2012
DOI: 10.1364/josaa.29.001794
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Visibility in three-dimensional cluttered scenes

Abstract: Three-dimensional (3D) cluttered scenes consist of a large number of small surfaces distributed randomly in a 3D view volume. The canonical example is the foliage of a tree or bush. 3D cluttered scenes are challenging for vision tasks such as object recognition and depth perception because most surfaces or objects are only partly visible. This paper examines the probabilities of surface visibility in 3D cluttered scenes. We model how the probabilities of visible gaps, depth discontinuities, and binocular and h… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

4
17
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
4
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Interestingly, hidden surfaces and hybrid occlusions were 4 often more frequent than a self-occlusion in this simulation. 5 6 Lastly, our results are consistent with the simulations presented by Langer & Mannan (2012), in 7 that we observe more monocular regions when the environments are populated with smaller 8 objects (Langer & Mannan, 2012). For example, in the small-scale environments with the many 9 small objects, over 30% of visible points were monocular, whereas in the large-scale 10 environments less than 3% of visible points were monocular.…”
supporting
confidence: 84%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Interestingly, hidden surfaces and hybrid occlusions were 4 often more frequent than a self-occlusion in this simulation. 5 6 Lastly, our results are consistent with the simulations presented by Langer & Mannan (2012), in 7 that we observe more monocular regions when the environments are populated with smaller 8 objects (Langer & Mannan, 2012). For example, in the small-scale environments with the many 9 small objects, over 30% of visible points were monocular, whereas in the large-scale 10 environments less than 3% of visible points were monocular.…”
supporting
confidence: 84%
“…It is important to note that the natural scene dataset used here does not contain objects that are 25 closer than 3 m. This limitation of the dataset should be considered when interpreting the results 26 of our analysis because prior work suggests that the prevalence of monocularly visible regions 27 depends on the distribution of object distances in a scene (Langer & Mannan, 2012). That said, 28…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…is constant within each column and increases from left to right. The parameter k is called the occlusion factor (Langer & Mannan, 2012). It is the expected total area of the surfaces in the clutter per cm 3 .…”
Section: Stimulimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Firstly, performing reliable stereo matching can be challenging in agricultural fields, since vegetation has significant depth discontinuities and occlusions which often cause sparse or incorrect matches (Rovira-Más et al 2008;Langer & Mannan 2012). With noisy depth measurements, stereo methods may perform poorly on very young or short crops where the height difference between the crop and soil can become lost in the noise.…”
Section: Stereo Vision-based Crop Row Trackingmentioning
confidence: 99%