2017
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-68345-4_6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monocular Epipolar Constraint for Optical Flow Estimation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1
1
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The KITTI 2015 benchmark [13] [23] 3.38 % 10.06 % 0.9 px 2.9 px 100.00 % 11 s 1 core @ 3.5 Ghz SDF [34] 3.80 % 7.69 % 1.0 px 2.3 px 100.00 % TBA 1 core @ 2.5 Ghz MotionSLIC [35] 3.91 % 10.56 % 0.9 px 2.7 px 100.00 % 11 s 1 core @ 3.0 Ghz RicFlow [36] 4.96 % 13.04 % 1.3 px 3.2 px 100.00 % 5 s 1 core @ 3.5 Ghz CPM2 [37] 5.60 % 13.52 % 1.3 px 3.3 px 100.00 % 4 s 1 core @ 2.5 Ghz CPM-Flow [37] 5.79 % 13.70 % 1.3 px 3.2 px 100.00 % 4.2s 1 core @ 3.5 Ghz MEC-Flow [38] 6.95 % 17.91 % 1.8 px 6.0 px 100.00 % 3 s 1 core @ 2.5 Ghz DeepFlow [18] 7 challenges of dynamic scene objects (vehicles). These exhibit far larger pixel displacements in some areas resulting in lower algorithm performance on KITTI 2015 (Table 3) than on KITTI 2012 (Table 2).…”
Section: Benchmark Comparison -Kitti 2015mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The KITTI 2015 benchmark [13] [23] 3.38 % 10.06 % 0.9 px 2.9 px 100.00 % 11 s 1 core @ 3.5 Ghz SDF [34] 3.80 % 7.69 % 1.0 px 2.3 px 100.00 % TBA 1 core @ 2.5 Ghz MotionSLIC [35] 3.91 % 10.56 % 0.9 px 2.7 px 100.00 % 11 s 1 core @ 3.0 Ghz RicFlow [36] 4.96 % 13.04 % 1.3 px 3.2 px 100.00 % 5 s 1 core @ 3.5 Ghz CPM2 [37] 5.60 % 13.52 % 1.3 px 3.3 px 100.00 % 4 s 1 core @ 2.5 Ghz CPM-Flow [37] 5.79 % 13.70 % 1.3 px 3.2 px 100.00 % 4.2s 1 core @ 3.5 Ghz MEC-Flow [38] 6.95 % 17.91 % 1.8 px 6.0 px 100.00 % 3 s 1 core @ 2.5 Ghz DeepFlow [18] 7 challenges of dynamic scene objects (vehicles). These exhibit far larger pixel displacements in some areas resulting in lower algorithm performance on KITTI 2015 (Table 3) than on KITTI 2012 (Table 2).…”
Section: Benchmark Comparison -Kitti 2015mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using the size of the target as the top-level feature baseline, the baseline information is transmitted to the features of each level, and then the real proportion of the displacement T in the motion of the monocular camera is solved, so as to solve the scale uncertainty and reduce the drift. We note that the feature matching in traditional visual odometry often directly uses the extraction of feature points or pixel gradient information such as oriented fast and rotated brief (ORB) [16], and then uses the epipolar constraint [17] and random consistency algorithm [18] to obtain reliable motion matching. At the same time, due to the scale equivalence of the essential matrix E in the epipolar constraint, the resulting displacement T also faces the scale uncertainty problem.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%