Writing study: Breaking the Scalability Limit of Multi-Projector Calibration with Embedded Cameras

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Takumi Kawano, Kohei Miura, Daisuke Iwai · Official CVPR 2026 oral record

Observed writing choices, not acceptance rules. This study examines the inspected manuscript version. It does not establish why the paper was accepted or that its presentation choices should be copied unchanged.

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Efficiency, inference & systems (primary).

Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.

Canonical PDF

10 physical pages

Before references / appendix

≈ 8.05 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

12 / 1

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total

Before references / appendix: ≈ 80.5%References / intervening material: ≈ 19.5%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

Extraction notes: No attached appendix boundary detected. Zero means no recognized caption, not independently verified absence.

Section-by-section lengths and source pages

The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.

Top-level heading	Starts on PDF page	Estimated span	Share of entire PDF
1. Introduction	1	≈ 0.87 pp.	8.7%
2. Related Work	2	≈ 0.84 pp.	8.4%
3. Method	3	≈ 2.26 pp.	22.6%
4. Experiments	5	≈ 3.38 pp.	33.8%
5. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.32 pp.	3.2%
References	9	≈ 1.95 pp.	19.5%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 2
• Figure 2 · p. 3
• Figure 3 · p. 4
• Figure 4 · p. 4
• Figure 5 · p. 5
• Figure 6 · p. 5
• Figure 7 · p. 6
• Figure 8 · p. 6
• Figure 9 · p. 6
• Figure 10 · p. 7
• Table 1 · p. 8
• Figure 11 · p. 8
• Figure 12 · p. 8

Attached appendix

No recognized caption labels.

Separate source files—excluded from canonical-PDF totals

A separate author version may repeat main text and references. Whole-file lengths and counts are not extra appendix material and are never added to the canonical PDF totals. Read the study's source scope for which sections received substantive reading versus layout inspection.

Additional source 1

Separate PDF (or ZIP containing it): whole-file layout of 6 physical pages; 9 detected figures and 0 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.

Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 5.93 page-equivalents, 9 figure labels and 0 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.

Detected heading	PDF page	Estimated span
Supplementary Material	1	≈ 0.18 pp.
6. Additional Evaluation of Multi-Projector	1	≈ 1.4 pp.
7. Projector Calibration	2	≈ 4.35 pp.

• Figure 13 · p. 1
• Figure 14 · p. 1
• Figure 15 · p. 1
• Figure 16 · p. 1
• Figure 17 · p. 2
• Figure 18 · p. 3
• Figure 19 · p. 4
• Figure 20 · p. 5
• Figure 21 · p. 6

Argument and organization

1. Method §§3.1–3.3

   Derive geometric correspondence, correct a practical assembly error, then explain scalability advantages.

2. Experiments §§4.2–4.5

   Progress from hardware limits to two- and 25-projector alignment, full calibration and outdoor robustness.

Problem, claim and contribution

The bottleneck is stated as measurement effort increasing with projector count, then the embedded-camera arrangement changes what is observed rather than merely accelerating the old optimization.

Abstract and §1, PDF pp. 1–2 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Argument and section order

The geometry derivation precedes optical-center compensation; the advantages section follows both, preventing the idealized ray model from being presented as sufficient practical calibration.

§§3.1–3.3, PDF pp. 3–4 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Figures, captions and visual explanation

Figure 2 labels rays, projector planes and camera centers directly. On page 6, a setup photograph, matched checkerboard crops and an MTF curve form a mechanism-to-measurement chain.

Figure 2, PDF p. 3; Figures 7–9, PDF p. 6 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Tables, comparisons and evidence

The experiments isolate angular separation, alignment, intrinsic/extrinsic calibration and ambient-light tolerance instead of relying on a single successful demonstration with many projectors.

§§4.2–4.5, PDF pp. 5–8; Table 1 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Appendix and reproducibility

The supplement continues figure numbering and expands the vertical-axis MTF and full spatial reprojection-error plots, preserving views that do not show the same improvement as the horizontal-axis comparison.

Official ZIP PDF supplement §§6–7, pp. 1–6, Figures 13–21 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

The writing names concrete apparatus, distances and metric units beside the claims, making 'scalable' a testable acquisition property rather than an unqualified adjective.

PDF p. 6, Figure 7 and §4.3; PDF p. 7, Figure 10 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: For a hardware method, pair the geometric sketch with a prototype photograph, a local alignment crop and a quantitative response curve under named measurement conditions.

Boundary: A 25-projector demonstration does not remove field-of-view, angular separation or board-construction limits; keep those acquisition constraints beside the scalability claim.

Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

Inspection record and sources

Checked

2026-09-26

Reading status

Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected

Main text

Manuscript-wide writing scan of PDF pp. 1–10: framing, argument sequence, section organization, figure/table captions, evaluation interpretation and limitations; reference sections identified. This is a writing-focused scan, not an exhaustive technical proof or reproduction audit. Main PDF pages 3 and 6 were rendered and visually inspected.

Appendix / supplement

Writing-focused scan of the separate supplementary PDF, pp. 1–6, including its organization, captions, protocol/evidence detail and limitation material where present; proofs and code listings were inspected for exposition, not independently verified or executed. Official ZIP PDF supplement §§6–7, pp. 1–6, Figures 13–21. Linked video/audio demonstrations and non-PDF archive contents were not assessed.

Visually inspected PDF pages

3, 6

This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.

• Official CVPR 2026 CVF open-access accepted manuscript; retrieved 2026-09-26 · 10 pages
• Official CVPR 2026 supplementary ZIP PDF member: supplementary.pdf; retrieved 2026-09-26 · 6 pages