Lab session 1 Lab session 2

Family Name / first nam Master

Evelyn Paiz COSI 17 18.5
Nadile Lima COSI 17 18.5
Leonel Cuevas COSI 20 18
Tom Gillooly COSI 20 18
Alexa Moseguí COSI 20 18
Elras-Sabri Bolkar COSI 20 18
Cristian Rocha COSI 20 18

Lab session 1 Lab session 2 Lab session 3

Master
Edward Beeching MLDM 17 19 15.5
Sejal Jaiswal MLDM 11 10 13
Muhammad Usama Javaid MLDM 12 0 13
Joseph Renner MLDM 12 10 10
Dimitrios Tsolakidis MLDM 15 14 13
Rahul Chandnani MLDM 14.5 16 16.5
Jorge Chong, MLDM 14.5 15 15
Zubair Hussain MLDM 13.5 12.5 9.5
Muhammad Rashid Saleem MLDM 13.5 12.5 9.5
Zygled Calibjo CIMET 17 18 18
Claudia Companioni-Brito CIMET 17 18 18
Bouldjedri Oussama MLDM 11 10.5 10
Tonny Ntambaazi CIMET 14.5 14 14
Ishwar Purushotham MLDM 14.5 14 14
Arunava Maulik, MLDM 14.5 15 15
Mathieu Viola MLDM 14 9.5 10
Rémi Viola, MLDM 14 19 15.5
Christian Fumey 3DMT 15.5 14 14
Sherif Farouk, 3DMT 15.5 14 14
Youcef Messaoud MLDM 13.5 10.5 10
Binu Melit 3DMT 19 18 14
Amitoz Azad 3DMT 19 18 14
Austin Schwinn MLDM 13 13.5 13.5
Blanchard Jérémie MLDM 13 10 11
Slimane Makhlouf MLDM 13 9.5 10
Renuka Chittimalla MLDM 14 16 16.5
Valentin Benozillo MLDM 12.5 11.5 9.5
Clément Schmit, MLDM 12.5 11.5 9.5
Syel Bilal Ahsan MLDM 14 10.5 13
Josselin Marnat MLDM 9.5 9.5 0
Anthony Deveaux MLDM 9.5 9.5 0
Maedeh Afshari MLDM 12 14 13
Anas Benamou MLDM 15.5 10.5 10
Feras Al-Kassar MLDM 15.5 10.5 10
Prem Prakash, MLDM 14.5 13.5 13
Navdeep Kumar MLDM 14.5 13.5 13
Average Lab Project (25% - Lab
Exam (50%) Final grade Grade
session (25%) session 3)
17.75 14.17 14 15.0225 C
17.75 11.67 14 13.7725 C
19 18.33 18 18.415 A
19 18.33 18 18.415 A
19 18.75 18 18.625 A
19 12.92 18 15.71 C
19 16.67 18 17.585 B
15.8342857143 16.8571428571 16.79214286 Average

Average Lab Exam (50%) Project (25%) Final grade Grade

session (25%)
17.1666666667 15.8 15 15.94166667 B
11.3333333333 13.75 16 13.70833333 D
8.3333333333 12.5 15 12.08333333 D
10.6666666667 11.6 13 11.71666667 E
14 11.1 13.5 12.425 D
15.6666666667 10.8 15 13.06666667 D
14.8333333333 10.4 14 12.40833333 D
11.8333333333 11.1 4 9.508333333 F
11.8333333333 11.6 4 9.758333333 F
17.6666666667 13.75 7 13.04166667 D
17.6666666667 11.1 7 11.71666667 E
10.5 7.5 13 9.625 F
14.1666666667 10 14 12.04166667 D
14.1666666667 13.75 14 13.91666667 C
14.8333333333 10.8 14 12.60833333 D
11.1666666667 9.6 12 10.59166667 E
16.1666666667 12.5 12 13.29166667 D
14.5 4.6 0 5.925 F
14.5 10.4 13.5 12.2 D
11.3333333333 8.7 13 10.43333333 E
17 13.75 18.5 15.75 B
17 16.25 18.5 17 B
13.3333333333 10.8 13.5 12.10833333 D
11.3333333333 10.8 8 10.23333333 E
10.8333333333 10 8 9.708333333 F
15.5 10.4 15 12.825 D
11.1666666667 9.6 10 10.09166667 E
11.1666666667 10 10 10.29166667 E
12.5 7.9 13.5 10.45 E
6.3333333333 9.6 13 9.633333333 F
6.3333333333 6.7 13 8.183333333 F
13 0 16 7.25 F
12 11.1 12 11.55 E
12 9.1 12 10.55 E
13.6666666667 11.6 15 12.96666667 D
13.6666666667 12 15 13.16666667 D
10.5819444444 12.2222222222 11.60462963 Average
 Master Step 1

