Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Leveraging blur information for plenoptic camera calibration

Mathieu Labussière, Céline Teulière, Frédéric Bernardin, Omar Ait-AiderPublished Nov 9, 2021
arXiv PDF DOI
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Thin evidence
Verify before relying
Time to first repro
A few hours
Fast first run
Risk flags
1
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.

This paper presents a novel calibration algorithm for plenoptic cameras, especially the multi-focus configuration, where several types of micro-lenses are used, using raw images only. Current calibration methods rely on simplified projection models, use features from reconstructed images, or require separated calibrations for each type of micro-lens. In the multi-focus configuration, the same part of a scene will demonstrate different amounts of blur according to the micro-lens focal length. Usually, only micro-images with the smallest amount of blur are used. In order to exploit all available data, we propose to explicitly model the defocus blur in a new camera model with the help of our newly introduced Blur Aware Plenoptic (BAP) feature. First, it is used in a pre-calibration step that retrieves initial camera parameters, and second, to express a new cost function to be minimized in our single optimization process. Third, it is exploited to calibrate the relative blur between micro-images. It links the geometric blur, i.e., the blur circle, to the physical blur, i.e., the point spread function. Finally, we use the resulting blur profile to characterize the camera's depth of field. Quantitative evaluations in controlled environment on real-world data demonstrate the effectiveness of our calibrations.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: cold
This paper presents a novel calibration algorithm for plenoptic cameras, especially the multi-focus configuration, where several types of micro-lenses are used, using raw images only.
Task Dataset Metric Value Source
Computer science each evaluation RMSE 4 paper-derived

Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.

Reproduction risks
  • No maintained paper-verified implementation is currently available

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: hours
Last checked: Aug 25, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

17

Citations

53

References

Tasks

Computer science, Calibration, Focus (optics), Motion blur, Camera resectioning, Lens (geology), Depth of field, Gaussian blur

Methods

None detected

Domains

Artificial intelligence, Computer vision, Image (mathematics)

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.