<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Why Having 10,000 Parameters in Your Camera Model is Better Than Twelve · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1912.02908/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1912.02908/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Why Having 10,000 Parameters in Your Camera Model is Better Than Twelve — mentioned by midjji</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40583936</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1912.02908:40583936</guid><pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 12:13:39 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;For you to say that you would have needed the image res 2MPixel, but ignoring that, it should have been a paper I knew about if true. So I checked. mrcal is providing the same lens models as opencv, and it looks like its using opencv to do the estimate. For higher perf calibration checkout https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02908&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1912.02908/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CV</category></item></channel></rss>
