| Literature DB >> 29695129 |
Dan Liu1, Xuejun Liu2, Yiguang Wu3.
Abstract
This paper presents an effective approach for depth reconstruction from a single image through the incorporation of semantic information and local details from the image. A unified framework for depth acquisition is constructed by joining a deep Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and a continuous pairwise Conditional Random Field (CRF) model. Semantic information and relative depth trends of local regions inside the image are integrated into the framework. A deep CNN network is firstly used to automatically learn a hierarchical feature representation of the image. To get more local details in the image, the relative depth trends of local regions are incorporated into the network. Combined with semantic information of the image, a continuous pairwise CRF is then established and is used as the loss function of the unified model. Experiments on real scenes demonstrate that the proposed approach is effective and that the approach obtains satisfactory results.Entities:
Keywords: conditional random field; convolutional neural network; depth reconstruction; single image
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29695129 PMCID: PMC5982647 DOI: 10.3390/s18051318
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The overall framework of the unified CNN model.
Figure 2Some local regions of similar relative depth trends from a same sematic label. (a,b) Some different local regions (superpixels) from a same sematic label (in the red box); (c) relative depth trends of the local regions in (a,b) are similar.
Errors of depth reconstruction with different constraints.
| Methods | C1 Error | C2 Error | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rel | Log10 (m) | Rmse (m) | Rel | Log10 (m) | Rmse (m) | |
| Eucli_loss | 0.366 | 0.137 | 8.63 | 0.363 | 0.148 | 14.41 |
| Unconstrained | 0.312 | 0.113 | 9.10 | 0.305 | 0.120 | 13.24 |
| Semantic_constrained | 0.291 | 0.109 | 8.74 | 0.287 | 0.114 | 12.10 |
| Local_constrained | 0.295 | 0.105 | 8.53 | 0.291 | 0.109 | 11.95 |
| Proposed approach | 0.260 | 0.092 | 7.16 | 0.245 | 0.103 | 10.07 |
Figure 3Qualitative comparison of depth reconstruction via the proposed approach and Unconstrained. Color indicates depth (red is far, blue is close). (a) Test images (b) Unconstrained (c) Proposed approach (d) Ground-truth.
Quantitative comparisons with other methods.
| Methods | C1 Error | C2 Error | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rel | Log10 (m) | Rmse (m) | Rel | Log10 (m) | Rmse (m) | |
| Saxena et al. [ | - | - | - | 0.370 | 0.187 | - |
| Liu et al. [ | - | - | - | 0.379 | 0.148 | - |
| Depth transfer [ | 0.355 | 0.127 | 9.20 | 0.361 | 0.148 | 15.10 |
| DC CRF [ | 0.335 | 0.137 | 9.49 | 0.338 | 0.134 | 12.60 |
| DCNF [ | 0.312 | 0.113 | 9.10 | 0.305 | 0.120 | 13.24 |
| Proposed approach | 0.260 | 0.092 | 7.16 | 0.245 | 0.103 | 10.07 |
Figure 4Qualitative comparison of depth reconstruction via the proposed approach and depth transfer [25]. (a) Test images (b) depth transfer [25] (c) Proposed approach (d) Ground-truth.
Figure 5Depth reconstruction for images from the Internet.