Edward Beeching MLDM

OK

Sejal Jaiswal MLDM

OK

Muhammad Usama Javaid MLDM

OK

Joseph Renner MLDM

OK

Dimitrios Tsolakidis MLDM

OK

Rahul Chandnani MLDM

OK

Jorge Chong, MLDM

OK
Zubair Hussain MLDM
??
Muhammad Rashid Saleem, MLDM
??

Zygled Calibjo CIMET

OK

Claudia Companioni-Brito, CIMET

OK

Bouldjedri Oussama MLDM

OK

Tonny Ntambaazi CIMET

OK
Ishwar Purushotham MLDM

OK

Arunava Maulik MLDM

OK

Mathieu Viola MLDM

OK

Rémi Viola, MLDM

OK
Christian Fumey 3DMT

Sherif Farouk, 3DMT

OK

Youcef Messaoud MLDM

OK

Binu Melit 3DMT

OK

Amitoz Azad 3DMT

OK

Austin Schwinn MLDM

OK

Blanchard Jérémie MLDM

OK

Slimane Makhlouf MLDM

OK

Renuka Chittimalla MLDM

OK
Valentin Benozillo MLDM

OK

Clément Schmit MLDM

OK

Syel Bilal Ahsan MLDM

OK
Alaa Daoud 3DMT

Josselin Marnat MLDM

OK

Anthony Deveaux, MLDM

OK

Maedeh Afshari MLDM

OK

Anas Benamou MLDM

OK

Feras Al-Kassar MLDM

OK

Prem Prakash, MLDM

OK

Navdeep Kumar MLDM

OK

Evelyn Paiz COSI

OK
Nadile Lima COSI

OK
Leonel Cuevas COSI
OK
Bairam Uldanay COSI
Tom Gillooly COSI
OK
Alexa Moseguí COSI
OK

Elras-Sabri Bolkar COSI

OK

Cristian Rocha COSI

OK
Step 2 (calibration) Step 3 (3D reconstruction) Results

The accuracy of the calibration

process is not as good as expected, OK (even if the result is
no solution was implemented to impacted by the errors Miss quantitative evaluation of
solve this issue related to step 2) results

Manual aligment (empirically

performed ?) was necessary to
improve the computation of the Miss quantitative evaluation of
translation parameter OK results

The accuracy of the calibration

process is not as good as expected, OK (even if the result is
no solution was implemented to impacted by the errors Miss quantitative evaluation of
solve this issue related to step 2) results
The calibration is inaccurate, tried to OK (even if the result is
solve this issue but failed due to a impacted by the errors
lack of time related to step 2) Results are not satisfying
No quantitative
analysis/evaluation of results,
How calibration (translation) problem impossible to check if the code
related to the stereo calibration run as expected as input data
process was solved ? Seems ok are not provided,

Manual aligment (empirically Miss quantitative evaluation of

performed) OK results

Manual aligment (empirically Without the acquired data

performed ?) was necessary to impossible to check the Miss quantitative evaluation of
improve the computation of the accuracy of the code results, results seem rather
translation parameter developed. good
Too few info to check the relevance
of the work done Task not performed No result
Too few info to check the relevance
of the work done Task not performed No result

To improve the accuracy of the

calibration you undistorted the
views, the result was worse than for
initial views !, surprisingly you didn't
notice that (?) Unsatisfactory Results are completely wrong !

