High-res multi-view results

This table lists the benchmark results for the high-res multi-view scenario. The following metrics are evaluated:

Accuracy [%]: The fraction of the reconstruction which is closer to the ground truth than the evaluation threshold distance (*). Larger is better.
Completeness [%]: The fraction of the ground truth which is closer to the reconstruction than the evaluation threshold distance (*). Larger is better.
F₁ score [%]: The harmonic mean of accuracy and completeness, used to rank methods based on both metrics. Larger is better.
Time [s]: The runtime of the method. Smaller is better.

(*) For exact definitions, detailing how potentially incomplete ground truth is taken into account, see our paper.

The datasets are grouped into different categories, and result averages are computed for a category and method if results of the method are available for all datasets within the category. Note that the category "all" includes both the high-res multi-view and the low-res many-view scenarios.

Methods with suffix _ROB may participate in the Robust Vision Challenge.

Click a dataset result cell to show a visualization of the reconstruction. For training datasets, ground truth and accuracy / completeness visualizations are also available. The visualizations may not work with mobile browsers.

Method	all	high-res multi-view	indoor	outdoor	botani.	boulde.	bridge	door	exhibi.	lectur.	living.	lounge	observ.	old co.	statue	terrac.

DeepPCF-MVS	80.84 1	88.10 1	88.56 1	86.73 4	92.24 4	69.03 7	89.57 9	93.39 3	77.53 3	89.79 1	94.12 1	78.98 1	96.58 4	85.66 1	95.72 1	94.58 2

DeepC-MVS_fast	79.62 2	86.82 2	86.47 3	87.85 2	93.71 1	72.56 3	91.82 2	93.01 4	77.89 2	83.06 3	93.31 4	70.46 3	96.87 2	79.94 3	95.02 2	94.14 3

DeepC-MVS	79.50 3	86.80 3	86.53 2	87.61 3	91.96 5	72.46 4	90.85 3	93.50 2	76.69 5	83.93 2	93.40 2	72.49 2	96.91 1	81.69 2	94.27 3	93.44 4

3Dnovator+	77.84 4	85.48 4	84.47 4	88.51 1	91.08 8	73.49 1	93.18 1	93.78 1	80.79 1	76.66 10	93.37 3	60.40 9	96.75 3	77.20 5	93.73 4	95.29 1

MG-MVS		83.41 5	83.45 5	83.28 14	92.74 3	62.28 21	88.17 16	89.50 13	75.22 7	81.49 4	92.74 6	66.75 4	95.11 6	72.85 9	91.58 7	92.45 5

3Dnovator	76.31 5	83.38 6	82.31 6	86.59 5	87.94 17	72.94 2	90.64 4	92.14 6	77.21 4	75.47 12	92.83 5	58.56 10	94.72 8	73.24 8	92.71 5	92.13 7

CLD-MVS		82.31 7	81.65 7	84.29 9	88.47 16	67.73 13	85.81 18	92.35 5	75.78 6	78.33 6	86.58 20	64.01 6	94.35 12	76.05 6	87.48 11	90.79 9

MAR-MVS		81.84 8	80.70 8	85.27 6	91.32 7	71.53 5	89.82 8	90.92 12	69.77 13	78.50 5	86.21 21	62.36 7	94.52 11	65.36 10	92.05 6	89.77 11

ACMP	74.13 6	81.51 9	80.57 9	84.36 8	89.42 11	68.69 10	89.97 7	91.50 9	74.46 8	75.04 13	90.41 10	53.82 13	94.54 9	77.56 4	82.91 14	89.86 10
Qingshan Xu and Wenbing Tao: Planar Prior Assisted PatchMatch Multi-View Stereo. AAAI 2020
ACMM	73.20 8	80.78 10	79.84 10	83.58 12	89.31 12	68.37 11	89.99 6	91.60 7	70.28 10	77.25 8	89.66 13	53.37 15	93.53 15	74.24 7	82.85 15	88.85 12
Qingshan Xu and Wenbing Tao: Multi-Scale Geometric Consistency Guided Multi-View Stereo. CVPR 2019
AdaColmap		80.58 11	79.42 11	84.06 11	93.09 2	68.91 9	89.36 10	88.97 17	69.27 14	75.70 11	89.69 12	57.20 11	95.77 5	63.06 11	88.41 9	87.50 17

PCF-MVS	73.52 7	80.38 12	78.84 12	85.01 7	87.71 18	68.99 8	83.65 20	91.46 10	63.00 20	77.77 7	90.28 11	66.10 5	95.09 7	61.40 14	88.22 10	90.94 8
Andreas Kuhn, Shan Lin, Oliver Erdler: Plane Completion and Filtering for Multi-View Stereo Reconstruction. GCPR 2019
OpenMVS	72.83 10	79.77 13	78.33 13	84.09 10	85.17 20	69.91 6	90.57 5	90.97 11	66.70 16	72.17 14	91.91 7	54.70 12	93.96 13	61.81 13	90.95 8	88.41 13

TAPA-MVS	73.13 9	79.15 14	77.94 14	82.79 16	89.59 10	62.99 20	88.16 17	91.51 8	65.77 17	77.14 9	91.09 8	60.91 8	93.21 16	50.26 22	87.05 12	92.17 6
Andrea Romanoni, Matteo Matteucci: TAPA-MVS: Textureless-Aware PAtchMatch Multi-View Stereo. ICCV 2019
PLC	70.83 11	78.05 15	76.37 15	83.08 15	91.88 6	67.80 12	88.19 15	89.46 14	64.33 19	69.87 15	88.38 14	53.66 14	93.58 14	58.86 15	82.73 16	87.86 15
Jie Liao, Yanping Fu, Qingan Yan, Chunxia xiao: Pyramid Multi-View Stereo with Local Consistency. Pacific Graphics 2019
LS3D		76.95 16	74.82 16	83.37 13	90.45 9	67.36 14	89.15 11	86.94 19	61.87 22	69.52 17	90.61 9	51.71 16	94.53 10	46.38 24	86.71 13	88.21 14

