Stereo Correspondence Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review

Vargas, Camilo; Cabezas, Ivan; Branch, John W.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27863-6_10

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This assessment has practical applications such as component and procedure comparison, parameter tuning, supports decision-making by researchers and practitioners, and in general, to measure the progress in the field. It is useful to be able to quantify the quality of these disparity maps in order to benchmark range-finding devices and stereo correspondence algorithms [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective Image Quality Measures for Disparity Maps Evaluation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evaluation of disparity (range) maps includes the selection of an objective image quality (or error) measure. Among existing measures, the percentage of bad matched pixels is commonly used. However, it requires a disparity error tolerance and ignores the relationship between range and disparity. In this research, twelve error measures are characterized in order to provide the bases to select accurate stereo algorithms during the evaluation process. Adaptations of objective quality measures for disparity maps’ accuracy evaluation are proposed. The adapted objective measures operate in a manner similar to the original objective measures, but allow special handling of missing data. Additionally, the adapted objective measures are sensitive to errors in range and surface structure, which cannot be measured using the bad matched pixels. Their utility was demonstrated by evaluating a set of 50 stereo disparity algorithms known in the literature. Consistency evaluation of the proposed measures was performed using the two conceptually different stereo algorithm evaluation methodologies—ordinary ranking and partition and grouping of the algorithms with comparable accuracy. The evaluation results showed that partition and grouping make a fair judgment about disparity algorithms’ accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%