Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Humans as a Calibration Pattern: Dynamic 3D Scene Reconstruction from Unsynchronized and Uncalibrated Videos

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that unsynchronized multi-view videos with unknown camera poses can be reconstructed into dynamic 3D scenes whenever they capture human motion, using the moving person as a calibration pattern.

desk verdict Genuinely new dynamic NeRF from unsynchronized, uncalibrated video via human motion; rendering metrics are partly inflated by test-time optimization. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19089 v2 pith:HGMQXPYZ submitted 2024-12-26 cs.CV

Changwoon Choi (1) , Jeongjun Kim (1) , Geonho Cha (2) , Minkwan Kim (1) , Dongyoon Wee (2) , Young Min Kim (1) ((1) Seoul National University , (2) NAVER Cloud) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords dynamicneuralradiancefieldsunsynchronizedvideoscameracalibrationhumanmotionestimationtimeoffset4Dscenereconstructionprogressivelearningmulti-viewvideo
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that unsynchronized multi-view videos with completely unknown camera poses can still be turned into a dynamic 3D scene whenever the videos contain people. The key move is to treat human motion as a live calibration target: per-video estimates of body shape and pose are noisy, but they provide a strong enough starting point to align the videos in time and space. From that initialization, the paper jointly optimizes camera poses, time offsets, and a 4D neural radiance field, reaching sub-millisecond alignment and sub-centimeter pose accuracy. If true, it removes two of the most restrictive hardware requirements for 4D reconstruction and opens the door to casual multi-camera capture of events like sports and concerts.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the estimated human body sequence, represented as SMPL-H parameters per frame (root orientation, 22 joint rotations, root position, and shape). Its two derived signals do the calibration work: canonical root-relative joint positions serve as the distance function for dynamic time warping, giving pairwise time offsets, and global joint positions serve as corresponding points for Procrustes alignment, giving camera poses in a common world frame. The refinement stage wraps this in K-Planes, a multiresolution 4D feature-grid representation, with a coarse-to-fine weight schedule on grid resolutions and a curriculum that unfreezes camera poses before time offsets.

What would settle it

Take two cameras pointed at the same moving person in a textureless room, but arrange one camera so the person is heavily occluded or viewed from an extreme angle for most of the sequence, causing the human-motion estimator to produce flipped or jittered poses. If the central claim holds, the pipeline should still converge to sub-frame time offsets and sub-degree poses; if the recovered offsets and poses diverge by more than about 2 frames and 5 degrees after the initialization stage, the dependence of the calibration on the human-motion priors is demonstrated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a moving person's estimated skeleton, obtained independently from each camera, is a sufficient calibration pattern for dynamic neural scene reconstruction. It establishes this by first aligning human joint trajectories across pairs of videos with dynamic time warping, assembling pairwise offsets into a global synchronization, and then registering the cameras to a common world frame with Procrustes alignment on 3D joint positions. Starting from those crude but consistent estimates, it refines everything together with a K-Planes dynamic radiance field, using a progressive schedule that stabilizes the non-convex optimization. The result is near-perfect calibration, with about 0.4 degrees of rotation error, 0.2 cm translation error, and 0.03 frames of time offset on Panoptic Studio, and novel-view synthesis on par with an oracle that is handed ground-truth poses and timing.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline depends on the per-video human motion estimates being roughly correct: if the body pose and shape recovered from a single video are badly wrong, the time offsets and camera poses derived from them are wrong, and the later neural-field refinement cannot repair the calibration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Videos shot by ordinary phones at a gathering or sports event, with no sync hardware and no surveyed camera positions, become usable input for photorealistic 4D reconstruction as long as a person is visible.
  • The initialization alone, before any neural-field refinement, already recovers camera rotation within about 5.5 degrees and time offsets within about 1.3 frames on average, so it can serve as a standalone calibration fallback when structure-from-motion fails on textureless or repetitive scenes.
  • Joint refinement brings calibration to sub-frame and sub-centimeter precision, reaching accuracy comparable to an oracle calibrated with ground-truth poses and timestamps.
  • The pipeline is not limited to one person or to static rigs: it is demonstrated with one, two, and three humans, with mixed frame rates, with moving cameras, and with different camera intrinsics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the calibration cue is the person rather than scene texture, the same recipe should transfer to any object with a parametric motion model, such as articulated animals, vehicles, or rigid objects in known shape families, whenever a monocular estimator can supply per-frame pose.
  • Refining time offsets to 0.03 frames effectively means post-hoc synchronization can beat the precision of many hardware sync solutions, which suggests the approach could also resynchronize archival footage where no sync signal survives.
  • The curriculum order, field first, poses second, time offsets last, is a reusable trick: the same staged unfreezing may stabilize other under-constrained joint estimation problems, such as simultaneous mapping and tracking in scenes with moving objects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper addresses dynamic 3D neural field reconstruction from multi-view videos that are unsynchronized and have unknown camera poses, using human motion as a calibration pattern. The pipeline extracts per-video human motion (SMPL parameters) with SLAHMR; estimates initial time offsets via pairwise DTW on canonical 3D joint positions followed by a greedy global alignment; estimates initial camera poses by Procrustes alignment of global 3D joints; and then jointly refines time offsets and camera poses with a K-Planes dynamic NeRF, using a progressive curriculum that unfreezes camera poses at s0 steps and time offsets at s0+s1 steps, plus a coarse-to-fine feature weighting schedule. Experiments on CMU Panoptic Studio, Mobile-Stage, and EgoBody report rotation errors around 0.4 degrees after refinement and novel-view synthesis metrics close to an oracle K-Planes baseline with ground-truth poses and timestamps.

