2019
DOI: 10.1109/tpami.2018.2838670
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Video Object Segmentation without Temporal Information

Abstract: Video Object Segmentation, and video processing in general, has been historically dominated by methods that rely on the temporal consistency and redundancy in consecutive video frames. When temporal smoothness is suddenly broken, such as when an object is occluded, the result of these methods can deteriorate significantly. This paper explores the orthogonal approach of processing each frame independently, i.e. disregarding temporal information. In particular, it tackles the task of semi-supervised video object… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
217
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 301 publications
(217 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
(188 reference statements)
0
217
0
Order By: Relevance
“…RGMP [54] cannot be successfully trained with static image dataset and DAVIS dataset alone for mask propagation. It has created a large number of synthetic video training data from Pascal VOC [11,12], ECSSD [49] and MSRA10K [7] DAVIS 2017 benchmark, we exclude PReMVOS [38] and OSVOS+ [39] as they both use multiple specialized networks in multiple processes to refine their results. For DAVIS 2016, we compare with OnAVOS [52], FAVOS [5], OSVOS [3], MSK [42], PML [4], SFL [6], OSMN [57], CTN [27] and VPN [26].…”
Section: Compare With Other Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…RGMP [54] cannot be successfully trained with static image dataset and DAVIS dataset alone for mask propagation. It has created a large number of synthetic video training data from Pascal VOC [11,12], ECSSD [49] and MSRA10K [7] DAVIS 2017 benchmark, we exclude PReMVOS [38] and OSVOS+ [39] as they both use multiple specialized networks in multiple processes to refine their results. For DAVIS 2016, we compare with OnAVOS [52], FAVOS [5], OSVOS [3], MSK [42], PML [4], SFL [6], OSMN [57], CTN [27] and VPN [26].…”
Section: Compare With Other Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, OL based methods are computationally expensive for practical applications. In this work, we solve the VOS problem with a very fast network that obtains a competitive accuracy at a speed of 30 FPS on DAVIS 16 , 130 ∼ 400 times faster than previous OL based methods [3,37,40,50].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To evaluate our RANet trained with static images, we compare it with some methods [22,23,36,40,47] without using DAVIS training set. For multi-object VOS, we compare with some state-of-theart offline methods [3,9,19,50,59], and also list results of some OL based methods [1,3,19,37,50] for reference. Results on DAVIS 16 -val.…”
Section: Comparison To the State Of The Artmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations