Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
Citations
269Ā citations
Cites methods from "Distinctive Image Features from Sca..."
...Similarly, Biswas et al (2013) described each landmark with SIFT features (Lowe 2004) and concatenated the SIFT features of all landmarks as the face representation. More recent engineered features benefit from the rapid progress in face alignment (Wang et al 2014a), which makes dense landmark detection more reliable. For example, Chen et al (2013) extracted multi-scale Local Binary Patterns (LBP) features from patches around 27 landmarks. LBP features for all patches are concatenated to become a high-dimensional feature vector as the pose-robust feature. A similar idea is adopted for feature extraction in (Prince et al 2008; Zhang et al 2013b). Intuitively, the larger the number of landmarks employed, the tighter semantic correspondence that can be achieved. Li et al (2009) proposed the detection of a number of landmarks with the help of a generic 3D face model. In comparison, Yi et al (2013) proposed a more accurate approach by employing a deformable 3D face model with 352 pre-labeled landmarks. Similar to (Li et al 2009), the 2D face image is aligned to the deformable 3D face model using the weak perspective projection model, after which the dense landmarks on the 3D model are projected to the 2D image. Lastly, Gabor magnitude coefficients at all landmarks are extracted and concatenated as the pose-robust feature. Concatenating the features of all landmarks across the face brings about highly non-linear intra-personal variation. To relieve this problem, Ding et al (2014) combined the component-level and landmark-level methods. In their approach, the Dual-Cross Patterns (DCP) (Ding et al 2014) features of landmarks belonging to the same facial component are concatenated as the description of the component. The pose-robust face representation incorporates a set of features of facial components. While the above methods crop patches centered around facial landmarks, Fischer et al (2012) found that the location of the patches for non-frontal faces has a noticeable impact on the recognition results. For example, the positions of patches around some landmarks, e.g., the nose tip and mouth corners, for face images of extreme pose should be adjusted so that fewer background pixels are included. The accuracy and reliability of dense landmark detection are critical for building semantic correspondence. However, accurate landmark detection in unconstrained images is still challenging. To handle this problem, Zhao and Gao (2009); Liao et al (2013b); Weng et al (2013) proposed alignment-free approaches to extract features around the so-called facial keypoints....
[...]
...Similarly, Biswas et al (2013) described each landmark with SIFT features (Lowe 2004) and concatenated the SIFT features of all landmarks as the face representation. More recent engineered features benefit from the rapid progress in face alignment (Wang et al 2014a), which makes dense landmark detection more reliable. For example, Chen et al (2013) extracted multi-scale Local Binary Patterns (LBP) features from patches around 27 landmarks. LBP features for all patches are concatenated to become a high-dimensional feature vector as the pose-robust feature. A similar idea is adopted for feature extraction in (Prince et al 2008; Zhang et al 2013b). Intuitively, the larger the number of landmarks employed, the tighter semantic correspondence that can be achieved. Li et al (2009) proposed the detection of a number of landmarks with the help of a generic 3D face model. In comparison, Yi et al (2013) proposed a more accurate approach by employing a deformable 3D face model with 352 pre-labeled landmarks. Similar to (Li et al 2009), the 2D face image is aligned to the deformable 3D face model using the weak perspective projection model, after which the dense landmarks on the 3D model are projected to the 2D image. Lastly, Gabor magnitude coefficients at all landmarks are extracted and concatenated as the pose-robust feature. Concatenating the features of all landmarks across the face brings about highly non-linear intra-personal variation. To relieve this problem, Ding et al (2014) combined the component-level and landmark-level methods....
[...]