Significance. The work is significant because it removes two common hardware assumptions---synchronized capture and calibrated camera poses---for dynamic scene reconstruction. The mid-level representation of humans as a calibration pattern is well motivated, and the initialization appears robust to the tested image degradation, SMPL noise, and mixed frame rates. The paper provides detailed pseudocode for the alignment steps and ablates the progressive training strategy, which strengthens reproducibility. If confirmed with a cleaner evaluation protocol, the method could enable casual multi-view capture of dynamic scenes. The main reservations are the test-time optimization used for the novel-view metrics and the lack of repeated-run statistics, both of which are addressable through additional experiments and reporting.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3 and Supplement B.4] The novel-view metrics in Table 3 are computed after freezing the trained NeRF and optimizing the test camera pose and timestamp on the test view's own frames. This protocol can absorb residual pose and time-offset errors, so the reported PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS values do not directly measure the reconstruction obtained from the calibration estimated by the proposed pipeline. The paper should report metrics without test-time optimization. If the protocol is retained, it must be applied identically to the oracle and Sync-NeRF baselines, and an ablation should quantify its effect. As written, the "on par with oracle" statement overstates the rendering evidence for the headline claim.
  2. [Tables 1-3] All quantitative results appear to be from a single run. The optimization involves stochastic sampling, and the initialization includes a random anchor selection in Eq. (7). Without repeated runs, the claims of 0.4 degree rotation error, 0.03-frame offset, and near-oracle rendering lack statistical support. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over at least 3-5 runs, or justify why the quantities are deterministic.
  3. [Section 3.1 and experiments] The method assumes known person correspondence across views when multiple humans are present, but the experiments do not exercise difficult correspondence cases. The Panoptic Studio scenes contain a single human, the Mobile-Stage dancers are visually distinct, and the EgoBody evaluation is limited to the initialization stage. To support the claim that the method handles an arbitrary number of humans, either present a multi-person experiment with ambiguous correspondences or qualify the claim in the paper.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Supplement Algorithm 1] The global alignment of pairwise time offsets is a greedy heuristic, but the paper does not analyze its consistency or failure modes. Since the time-offset initialization is a load-bearing step for the whole pipeline, the authors should provide a synthetic experiment or a theoretical argument showing that the greedy procedure recovers the correct global offsets even under noisy pairwise DTW costs, and discuss possible cycle-consistency issues.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and title] The title in the paper header reads "Humans as a Calibration:" while the abstract uses "Humans as a Calibration Pattern"; please ensure the title is consistent throughout the manuscript.
  2. [Section 3.2] The time offset Delta-T_ij is described as the "most frequent warping time" from DTW, but the paper does not specify how this mode is computed when the 3D joint positions are interpolated for mixed frame rates; a short implementation detail would clarify the procedure.
  3. [Supplement Algorithm 2] The SVD-based rotation in the Procrustes analysis should handle the reflection case where det(U V*) = -1, so that the estimated transform is a similarity transform rather than a reflection; this standard detail is worth stating explicitly.
  4. [Table 1] The "Data" column header is not defined in the caption; it appears to report the average ground-truth absolute time offset of the input videos, but this should be stated in the caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Novel-view synthesis metrics are computed after test-time pose/timestamp fitting on the test view, so the near-oracle rendering claim is partially forced by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3 (Dynamic Novel-view Synthesis) and Supplement B.4 (Evaluation Details)]
    "We also conduct test-time optimization for accurate measurement that freezes NeRF parameters and optimizes only test camera poses and timestamps for small iterations before measuring metrics. ... we first transform ground-truth test camera poses by aligning the ground-truth training camera poses to the estimated training camera poses. Starting from the transformed test camera poses, we further optimize camera poses while freezing NeRF parameters with supervision of test view video frames before measuring errors of rendered images."

