 0.58 0.39 Quiroga et al. [28] 0.94 0.84 0.79 0.52 FC-2Layers-FF [41]∗ 1.90 0.24 2.80 0.18 Classic+NLP [38]∗ 2.00 0.24 2.79 ”