Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Juliet Fiss

dblp:74/10569 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3 · 3 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer graphics and multimedia
3 papers
Multimedia analysis and retrieval · 39% Computational photography and imaging · 27% Image and video processing · 27%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 77% Web and social media mining · 23%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Image and video processing
image matting
0.212015
Light field layer matting · CVPR 2015
Computational photography and imaging
light field imaging
0.212015
Light field layer matting · CVPR 2015
Information retrieval › search interfaces
search result presentation
0.212014
Mining text snippets for images on the web · KDD 2014
Multimedia analysis and retrieval › cross-modal alignment
text-image alignment
0.212014
Mining text snippets for images on the web · KDD 2014
Multimedia analysis and retrieval › multimedia analysis › multimedia collection analysis › image collection analysis
photo selection
0.112011
Candid portrait selection from video · ACM Trans. Graph. 2011
Rendering
novel view synthesis
0.112015
Light field layer matting · CVPR 2015

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

machine-learned relevance scoring · 0.4combinatorial subset selection · 0.4regression · 0.2feature extraction · 0.2cross-validation · 0.2alpha matting · 0.24d light field representation · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Light field layer matting
abstract
In this paper, we use matting to separate foreground layers from light fields captured with a plenoptic camera. We represent the input 4D light field as a 4D background light field, plus a 2D spatially varying foreground color layer with alpha. Our method can be used to both pull a foreground matte and estimate an occluded background light field. Our method assumes that the foreground layer is thin and fronto-parallel, and is composed of a limited set of colors that are distinct from the background layer colors. Our method works well for thin, translucent, and blurred foreground occluders. Our representation can be used to render the light field from novel views, handling disocclusions while avoiding common artifacts.
Juliet Fiss, Brian Curless, Richard Szeliski
CVPR1
2014 Refocusing plenoptic images using depth-adaptive splatting
abstract
In this paper, we propose a simple, novel plane sweep technique for refocusing plenoptic images. Rays are projected directly from the raw plenoptic image captured on the sensor into the output image plane, without computing intermediate representations such as subaperture views or epipolar images. Interpolation is performed in the output image plane using splatting. The splat kernel for each ray is adjusted adaptively, based on the refocus depth and an estimate of the depth at which that ray intersects the scene. This adaptive interpolation method antialiases out-of-focus regions, while keeping in-focus regions sharp. We test the proposed method on images from a Lytro camera and compare our results with those from the Lytro SDK. Additionally, we provide a thorough discussion of our calibration and preprocessing pipeline for this camera.
Juliet Fiss, Brian Curless, Richard Szeliski
ICCP1
2014 Mining text snippets for images on the web
abstract
Images are often used to convey many different concepts or illustrate many different stories. We propose an algorithm to mine multiple diverse, relevant, and interesting text snippets for images on the web. Our algorithm scales to all images on the web. For each image, all webpages that contain it are considered. The top-K text snippet selection problem is posed as combinatorial subset selection with the goal of choosing an optimal set of snippets that maximizes a combination of relevancy, interestingness, and diversity. The relevancy and interestingness are scored by machine learned models. Our algorithm is run at scale on the entire image index of a major search engine resulting in the construction of a database of images with their corresponding text snippets. We validate the quality of the database through a large-scale comparative study. We showcase the utility of the database through two web-scale applications: (a) augmentation of images on the web as webpages are browsed and (b)~an image browsing experience (similar in spirit to web browsing) that is enabled by interconnecting semantically related images (which may not be visually related) through shared concepts in their corresponding text snippets.
Anitha Kannan, Simon Baker, Krishnan Ramnath, Juliet Fiss, Dahua Lin, Lucy Vanderwende, Rizwan Ansary, Ashish Kapoor, Qifa Ke, Matthew Uyttendaele, Xin-Jing Wang, Lei Zhang 0001
KDD4
2011 Candid portrait selection from video
abstract
In this paper, we train a computer to select still frames from video that work well as candid portraits. Because of the subjective nature of this task, we conduct a human subjects study to collect ratings of video frames across multiple videos. Then, we compute a number of features and train a model to predict the average rating of a video frame. We evaluate our model with cross-validation, and show that it is better able to select quality still frames than previous techniques, such as simply omitting frames that contain blinking or motion blur, or selecting only smiles. We also evaluate our technique qualitatively on videos that were not part of our validation set, and were taken outdoors and under different lighting conditions.
Juliet Fiss, Aseem Agarwala, Brian Curless
ACM Trans. Graph.1