    The Table 3 novel-view PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS values are measured after fitting the held-out test camera pose and timestamp on the test view's own frames, and the test pose is initialized from ground truth aligned to the estimated training poses. Thus the rendered test view is not a prediction from the pipeline's estimated test calibration; the target image is used to optimize the input pose/time, so the near-oracle rendering numbers are partially forced by construction. This does not invalidate the independent spatio-temporal calibration results in Table 1, but it means the headline claim that unsynchronized unknown-pose videos generate dynamic neural fields is over-supported by these rendering metrics.

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained: time offsets come from DTW on SMPL canonical joint positions and camera poses from Procrustes on global joint positions, both initialized from the external SLAHMR estimator, with refinement by photometric loss on training videos. No equation reduces to the ground-truth calibration values, and there are no load-bearing self-citations. However, the novel-view synthesis evaluation in Section 4.3 and Supplement B.4 optimizes the held-out test camera pose and timestamp on the test view's own frames, starting from ground-truth test poses aligned into the estimated coordinate frame. The Table 3 rendering numbers are therefore not clean predictions of the pipeline's estimated test calibration; the target view is used to fit the pose/time before measuring error. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction circularity for the rendering claim, though the spatio-temporal calibration claim (Table 1) remains independent. The acknowledged SLAHMR failure limitation is an external dependency, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. It relies on a pretrained human motion estimator and a neural scene representation from prior work; the only hand-set parameters are training hyperparameters and the optimization schedule.

free parameters (4)
  • s0 (camera unfreeze step) = 2000
    Curriculum schedule chooses when camera poses become learnable; chosen by hand, affects convergence.
  • s1 (time offset unfreeze interval) = 18000
    Time offsets added at step s0+s1; chosen by hand, affects stability.
  • Coarse-to-fine exponent schedule eta = eta in [0,1]
    Controls when high-resolution grid features activate; chosen by hand.
  • Regularization loss weights = 0.01, 0.001, etc.
    Weights for distortion, L1, total variance, temporal smoothness; manually tuned per dataset.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Known camera intrinsics for all videos.
    Section 3.1 lists intrinsics as known input; used to convert image pixels to rays in volume rendering.
  • domain assumption Known person correspondences across views when multiple humans present.
    Section 3.1: 'known per-person correspondence across views when there are multiple humans.' In experiments, Panoptic has one human and Mobile-Stage/EgoBody have known tracks, so this assumption is not stress-tested.
  • domain assumption SLAHMR provides sufficiently accurate human shape/pose and camera trajectory from each monocular video.
    Used in Section 3.1 to produce motion sequences; the paper's own limitation states the pipeline fails if SLAHMR completely fails.
  • ad hoc to paper Pairwise DTW with global greedy alignment yields a unique consistent set of time offsets.
    Algorithm 1 in the supplement is a heuristic; pathological motion symmetries could make it fail, though experiments show robustness on tested data.
  • domain assumption Training cameras are static during the refinement stage.
    Refinement results and implementation appear to optimize a single pose/time offset per video; EgoBody moving camera is not refined. Moving-camera refinement is listed as future work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Humans as a Calibration Pattern: Dynamic 3D Scene Reconstruction from Unsynchronized and Uncalibrated Videos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HGMQXPYZ

