Writing study: Broadband Wide Field of View Imaging with Computational Mirrors
← ECCV 2026 oral writing corpus
Vishwanath Saragadam, Niki Nezakati, Amit Roy-Chowdhury, Vivek Boominathan · Official ECCV 2026 oral record
Figure, table and section ledger
Editorial contribution type: Domain-grounded methods & physical 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
- 18 physical pages
- Before references / appendix
- ≈ 15.15 page-equivalents
- Main figures / tables
- 9 / 0
- Attached appendix figures / tables
- 0 / 0
- Attached appendix span
- No boundary detected; not assumed zero
Extraction notes: No attached appendix boundary detected. Zero means no recognized caption, not independently verified absence.
Source-bound correction: All top-level main headings and the reference boundary checked against source PDF text; source-bound positions use physical single-column y/page-height, not a two-column reading-order surrogate. Running page-number/author titles, affiliations, numbered contribution bullets, footnotes and bibliography continuations are excluded. This linked manuscript contains no appended supplementary section; separate supplement links were not scanned. Selected disputed heading locations also checked in rendered source pages.
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 | ≈ 2.09 pp. | 11.61% |
| 2 Prior Work | 3 | ≈ 2.01 pp. | 11.17% |
| 3 Computational Mirrors | 5 | ≈ 4.94 pp. | 27.44% |
| 4 Results | 10 | ≈ 4.65 pp. | 25.83% |
| 5 Discussions and Conclusion | 15 | ≈ 0.42 pp. | 2.33% |
| 6 Acknowledgement | 15 | ≈ 0.37 pp. | 2.06% |
| References | 16 | ≈ 2.85 pp. | 15.83% |
All detected figure and table locations
Main text
Attached appendix
No recognized caption labels.
Argument and organization
- 1 Introduction; 2 Prior Work
Contrasts broadband sensor capability with chromatic limitations of refractive optics, then identifies off-axis aberration as the cost of using simple mirrors.
- 3 Computational Mirrors: objective, focal stacking and SeidelConv
Presents objective construction and focal-stack acquisition before the learned forward model; the results explicitly identify real captures rather than mixing them with simulations.
- 4 Results; conclusion and limitations
Figure 6 compares PSF models under the same three-image acquisition and separately contrasts other focal-stack policies; this separates operator changes from measurement changes.
Problem, claim and contribution
Contrasts broadband sensor capability with chromatic limitations of refractive optics, then identifies off-axis aberration as the cost of using simple mirrors.
Abstract and Section 1, pp.1–2 · Main paper
Argument and section order
Presents objective construction and focal-stack acquisition before the learned forward model; the results explicitly identify real captures rather than mixing them with simulations.
Sections 3–4, pp.5–11 · Main paper
Figures, captions and visual explanation
An optical ray sketch sits beside a labeled prototype photograph. A later comparison aligns reconstructed crops with on-axis/off-axis metric columns.
Figure 3, p.6; Figure 6, p.12 · Main paper
Tables, comparisons and evidence
Figure 6 compares PSF models under the same three-image acquisition and separately contrasts other focal-stack policies; this separates operator changes from measurement changes.
Figure 6 and Section 4, pp.11–12 · Main paper
Appendix and reproducibility
Calibration offsets, vignetting and parameter sensitivity are explicitly delegated to supplementary material; only these main-manuscript pointers were inspected here.
Section 3.3, p.9; Section 4, p.11 · Main paper
Clarity and writing conventions
Hardware names, wavelength coverage and acquisition choices remain concrete; the limitations paragraph states motion risk from multiple measurements.
Sections 3.1 and 4, pp.6,10; Limitations, p.15 · Main paper
What to reuse—and what not to infer
Transferable lesson: For imaging hardware, show the physical setup and the reconstruction assumption separately, then compare matched capture budgets and difficult image regions.
Boundary: The official event title says Wide Field of View; the linked manuscript says Full Field of View. The multi-capture demonstration should not be rewritten as single-shot or motion-robust imaging.
Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.
Inspection record and sources
- Checked
- 2026-10-02
- Reading status
- Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected
- Main text
- Writing-oriented scan across the manuscript main argument, physical PDF pp.1–15: framing and section roadmaps, method/argument explanations, figure and table captions, comparison protocols, conclusions and limitations. Selected full-page rasters were inspected. This is not exhaustive line-by-line technical reading, proof verification or experimental reproduction.
- Appendix / supplement
- Main-manuscript pointers to appendix/supplement and the reference boundary were checked. Separate supplementary PDFs were not retrieved or inspected; their contents are not included in inspected-page counts.
- Visually inspected PDF pages
- 6, 12
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.