2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/cvpr.2016.505
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Consensus of Non-rigid Reconstructions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
84
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(85 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
84
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, we proposed to use the coherence of the final dictionary as a model quality measure, offering a practical way to avoid over-fitting and select the best checkpoint during training without relying on 3D ground-truth. [20], SPS [18], NLO [12]. Each column corresponds to reconstructions of a certain frame, randomly selected from each subject.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Finally, we proposed to use the coherence of the final dictionary as a model quality measure, offering a practical way to avoid over-fitting and select the best checkpoint during training without relying on 3D ground-truth. [20], SPS [18], NLO [12]. Each column corresponds to reconstructions of a certain frame, randomly selected from each subject.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, our network also show a well generalization to unseen data which improve the effectiveness in real world applications. For qualitative evaluation, we randomly select a frame from Subjects 01 05 18 23 64 70 102 106 123 127 Average Relative CNS [20] each subject and render the reconstructed human skeleton in Figure 5. This visually verifies the impressive performance of our deep solution.…”
Section: Large-scale Nrsf M On Cmu Mocapmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Deep-NRSfM Weaksup-bs Ours GT. P-MPJPE MPJPE depth error Ranklet [11] 281.1 --Sparse [20] 217.4 --SPM(2k) [9] 209.5 --SFC [22] 167.1 218.0 135.6 KSTA(5k) [16] 123.6 --RIKS(5k) [17] 103.9 --Consensus [25] 79.6 120. 3D pose estimation network: We select the integral regression network [36] due to its state-of-the-art performance in human pose estimation.…”
Section: Consensusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Evaluation on CMU sequences with two subjects. The table reports the 3D reconstruction error eX for the following NRSfM baselines considering 2D tracks without missing data: CSF [21], KSTA [22], SPM [16], EM-PND [24], TUS [40], GBNR [18] and CNR [25]; and ours. For our approach, we also show the clustering errors eS and eT , where we include the number of spatial and temporal clusters in brackets.…”
Section: Spatial and Temporal Clusteringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…σ f x , σ f y and σ f z are the error standard deviations at frame f . We compare the reconstruction accuracy of our approach, denoted DUST, against seven NRSfM baselines: the trajectory-space methods CSF [21] and KSTA [22]; the block matrix approach BMM [16], the probabilisticnormal-distribution method EM-PND [24], the temporal union of subspaces TUS [40], the grouping-based NRSfM of GBNR [18] and the consensus NRSfM of CNR [25]. For CSF [21] and KSTA [22], we manually set the rank of the subspace to the value yielding the best results.…”
Section: Experimental Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%