@misc{pith2026241219089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Humans as a Calibration Pattern: Dynamic 3D Scene Reconstruction from Unsynchronized and Uncalibrated Videos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HGMQXPYZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19089}
}
read the original abstract

Recent works on dynamic 3D neural field reconstruction assume the input from synchronized multi-view videos whose poses are known. The input constraints are often not satisfied in real-world setups, making the approach impractical. We show that unsynchronized videos from unknown poses can generate dynamic neural fields as long as the videos capture human motion. Humans are one of the most common dynamic subjects captured in videos, and their shapes and poses can be estimated using state-of-the-art libraries. While noisy, the estimated human shape and pose parameters provide a decent initialization point to start the highly non-convex and under-constrained problem of training a consistent dynamic neural representation. Given the shape and pose parameters of humans in individual frames, we formulate methods to calculate the time offsets between videos, followed by camera pose estimations that analyze the 3D joint positions. Then, we train the dynamic neural fields employing multiresolution grids while we concurrently refine both time offsets and camera poses. The setup still involves optimizing many parameters; therefore, we introduce a robust progressive learning strategy to stabilize the process. Experiments show that our approach achieves accurate spatio-temporal calibration and high-quality scene reconstruction in challenging conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19089 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We propose an approach to reconstruct dynamic 3D scenes from unsynchronized and uncalibrated videos. We exploit human [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Both transformer-based method DUSt3R [42] and SfM library COLMAP [39] fail to recover correct camera poses. problem with high degrees of freedom. We focus on hu￾mans, one of the most common dynamic objects in scenes. Human pose estimation in computer vision has progressed rapidly and now achieves reliable performance even in gen￾eral images or videos. We consider an estimated human parameter a robust mid-level repre… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of our method. Given unsynchronized multi-view videos without camera poses, we first extract human motion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of estimated human motion on our dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We visualize estimated camera poses of the initialization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual examples of (a) video degradation and (b) per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparison on Mobile-Stage dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparison of novel view synthesis performance on CMU Panoptic Studio dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visual illustration of estimated camera poses from our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Additional qualitative results on Mobile-Stage dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: We demonstrate camera pose estimation results of the initialization stage on Panoptic Studio datsaet at the top row (Initialization) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Additional qualitative comparison of novel view synthesis performance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ASTRA: Asynchronous Spatio-Temporal Reconstruction via Trajectory Alignment

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    ASTRA jointly estimates camera time offsets and dynamic Gaussian geometry by aligning projected 3D motion with observed 2D trajectory tracks, improving robustness to large asynchrony.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2d human pose estimation: New bench- mark and state of the art analysis

    Mykhaylo Andriluka, Leonid Pishchulin, Peter Gehler, and Bernt Schiele. 2d human pose estimation: New bench- mark and state of the art analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), 2014. 2

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5470–5479, 2022. 6

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Keep it smpl: Automatic estimation of 3d human pose and shape from a single image

    Federica Bogo, Angjoo Kanazawa, Christoph Lassner, Peter Gehler, Javier Romero, and Michael J Black. Keep it smpl: Automatic estimation of 3d human pose and shape from a single image. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th Euro- pean Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11- 14, 2016, Proceedings, Part V 14, pages 561–578. Springer,

    2016

  4. [4]

    Immersive light field video with a layered mesh representation

    Michael Broxton, John Flynn, Ryan Overbeck, Daniel Erick- son, Peter Hedman, Matthew Duvall, Jason Dourgarian, Jay Busch, Matt Whalen, and Paul Debevec. Immersive light field video with a layered mesh representation. ACM Trans- actions on Graphics (TOG), 39(4):86–1, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Hexplane: A fast representa- tion for dynamic scenes

