Do We Need Binary Features for 3D Reconstruction?

Abstract

Binary features have been incrementally popular in the past few years due to their low memory footprints and the efficient computation of Hamming distance between binary descriptors. They have been shown with promising results on some real time applications, e.g., SLAM, where the matching operations are relative few. However, in computer vision, there are many applications such as 3D reconstruction requiring lots of matching operations between local features. Therefore, a natural question is that is the binary feature still a promising solution to this kind of applications? To get the answer, this paper conducts a comparative study of binary features and their matching methods on the context of 3D reconstruction in a recently proposed large scale mutliview stereo dataset. Our evaluations reveal that not all binary features are capable of this task. Most of them are inferior to the classical SIFT based method in terms of reconstruction accuracy and completeness with a not significant better computational performance.

Cite

Text

Fan et al. "Do We Need Binary Features for 3D Reconstruction?." IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, 2016. doi:10.1109/CVPRW.2016.144

Markdown

[Fan et al. "Do We Need Binary Features for 3D Reconstruction?." IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, 2016.](https://mlanthology.org/cvprw/2016/fan2016cvprw-we/) doi:10.1109/CVPRW.2016.144

BibTeX

@inproceedings{fan2016cvprw-we,
  title     = {{Do We Need Binary Features for 3D Reconstruction?}},
  author    = {Fan, Bin and Kong, Qingqun and Sui, Wei and Wang, Zhiheng and Wang, Xinchao and Xiang, Shiming and Pan, Chunhong and Fua, Pascal},
  booktitle = {IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops},
  year      = {2016},
  pages     = {1126-1135},
  doi       = {10.1109/CVPRW.2016.144},
  url       = {https://mlanthology.org/cvprw/2016/fan2016cvprw-we/}
}