LTVRE_ROB	69.57 12	76.25 17	74.54 17	81.41 19	88.60 14	64.38 19	79.24 23	89.12 15	70.76 9	69.79 16	87.86 15	49.09 17	93.20 17	56.21 17	80.16 18	86.65 20
Andreas Kuhn, Heiko Hirschmüller, Daniel Scharstein, Helmut Mayer: A TV Prior for High-Quality Scalable Multi-View Stereo Reconstruction. International Journal of Computer Vision 2016
ACMH+	68.96 13	76.01 18	74.01 18	82.03 17	88.60 14	65.31 18	88.86 12	87.55 18	70.25 11	67.75 18	87.47 17	41.27 21	93.19 18	58.37 16	75.94 22	87.60 16

ACMH	67.68 14	75.89 19	73.93 19	81.77 18	88.71 13	66.61 15	88.62 13	89.01 16	69.81 12	66.78 20	86.70 19	41.95 20	91.51 20	55.64 18	78.14 19	87.17 18
Qingshan Xu and Wenbing Tao: Multi-Scale Geometric Consistency Guided Multi-View Stereo. CVPR 2019
MSDG		73.36 20	70.99 20	80.49 21	84.51 21	65.80 16	80.71 21	86.13 20	65.70 18	65.46 21	83.74 23	44.60 18	90.91 22	51.13 21	76.89 20	84.74 22

COLMAP_ROB	66.92 15	73.01 21	70.41 21	80.81 20	87.13 19	65.63 17	88.30 14	84.19 21	62.96 21	63.80 23	87.69 16	38.04 22	92.56 19	46.66 23	74.91 23	84.24 23
Johannes L. Schönberger, Enliang Zheng, Marc Pollefeys, Jan-Michael Frahm: Pixelwise View Selection for Unstructured Multi-View Stereo. ECCV 2016
OpenMVS_ROB	64.09 16	70.56 22	68.19 22	77.65 23	80.26 23	59.41 23	85.01 19	82.96 24	58.76 23	65.43 22	82.33 24	37.63 23	91.23 21	45.34 25	76.03 21	82.32 24

CMPMVS	51.72 17	70.19 23	68.16 23	76.28 24	73.15 25	57.55 24	79.47 22	83.92 22	48.02 25	56.48 25	84.81 22	43.13 19	86.42 24	62.67 12	81.81 17	84.89 21
M. Jancosek, T. Pajdla: Multi-View Reconstruction Preserving Weakly-Supported Surfaces. CVPR 2011
LF4IMVS		64.02 24	62.19 24	69.50 25	70.90 26	53.29 25	76.13 24	77.18 26	52.65 24	58.59 24	80.98 25	23.55 25	76.52 25	53.06 20	66.66 25	78.68 25

Gipuma		45.18 25	41.86 25	55.16 29	77.03 24	51.52 26	32.50 29	80.52 25	32.46 28	27.12 27	35.02 31	9.52 28	75.50 27	22.31 29	60.21 27	38.45 31
S. Galliani, K. Lasinger, K. Schindler: Massively Parallel Multiview Stereopsis by Surface Normal Diffusion. ICCV 2015
PMVS	37.38 18	44.16 26	40.28 26	55.82 28	40.82 32	42.54 29	65.12 25	63.99 29	34.43 27	24.48 28	57.12 27	3.92 29	76.17 26	17.10 31	55.52 28	48.75 28
Y. Furukawa, J. Ponce: Accurate, dense, and robust multiview stereopsis. PAMI (2010)
wuykxyi23d		39.76 27	33.18 28	59.51 27	46.98 30	44.01 28	57.70 27	67.74 28	24.13 30	13.98 32	34.33 32	1.27 32	71.33 28	34.23 26	18.23 31	63.18 26

PNet_i23d		38.26 28	35.42 27	46.79 30	58.74 28	35.48 30	59.65 26	51.25 30	32.45 29	23.44 30	47.53 29	2.04 31	58.96 30	25.60 27	18.09 32	45.92 30

MVE	26.22 19	30.37 29	25.89 29	43.81 31	44.55 31	35.46 31	28.87 30	39.07 31	18.20 31	18.58 31	40.18 30	2.68 30	47.37 31	17.07 32	23.78 30	48.60 29
Simon Fuhrmann, Fabian Langguth, Michael Goesele: MVE - A Multi-View Reconstruction Environment. EUROGRAPHICS Workshops on Graphics and Cultural Heritage (2014)
wuyk23d		16.82 30	15.94 30	19.46 33	58.74 28	31.45 32	39.22 28	3.74 33	6.84 33	6.04 33	2.70 33	1.27 32	24.29 33	10.54 33	14.40 33	2.63 33

FPMVS				59.81 26	65.08 27	51.03 27		69.58 27	41.46 26	40.67 26	72.32 26	16.46 26	70.00 29	24.24 28	65.42 26	58.40 27

DeepMVS_CX				27.40 32	40.17 33	26.90 33		24.59 32	17.44 32	23.95 29	48.61 28	9.77 27	26.48 32	18.06 30	24.47 29	28.83 32

ITE_SJBPF				78.22 22	81.77 22	60.57 22		83.30 23	69.25 15	67.54 19	87.20 18	36.33 24	87.28 23	54.34 19	74.62 24	86.80 19

High-resolution multi-view benchmark