    Ang Cao and Justin Johnson. Hexplane: A fast representa- tion for dynamic scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 130–141, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Sloper4d: A scene-aware dataset for global 4d human pose estimation in urban environments

    Yudi Dai, Yitai Lin, Xiping Lin, Chenglu Wen, Lan Xu, Hongwei Yi, Siqi Shen, Yuexin Ma, and Cheng Wang. Sloper4d: A scene-aware dataset for global 4d human pose estimation in urban environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 682–692, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization

    P Kingma Diederik. Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization. (No Title), 2014. 6

    2014

  8. [8]

    K-planes: Explicit radiance fields in space, time, and appearance

    Sara Fridovich-Keil, Giacomo Meanti, Frederik Rahbæk Warburg, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. K-planes: Explicit radiance fields in space, time, and appearance. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12479–12488,

    work page

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Monocular dynamic view synthesis: A reality check

    Hang Gao, Ruilong Li, Shubham Tulsiani, Bryan Russell, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Monocular dynamic view synthesis: A reality check. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:33768–33780, 2022. 1

    2022

  2. [10]

    Catalin Ionescu, Dragos Papava, Vlad Olaru, and Cristian Sminchisescu. Human3. 6m: Large scale datasets and pre- dictive methods for 3d human sensing in natural environ- ments. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 36(7):1325–1339, 2013. 1, 2

    2013

  3. [11]

    Self-calibrating neural radiance fields

    Yoonwoo Jeong, Seokjun Ahn, Christopher Choy, Anima Anandkumar, Minsu Cho, and Jaesik Park. Self-calibrating neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision , pages 5846– 5854, 2021. 3, 5

    2021

  4. [12]

    Clustered pose and nonlinear appearance models for human pose estimation

    Sam Johnson and Mark Everingham. Clustered pose and nonlinear appearance models for human pose estimation. In bmvc, page 5. Aberystwyth, UK, 2010. 2

    2010

  5. [13]

    Panoptic studio: A massively multiview sys- tem for social interaction capture.IEEE Transactions on Pat- tern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2017

    Hanbyul Joo, Tomas Simon, Xulong Li, Hao Liu, Lei Tan, Lin Gui, Sean Banerjee, Timothy Scott Godisart, Bart Nabbe, Iain Matthews, Takeo Kanade, Shohei Nobuhara, and Yaser Sheikh. Panoptic studio: A massively multiview sys- tem for social interaction capture.IEEE Transactions o...

    2017

  6. [14]

    End-to-end recovery of human shape and pose

    Angjoo Kanazawa, Michael J Black, David W Jacobs, and Jitendra Malik. End-to-end recovery of human shape and pose. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7122–7131, 2018. 2

    2018

  7. [15]

    Learning 3d human dynamics from video

    Angjoo Kanazawa, Jason Y Zhang, Panna Felsen, and Jiten- dra Malik. Learning 3d human dynamics from video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 5614–5623, 2019. 2

    2019

  8. [16]

    Sync-nerf: Generalizing dy- namic nerfs to unsynchronized videos

    Seoha Kim, Jeongmin Bae, Youngsik Yun, Hahyun Lee, Gun Bang, and Youngjung Uh. Sync-nerf: Generalizing dy- namic nerfs to unsynchronized videos. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2777– 2785, 2024. 3, 7

    2024

  9. [17]

    Muhammed Kocabas, Nikos Athanasiou, and Michael J. Black. Vibe: Video inference for human body pose and shape estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) ,

  10. [18]

    Pace: Human and camera motion estimation from in- the-wild videos

    Muhammed Kocabas, Ye Yuan, Pavlo Molchanov, Yunrong Guo, Michael J Black, Otmar Hilliges, Jan Kautz, and Umar Iqbal. Pace: Human and camera motion estimation from in- the-wild videos. In 2024 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 397–408. IEEE, 2024. 2

    2024

  11. [19]

    Extrinsic camera calibration from a moving person

    Sang-Eun Lee, Keisuke Shibata, Soma Nonaka, Shohei Nobuhara, and Ko Nishino. Extrinsic camera calibration from a moving person. IEEE Robotics and Automation Let- ters, 7(4):10344–10351, 2022. 2

