Intrinsic dense 3D surface tracking
Abstract
This paper presents a novel intrinsic 3D surface distance and its use in a complete probabilistic tracking framework for dynamic 3D data. Registering two frames of a deforming 3D shape relies on accurate correspondences between all points across the two frames. In the general case such correspondence search is computationally intractable. Common prior assumptions on the nature of the deformation such as near-rigidity, isometry or learning from a training set, reduce the search space but often at the price of loss of accuracy when it comes to deformations not in the prior assumptions. If we consider the set of all possible 3D surface matchings defined by specifying triplets of correspondences in the uniformization domain, then we introduce a new matching cost between two 3D surfaces. The lowest feature differences across this set of matchings that cause two points to correspond, become the matching cost of that particular correspondence. We show that for surface tracking applications, the matching cost can be efficiently computed in the uniformization domain. This matching cost is then combined with regularization terms that enforce spatial and temporal motion consistencies, into a maximum a posteriori (MAP) problem which we approximate using a Markov Random Field (MRF). Compared to previous 3D surface tracking approaches that either assume isometric deformations or consistent features, our method achieves dense, accurate tracking results, which we demonstrate through a series of dense, anisometric 3D surface tracking experiments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
As has been found in medical imaging, registration utilizing heterogeneous information (e.g. geometry and texture [41], [120]) may give higher accuracy.
“As has been found in medical imaging, registration utilizing heterogeneous information (e.g.geometry and texture [41], [120]) may give higher accuracy.”
From Registration of 3D Point Clouds and Meshes: A Survey from Rigid to Nonrigid (2013) · cites this paper as [41]
[41] combines intrinsic (conformal map) and extrinsic measures (e.g. texture, Gaussian maps, curvatures) to handle non-isometric deformation.
“[41] combines intrinsic (conformal map) and extrinsic measures (e.g.texture, Gaussian maps, curvatures) to handle non-isometric deformation.”
From Registration of 3D Point Clouds and Meshes: A Survey from Rigid to Nonrigid (2013) · cites this paper as [41]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 19
- Authors
- Zeng, Y., Wang, C., Wang, Y., Gu, X., Samaras, D., & Paragios, N.
- Affiliations
- Stony Brook University (US)
- Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
- Venue
- CVPR 2011
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2011-06
- Pages
- 1225-1232
- OpenAlex
- W2098731116
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 5.87
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Nvidia
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › 3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Vision and Imaging
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Keywords
- probabilistic tracking, 3D shape registration, correspondence search, matching cost, maximum a posteriori estimation, Markov random fields, regularization
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