1993
DOI: 10.1109/34.184774
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

View variation of point-set and line-segment features

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
52
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2006
2006

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 128 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
2
52
0
Order By: Relevance
“…That is, unless we could eliminate the nuisance ν without "throwing away information" on the scene ξ. 5 Unfortunately, Corollary 1 says that this is not possible: in order to achieve viewpoint invariance, shape information has to be sacrificed. In light of this result, then, does it still make sense to use features?…”
Section: Why Features?mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…That is, unless we could eliminate the nuisance ν without "throwing away information" on the scene ξ. 5 Unfortunately, Corollary 1 says that this is not possible: in order to achieve viewpoint invariance, shape information has to be sacrificed. In light of this result, then, does it still make sense to use features?…”
Section: Why Features?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On viewpoint invariance, Burns et al [5] showed that there do not exist generic viewpoint invariants. This statement, however, is misleading, since it refers to collections of points in space, with no photometric signature associated to them.…”
Section: State Of the Art And Our Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We first present a proof from Clemens and .Jacobs):32] which applies only to scaled orthographic projection, and then a proof discovered by Burns, Weiss and Riseman [24] and by Moses and Ullman [84] which applies to all projection models. The results of Clemens and Jacobs [31] and Burns, \Weiss and Riseman [22] appeared simultaneously. The work of Moses and Ulhlan [83] appeared later.…”
Section: There Are No Invariantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is well known [Burns et al 1990] that this cannot be done without some external, or "modelbased", assumption, namely prior information about the shape of the object. This is easy to see if we have a 1-D view of a 2-D point set.…”
Section: -D Shapesmentioning
confidence: 99%