To improve the accuracy of the

calibration you undistorted the
views, the result was worse than for
initial views !, surprisingly you didn't
notice that (?) Unsatisfactory Results are completely wrong !
The calibration is inaccurate, tried to OK (even if the result is
solve this issue but failed due to a impacted by the errors
lack of time related to step 2) Results are not satisfying

The viewpoint used to show

The accuracy of the calibration results is not adapted to
process was not analysed, the code evaluate the qualty of the Miss quantitative evaluation of
for the calibration was not provided 3D reconstruction results
 The viewpoint used to show
The accuracy of the calibration results is not adapted to
process was not analysed, the code evaluate the qualty of the Miss quantitative evaluation of
for the calibration was not provided 3D reconstruction results

Manual aligment (empirically Without the acquired data

performed ?) was necessary to impossible to check the Miss quantitative evaluation of
improve the computation of the accuracy of the code results, results seem rather
translation parameter developed. good
Could be more accurate, lack of
detailed explanation about the Miss quantitative evaluation of
method used Miss color projection results, minimalist report
Could be more accurate, lack of
detailed explanation about the Miss quantitative evaluation of
method used Miss color projection results, minimalist report

Some relevant pre- and post- Miss quantitative evaluation of

proceesing have been used results, Too few results are
The accuracy of the calibration but no code prove that, Miss given, impossible to check that
process was not checked/analysed color projection the code run as expected

Miss quantitative evaluation of

The accuracy of the calibration results, Too few results are
process was not checked/analysed, given, impossible to check that
the code for the calibration was not the code run as expected (as
provided OK input data were not provided)

Some solution (pre- and Results are evaluated

The accuracy of the calibration is not post- processing) could have quantitatively and discussed :
as good as expected, some solution been suggested/tested to good point. The code can be
could have been suggested/tested to improve the quality of run and contain enough
solve this issue results comments: good point

Some solution (pre- and Results are evaluated

The accuracy of the calibration is not post- processing) could have quantitatively and discussed :
as good as expected, some solution been suggested/tested to good point. The code can be
could have been suggested/tested to improve the quality of run and contain enough
solve this issue results comments: good point

No quantitative
analysis/evaluation of results,
How calibration (translation) problem impossible to check if the code
related to the stereo calibration run as expected as input data
process was solved ? Seems ok are not provided,
Calibration of each camera is OK but
what about the calibation of the
stereo system ? Task not performed No result
Calibration of each camera is OK but
what about the calibation of the
stereo system ? Task not performed No result

Manual aligment (empirically Miss quantitative evaluation of

performed) OK results
Which calibration method was used ?
why errors are higher than for other
groups ? Impossible to check the
code as it was not provided Miss color projection Results are not satisfying

Which calibration method was used ?

why errors are higher than for other
groups ? Impossible to check the
code as it was not provided Miss color projection Results are not satisfying

Some relevant pre- and post- Miss quantitative evaluation of

proceesing have been used results, Too few results are
The accuracy of the calibration but no code prove that, Miss given, impossible to check that
process was not checked/analysed color projection the code run as expected

It's not clear how calibration

problems wer "solved", the code for Results seem quite good but Miss quantitative evaluation of
the calibration was not provided miss color projection results
It's not clear how calibration
problems wer "solved", the code for Results seem quite good but Miss quantitative evaluation of
the calibration was not provided miss color projection results

Manual aligment (empirically

performed ?) was necessary to
improve the computation of the Miss quantitative evaluation of
translation parameter OK results

The accuracy of the calibration

process was not checked/analysed. Without the acquired data Miss quantitative evaluation of
Impossible to check the code as impossible to check the results, Too few results are
neither the code nor the input data accuracy of the code given, impossible to check that
were not provided developed. the code run as expected

The accuracy of the calibration

process was not checked/analysed. Without the acquired data Miss quantitative evaluation of
Impossible to check the code as impossible to check the results, Too few results are
neither the code nor the input data accuracy of the code given, impossible to check that
were not provided developed. the code run as expected

Manual aligment (empirically Miss quantitative evaluation of

performed) OK results

Manual aligment (empirically Miss quantitative evaluation of

performed) OK results

It seems that the quality of Results are not very

the 3D reconstruction is not satisfactory, the method
as good as expected, very implemented need some
few dense areas were improvements. Unfortunately
OK but the accuracy of the detected in the point cloud you failed to propose/test
calibration is not as good as expected (why ?). some improvements.
 It seems that the quality of Results are not very
the 3D reconstruction is not satisfactory, the method
as good as expected, very implemented need some
few dense areas were improvements. Unfortunately
OK but the accuracy of the detected in the point cloud you failed to propose/test
calibration is not as good as expected (why ?). some improvements.
OK but the accuracy of the OK, why the point cloud is so OK, the discussion could be
calibration could be improved sparse ? more developped

OK but the accuracy of the OK, why the point cloud is so OK, the discussion could be
calibration could be improved sparse ? more developped
OK but the accuracy of the OK, why the point cloud is so OK, the discussion could be
calibration could be improved sparse ? more developped

OK, but the accuracy of the

calibration could be improved (in
order to tbe less sensitive to Miss quantitative evaluation
calibration errors) OK of results

OK, but the accuracy of the

calibration could be improved (in
order to tbe less sensitive to Miss quantitative evaluation
calibration errors) OK of results
Overall evaluation grade

Satisfactory but the results are not as

good as expected. The code is well
documented 15

Satisfactory but results should be

analysed and discussed 16

Satisfactory but the results are not as

good as expected. The code is well
documented 15

"Satisfactory" but more work was

expected 13

The report is minimalist, only one

result (one view) is provided, no
discussion 13.5

Satisfactory but more accurate results

were expected (some post-processing
could be applied), the discussion part
is too minimalist 15

Satisfactory but results should be

analysed and discussed 14

Unsatisfactory, no report submitted 4

Unsatisfactory, no report submitted 4

Unsatisfactory, you didn't suggest a

relevant solution to the problem asked 7

Unsatisfactory, you didn't suggest a

relevant solution to the problem asked 7

"Satisfactory" but more work was

expected 13

Satisfactory but results should be

analysed and discussed 14
Satisfactory but results should be
analysed and discussed 14

Satisfactory but results should be

analysed and discussed 14

Satisfactory but more work was

expected 12

Satisfactory but more work was

expected 12

Satisfactory but I cannot check the

method implemented 13.5

Satisfactory but the discussion part

and the report are too minimalist 13

Very good job. Good report. 18.5

Very good job. Good report. 18.5

The report is minimalist, only one

result (one view) is provided, no
discussion 13.5

Unsatisfactory, no report submitted 8

Unsatisfactory, no report submitted 8

Satisfactory but more accurate results

were expected (some post-processing
could be applied), the discussion part
is too minimalist 15
Miss quantitative evaluation of results,
minimalist report. Satisfactory but
more work was expected 10

Miss quantitative evaluation of results,

minimalist report. Satisfactory but
more work was expected 10

Satisfactory but I cannot check the

method implemented 13.5
0

Satisfactory but the results are not as

good as expected 13

Satisfactory but the results are not as

good as expected 13

Satisfactory but results should be

analysed and discussed 16

Satisfactory but more results were

expected, the discussion part could be
improved, the code is not commented,
the report is minimalist 12

Satisfactory but more results were

expected, the discussion part could be
improved, the code is not commented,
the report is minimalist 12

Satisfactory but more accurate results

were expected, the discussion part
could be improved, the code is not
commented 15

Satisfactory but more accurate results

were expected, the discussion part
could be improved, the code is not
commented 15

Satisfactory but more accurate results

were expected. 14
Satisfactory but more accurate results
were expected. 14

Very good job 18

Very good job 18

Very good job 18

Good report, the discussion about the

quality of the results could be more
developped, no suggest to improve
the quality of the reconstruction
method used 18

Good report, the discussion about the

quality of the results could be more
developped, no suggest to improve
the quality of the reconstruction
method used 18