Do We Need Binary Features for 3D Reconstruction?

February 14, 2016 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW)

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Bin Fan, Qingqun Kong, Wei Sui, Zhiheng Wang, Xinchao Wang, Shiming Xiang, Chunhong Pan, Pascal Fua arXiv ID 1602.04502 Category cs.CV: Computer Vision Citations 6 Venue 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Binary features have been incrementally popular in the past few years due to their low memory footprints and the efficient computation of Hamming distance between binary descriptors. They have been shown with promising results on some real time applications, e.g., SLAM, where the matching operations are relative few. However, in computer vision, there are many applications such as 3D reconstruction requiring lots of matching operations between local features. Therefore, a natural question is that is the binary feature still a promising solution to this kind of applications? To get the answer, this paper conducts a comparative study of binary features and their matching methods on the context of 3D reconstruction in a recently proposed large scale mutliview stereo dataset. Our evaluations reveal that not all binary features are capable of this task. Most of them are inferior to the classical SIFT based method in terms of reconstruction accuracy and completeness with a not significant better computational performance.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Computer Vision

πŸŒ… πŸŒ… Old Age

Fast R-CNN

Ross Girshick

cs.CV πŸ› ICCV πŸ“š 27.7K cites 11 years ago

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted