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

Nathaniel Roman

dblp:67/2512 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2008
—ORCID · none

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

Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2

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.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
3D vision · 54% Segmentation and scene understanding · 46%
Computer networks
1 paper
Internet of things and sensor networks · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding › scene understanding
outdoor scene understanding
0.112007
Consistent Temporal Variations in Many Outdoor Scenes · CVPR 2007
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding
scene understanding
0.112007
Consistent Temporal Variations in Many Outdoor Scenes · CVPR 2007
Computer vision › 3D vision
visual localization
0.112007
Geolocating Static Cameras · ICCV 2007
Computer vision › 3D vision
camera calibration
0.012007
Consistent Temporal Variations in Many Outdoor Scenes · CVPR 2007
Internet of things and sensor networks › camera sensor networks › camera networks
distributed camera network
0.012007
Geolocating Static Cameras · ICCV 2007

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

summary statistics · 0.1principal component analysis · 0.1second-order statistics · 0.1PCA · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2008 Toward Fully Automatic Geo-Location and Geo-Orientation of Static Outdoor Cameras
abstract
Automating tools for geo-locating and geo-orienting static cameras is a key step in creating a useful global imaging network from cameras attached to the Internet. We present algorithms for partial camera calibration that rely on access to accurately time-stamped images captured over time from cameras that do not move. To support these algorithms we also offer a method of camera viewpoint change detection, or "tamper detection", which determines if a camera has moved in the challenging case when images are only captured every half hour. These algorithms are tested on a subset of the AMOS (Archive of Many Outdoor Scenes) database, and we present preliminary results that highlight the promise of these approaches.
Nathan Jacobs, Nathaniel Roman, Robert Pless
WACV2
2007 Consistent Temporal Variations in Many Outdoor Scenes
abstract
This paper details an empirical study of large image sets taken by static cameras. These images have consistent correlations over the entire image and over time scales of days to months. Simple second-order statistics of such image sets show vastly more structure than exists in generic natural images or video from moving cameras. Using a slight variant to PCA, we can decompose all cameras into comparable components and annotate images with respect to surface orientation, weather, and seasonal change. Experiments are based on a data set from 538 cameras across the United States which have collected more than 17 million images over the the last 6 months.
Nathan Jacobs, Nathaniel Roman, Robert Pless
CVPR2
2007 Geolocating Static Cameras
abstract
A key problem in widely distributed camera networks is locating the cameras. This paper considers three scenarios for camera localization: localizing a camera in an unknown environment, adding a new camera in a region with many other cameras, and localizing a camera by finding correlations with satellite imagery. We find that simple summary statistics (the time course of principal component coefficients) are sufficient to geolocate cameras without determining correspondences between cameras or explicitly reasoning about weather in the scene. We present results from a database of images from 538 cameras collected over the course of a year. We find that for cameras that remain stationary and for which we have accurate image times- tamps, we can localize most cameras to within 50 miles of the known location. In addition, we demonstrate the use of a distributed camera network in the construction a map of weather conditions.
Nathan Jacobs, Scott Satkin, Nathaniel Roman, Robert Speyer, Robert Pless
ICCV3