The fusion of depth acquired actively with the depth estimated passively proved its significance as an improvement strategy for gaining depth. This combination allows us to benefit from two sources of modalities such that they complement each other. To fuse two sensor data into a more accurate depth map, we must consider the limitations of active sensing such as low lateral resolution while combining it with a passive depth map. We present an approach for the fusion of active time-of-flight depth and passive stereo depth in an accurate way. We propose a multimodal sensor fusion strategy that is based on a weighted energy optimization problem. The weights are generated as a result of combining the edge information from a texture map and active and passive depth maps. The objective evaluation of our fusion algorithm shows an improved accuracy of the generated depth map in comparison with the depth map of every single modality and with the results of other fusion methods. Additionally, a visual comparison of our result shows a better recovery on the edges considering the wrong depth values estimated in passive stereo. Moreover, the left and right consistency check on the result illustrates the ability of our approach to consistently fuse sensors.
A number of high-quality depth imaged-based rendering (DIBR) pipelines have been developed to reconstruct a 3D scene from several images taken from known camera viewpoints. Due to the specific limitations of each technique, their output is prone to artifacts. Therefore, the quality cannot be ensured. To improve the quality of the most critical and challenging image areas, an exhaustive comparison is required. In this paper, we consider three questions of benchmarking the quality performance of eight DIBR techniques on light fields: First, how does the density of original input views affect the quality of the rendered novel views? Second, how does disparity range between adjacent input views impact the quality? Third, how does each technique behave for different object properties? We compared and evaluated the results visually as well as quantitatively (PSNR, SSIM, AD, and VDP2). The results show some techniques outperform others in different disparity ranges. The results also indicate using more views not necessarily results in visually higher quality for all critical image areas. Finally, we have shown a comparison for different scene’s complexity such as non-Lambertian objects.