3 ms·

Problem is, this paper won't be able to produce those results from historical photos. I find them quite misleading, to be honest. You'll need to either use a s

Problem is, this paper won't be able to produce those results from historical photos. I find them quite misleading, to be honest. You'll need to either use a separate 3D depth estimation AI, or (more likely) have someone do a manual stereoscopic 3D conversion of your historical image. Only then (when you have depth data) can the algorithm presented in this paper start its work.

johndough 7y ago
> You'll need to either use a separate 3D depth estimation AI They seem to be using MiDaS https://github.com/intel-isl/MiDaS https://github.com/intel-isl/MiDaS for depth estimation which does a reasonable job on some random image pulled from pixabay https://i.imgur.com/IfbeaqY.jpg https://i.imgur.com/IfbeaqY.jpg
- fxtentacle 7y ago
  That looks good, indeed :)
  - fxtentacle 7y ago
    In the meantime, I tried our Midas on other images and it failed most of the time. Really only works for those stock-is pictures with clear foreground and background and I believe it mainly just detects bokeh blur as opposed to actually understanding the scene.
    - jbhuang0604 7y ago
      Yes, you are right. Existing single-image depth estimation models are not far from perfect. We hope to see future development in that direction to further improve the visual quality of 3D photos.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]