    2022

  12. [20]

    Neural scene flow fields for space-time view synthesis of dy- namic scenes

    Zhengqi Li, Simon Niklaus, Noah Snavely, and Oliver Wang. Neural scene flow fields for space-time view synthesis of dy- namic scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6498– 6508, 2021. 3

    2021

  13. [21]

    Barf: Bundle-adjusting neural radiance fields

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Wei-Chiu Ma, Antonio Torralba, and Si- mon Lucey. Barf: Bundle-adjusting neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 5741–5751, 2021. 2, 3, 5

    2021

  14. [22]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll´ar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, 9 Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedi...

    2014

  15. [23]

    Robust dynamic radiance fields

    Yu-Lun Liu, Chen Gao, Andreas Meuleman, Hung-Yu Tseng, Ayush Saraf, Changil Kim, Yung-Yu Chuang, Jo- hannes Kopf, and Jia-Bin Huang. Robust dynamic radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13–23, 2023. 3

    2023

  16. [24]

    Matthew Loper, Naureen Mahmood, Javier Romero, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J. Black. Smpl: a skinned multi- person linear model. ACM Trans. Graph., 34(6), 2015. 2

    2015

  17. [25]

    Virtual correspondence: Hu- mans as a cue for extreme-view geometry

    Wei-Chiu Ma, Anqi Joyce Yang, Shenlong Wang, Raquel Urtasun, and Antonio Torralba. Virtual correspondence: Hu- mans as a cue for extreme-view geometry. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15924–15934, 2022. 2

    2022

  18. [26]

    Troje, Ger- ard Pons-Moll, and Michael J

    Naureen Mahmood, Nima Ghorbani, Nikolaus F. Troje, Ger- ard Pons-Moll, and Michael J. Black. Amass: Archive of motion capture as surface shapes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019. 2

    2019

  19. [27]

    Nerf in the wild: Neural radiance fields for uncon- strained photo collections

    Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Noha Radwan, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Jonathan T Barron, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Daniel Duck- worth. Nerf in the wild: Neural radiance fields for uncon- strained photo collections. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recogn...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Srinivasan, Rodrigo Ortiz-Cayon, Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Ren Ng, and Abhishek Kar

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Rodrigo Ortiz-Cayon, Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Ren Ng, and Abhishek Kar. Local light field fusion: practical view syn- thesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines. ACM Trans. Graph., 38(4), 2019. 3

    2019

  21. [29]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021. 2, 5

    2021

  22. [30]

    Reconstructing people, places, and cameras

    Lea M ¨uller, Hongsuk Choi, Anthony Zhang, Brent Yi, Jiten- dra Malik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Reconstructing people, places, and cameras. arXiv:2412.17806, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Nerfies: Deformable neural radiance fields

    Keunhong Park, Utkarsh Sinha, Jonathan T Barron, Sofien Bouaziz, Dan B Goldman, Steven M Seitz, and Ricardo Martin-Brualla. Nerfies: Deformable neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 5865–5874, 2021. 3

    2021

  24. [32]

    Barron, Sofien Bouaziz, Dan B Goldman, Ricardo Martin- Brualla, and Steven M

    Keunhong Park, Utkarsh Sinha, Peter Hedman, Jonathan T. Barron, Sofien Bouaziz, Dan B Goldman, Ricardo Martin- Brualla, and Steven M. Seitz. Hypernerf: a higher- dimensional representation for topologically varying neural radiance fields. ACM Trans. Graph., 40(6), 2021. 3

    2021

  25. [33]

    Temporal interpola- tion is all you need for dynamic neural radiance fields

    Sungheon Park, Minjung Son, Seokhwan Jang, Young Chun Ahn, Ji-Yeon Kim, and Nahyup Kang. Temporal interpola- tion is all you need for dynamic neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 4212–4221, 2023. 3

    2023

  26. [34]

    Camerahmr: Aligning people with perspective

    Priyanka Patel and Michael J Black. Camerahmr: Aligning people with perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08128,

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Georgios Pavlakos, Vasileios Choutas, Nima Ghorbani, Timo Bolkart, Ahmed A. A. Osman, Dimitrios Tzionas, and Michael J. Black. Expressive body capture: 3d hands, face, and body from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogn...

