Comparative trial evaluates void-filling techniques for indoor scene projections, suggesting performance implications for virtual imaging.
Point-cloud-derived 2D projections enable generating unlimited virtual views for indoor scene analysis and dataset creation. However, projecting irregular 3D samples onto a dense image grid commonly produces void pixels due to sparsity, occlusions, and incomplete scan coverage. These projection-induced artifacts degrade the visual fidelity of rendered images and limit their usefulness in downstream image-based workflows. This study investigates void-filling strategies tailored to point-cloud-generated RGB projections and provides a comparative evaluation of three representative approaches: (i) K-nearest neighbor (KNN) interpolation with KD-Tree accelerated neighbor search, (ii) a rule-based neighborhood method (NNRule) that adapts filling behavior using local variability to preserve edges, and (iii) a mask-normalized Gaussian-weighted propagation method that diffuses valid color information into void regions. Experiments were conducted on multi-view perspective projections generated from Stanford Large-Scale 3D Indoor Spaces Dataset (S3DIS) Area 3, totalling 5,520 images. Restoration quality was assessed using standard pixel-level metrics such as MAE, RMSE, PSNR, and SSIM. Quantitative results show that Gaussian-weighted propagation achieved the best overall performance, followed by NNRule, while KNN performed weakest numerically. Qualitative comparisons further indicate that KNN produces the most visually realistic texture appearance, whereas diffusion-based filling is softened fine details. Finally, the study establishes a practical baseline that enables both academic researchers to advance point-cloud-to-image restoration without relying on paired RGB datasets and industrial practitioners to deploy light weight void-filling pipelines in real-world applications such as digital twins, indoor robotics, facility management, and augmented reality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chowdhury et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: