Cited by 2,457Advanced Vision and Imaging3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage3D Shape Modeling and Analysis

A Comparison and Evaluation of Multi-View Stereo Reconstruction Algorithms

Seitz, S.M., Curless, B., Diebel, J., Scharstein, D., Szeliski, R.·2006·2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - Volume 1 (CVPR'06)

Abstract

This paper presents a quantitative comparison of several multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms. Until now, the lack of suitable calibrated multi-view image datasets with known ground truth (3D shape models) has prevented such direct comparisons. In this paper, we first survey multi-view stereo algorithms and compare them qualitatively using a taxonomy that differentiates their key properties. We then describe our process for acquiring and calibrating multiview image datasets with high-accuracy ground truth and introduce our evaluation methodology. Finally, we present the results of our quantitative comparison of state-of-the-art multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms on six benchmark datasets. The datasets, evaluation details, and instructions for submitting new models are available online at http://vision.middlebury.edu/mview.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr.2006.19

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The presence of nonrigid or independent motion makes collecting a ground-truth dataset for optical flow far harder than for stereo.

    “The presence of nonrigid or independent motion makes collecting a ground-truth dataset for optical flow far harder than for stereo, say, where structured light (Scharstein and Szeliski 2002) or range scanning (Seitz et al. 2006) can be used to obtain ground truth.”

    From A Database and Evaluation Methodology for Optical Flow (2011) · cites this paper as Seitz et al. 2006

  • We also compute robust accuracy measures similar to those in Seitz et al. (2006).

    “We also compute robust accuracy measures similar to those in Seitz et al. (2006): A X denotes the accuracy of the error measure at the Xth percentile, after sorting the errors from low to high.”

    From A Database and Evaluation Methodology for Optical Flow (2011) · cites this paper as Seitz et al. (2006)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seitz, S. M., Curless, B., Diebel, J., Scharstein, D., & Szeliski, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Middlebury College (US)
  • Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
Venue
2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - Volume 1 (CVPR'06)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2006-07-10
Volume
1
Pages
519-528
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160014001
Cited by
2,457
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 60 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 118 · 2023: 131 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 142 · 2020: 134 · 2019: 129 · 2018: 116 · 2017: 150 · 2016: 146 · 2015: 149 · 2014: 177 · 2013: 151 · 2012: 157
FWCI
70.73
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Vision and Imaging
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geology › 3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › 3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Keywords
multi-view stereo, 3D reconstruction, algorithm comparison, camera calibration, benchmark dataset, quantitative evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review