...Similarly, Biswas et al (2013) described each landmark with SIFT features (Lowe 2004) and concatenated the SIFT features of all landmarks as the face representation. More recent engineered features benefit from the rapid progress in face alignment (Wang et al 2014a), which makes dense landmark detection more reliable. For example, Chen et al (2013) extracted multi-scale Local Binary Patterns (LBP) features from patches around 27 landmarks. LBP features for all patches are concatenated to become a high-dimensional feature vector as the pose-robust feature. A similar idea is adopted for feature extraction in (Prince et al 2008; Zhang et al 2013b). Intuitively, the larger the number of landmarks employed, the tighter semantic correspondence that can be achieved. Li et al (2009) proposed the detection of a number of landmarks with the help of a generic 3D face model. In comparison, Yi et al (2013) proposed a more accurate approach by employing a deformable 3D face model with 352 pre-labeled landmarks. Similar to (Li et al 2009), the 2D face image is aligned to the deformable 3D face model using the weak perspective projection model, after which the dense landmarks on the 3D model are projected to the 2D image. Lastly, Gabor magnitude coefficients at all landmarks are extracted and concatenated as the pose-robust feature. Concatenating the features of all landmarks across the face brings about highly non-linear intra-personal variation. To relieve this problem, Ding et al (2014) combined the component-level and landmark-level methods. In their approach, the Dual-Cross Patterns (DCP) (Ding et al 2014) features of landmarks belonging to the same facial component are concatenated as the description of the component. The pose-robust face representation incorporates a set of features of facial components. While the above methods crop patches centered around facial landmarks, Fischer et al (2012) found that the location of the patches for non-frontal faces has a noticeable impact on the recognition results. For example, the positions of patches around some landmarks, e.g., the nose tip and mouth corners, for face images of extreme pose should be adjusted so that fewer background pixels are included. The accuracy and reliability of dense landmark detection are critical for building semantic correspondence. However, accurate landmark detection in unconstrained images is still challenging. To handle this problem, Zhao and Gao (2009); Liao et al (2013b); Weng et al (2013) proposed alignment-free approaches to extract features around the so-called facial keypoints. For example, Liao et al (2013b) proposed the extraction of Multi-Keypoint Descriptors (MKD) around keypoints detected by SIFT-like detectors....
[...]
...Similarly, Biswas et al. (2013) described each landmark with SIFT features Lowe (2004) and concatenated the SIFT features of all landmarks as the face representation....
[...]
...Similarly, Biswas et al (2013) described each landmark with SIFT features (Lowe 2004) and concatenated the SIFT features of all landmarks as the face representation. More recent engineered features benefit from the rapid progress in face alignment (Wang et al 2014a), which makes dense landmark detection more reliable. For example, Chen et al (2013) extracted multi-scale Local Binary Patterns (LBP) features from patches around 27 landmarks. LBP features for all patches are concatenated to become a high-dimensional feature vector as the pose-robust feature. A similar idea is adopted for feature extraction in (Prince et al 2008; Zhang et al 2013b). Intuitively, the larger the number of landmarks employed, the tighter semantic correspondence that can be achieved. Li et al (2009) proposed the detection of a number of landmarks with the help of a generic 3D face model....
[...]
269Ā citations
269Ā citations
268Ā citations
267Ā citations
References
16,989Ā citations
"Distinctive Image Features from Sca..." refers background or methods in this paper
...The initial implementation of this approach (Lowe, 1999) simply located keypoints at the location and scale of the central sample point....
[...]
...Earlier work by the author (Lowe, 1999) extended the local feature approach to achieve scale invariance....
[...]
...More details on applications of these features to recognition are available in other pape rs (Lowe, 1999; Lowe, 2001; Se, Lowe and Little, 2002)....
[...]
...To efficiently detect stable keypoint locations in scale space, we have proposed (Lowe, 1999) using scalespace extrema in the difference-of-Gaussian function convolved with the image, D(x, y, Ļ ), which can be computed from the difference of two nearby scales separated by a constant multiplicativeā¦...
[...]
...More details on applications of these features to recognition are available in other papers (Lowe, 1999, 2001; Se et al., 2002)....
[...]
15,558Ā citations
14,282Ā citations
"Distinctive Image Features from Sca..." refers background in this paper
...A more general solution would be to solve for the fundamental matrix (Luong and Faugeras, 1996; Hartley and Zisserman, 2000)....
[...]
13,993Ā citations
3,422Ā citations