    2019

  28. [36]

    D-nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes

    Albert Pumarola, Enric Corona, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Francesc Moreno-Noguer. D-nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10318–10327, 2021. 3

    2021

  29. [37]

    Javier Romero, Dimitrios Tzionas, and Michael J. Black. Embodied hands: modeling and capturing hands and bodies together. ACM Trans. Graph., 36(6), 2017. 4

    2017

  30. [38]

    Dynamic programming al- gorithm optimization for spoken word recognition

    Hiroaki Sakoe and Seibi Chiba. Dynamic programming al- gorithm optimization for spoken word recognition. IEEE transactions on acoustics, speech, and signal processing, 26 (1):43–49, 1978. 4

    1978

  31. [39]

    Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm

    Johannes L. Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure- from-motion revisited. In Proceedings of the IEEE Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) ,

  32. [40]

    Trace: 5d temporal regression of avatars with dynamic cam- eras in 3d environments

    Yu Sun, Qian Bao, Wu Liu, Tao Mei, and Michael J Black. Trace: 5d temporal regression of avatars with dynamic cam- eras in 3d environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 8856–8866, 2023. 2

    2023

  33. [41]

    Droid-slam: Deep visual slam for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. Droid-slam: Deep visual slam for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras. Advances in neu- ral information processing systems, 34:16558–16569, 2021. 4

    2021

  34. [42]

    Dust3r: Geometric 3d vi- sion made easy

    Shuzhe Wang, Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, Boris Chidlovskii, and Jerome Revaud. Dust3r: Geometric 3d vi- sion made easy. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 20697–20709, 2024. 2

    2024

  35. [43]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Si- moncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 7

    2004

  36. [44]

    Nerf–: Neural radiance fields without known camera parameters

    Zirui Wang, Shangzhe Wu, Weidi Xie, Min Chen, and Victor Adrian Prisacariu. Nerf–: Neural radiance fields without known camera parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.07064, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Wide-baseline multi-camera calibration using person re- identification

    Yan Xu, Yu-Jhe Li, Xinshuo Weng, and Kris Kitani. Wide-baseline multi-camera calibration using person re- identification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13134– 13143, 2021. 2

    2021

  38. [46]

    4k4d: Real-time 4d view synthesis at 4k resolution

    Zhen Xu, Sida Peng, Haotong Lin, Guangzhao He, Jiaming Sun, Yujun Shen, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. 4k4d: Real-time 4d view synthesis at 4k resolution. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 20029–20040, 2024. 2, 5

    2024

  39. [47]

    Banmo: Build- ing animatable 3d neural models from many casual videos

    Gengshan Yang, Minh V o, Natalia Neverova, Deva Ra- manan, Andrea Vedaldi, and Hanbyul Joo. Banmo: Build- ing animatable 3d neural models from many casual videos. 10 In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 2863–2873,

  40. [48]

    Decoupling human and camera motion from videos in the wild

    Vickie Ye, Georgios Pavlakos, Jitendra Malik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Decoupling human and camera motion from videos in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 21222–21232, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 8

    2023

  41. [49]

    inerf: Inverting neural radiance fields for pose estimation

    Lin Yen-Chen, Pete Florence, Jonathan T Barron, Alberto Rodriguez, Phillip Isola, and Tsung-Yi Lin. inerf: Inverting neural radiance fields for pose estimation. In2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 1323–1330. IEEE, 2021. 3

    2021

  42. [50]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 586–595, 2018. 7

    2018

  43. [51]

    Ego- body: Human body shape and motion of interacting peo- ple from head-mounted devices

    Siwei Zhang, Qianli Ma, Yan Zhang, Zhiyin Qian, Taein Kwon, Marc Pollefeys, Federica Bogo, and Siyu Tang. Ego- body: Human body shape and motion of interacting peo- ple from head-mounted devices. In European conference on computer vision, pages 180–200. Springer, 2022. 2, 5 11...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.