3.8 Proceedings Paper

Depth-supervised NeRF: Fewer Views and Faster Training for Free

Publisher

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.01254

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Sony Corporation, Singapore DSTA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

DS-NeRF is a method that learns radiance fields using depth supervision, allowing for better image rendering with fewer training views and faster training. It leverages structure-from-motion (SFM) and sparse 3D points as depth supervision, demonstrating the advantages of depth as a cheap and easily understandable supervisory signal. It is also compatible with other types of depth supervision.
A commonly observed failure mode of Neural Radiance Field (NeRF) is fitting incorrect geometries when given an insufficient number of input views. One potential reason is that standard volumetric rendering does not enforce the constraint that most of a scene's geometry consist of empty space and opaque surfaces. We formalize the above assumption through DS-NeRF (Depth-supervised Neural Radiance Fields), a loss for learning radiance fields that takes advantage of readily-available depth supervision. We leverage the fact that current NeRF pipelines require images with known camera poses that are typically estimated by running structure-from-motion (SFM). Crucially, SFM also produces sparse 3D points that can be used as free depth supervision during training: we add a loss to encourage the distribution of a ray's terminating depth matches a given 3D keypoint, incorporating depth uncertainty. DS-NeRF can render better images given fewer training views while training 3x faster. Further, we show that our loss is compatible with other recently proposed NeRF methods, demonstrating that depth is a cheap and easily digestible supervisory signal. And finally, we find that DS-NeRF can support other types of depth supervision such as scanned depth sensors and RGB-D reconstruction outputs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available