ICCP seeks novel and high-quality submissions in all areas of computational photography, including, but not limited to:
Computational Cameras, Illumination, and Displays.
Advanced Image and Video Processing.
Machine Learning for Inference and/or Camera Design.
Vision with Camera Arrays and Multiple Images.
Organizing and Exploiting Photo / Video Collections.
Structured Light and Time-of-flight Imaging.
Appearance, shape, and illumination capture.
Computational Optics (wavefront coding, digital holography, compressive sensing, etc.).
Sensor and Illumination Hardware.
Applications: Imaging on Mobile Platforms, Scientific Imaging, Medicine and Biology, User Interfaces and AR/VR Systems.
This year, ICCP is co-ordinating with the IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI) for a special issue on Computational Photography to be published after the conference. All submissions to ICCP will undergo a common review process, and judged for acceptance to either:
The TPAMI special issue: for papers that describe entirely novel work (i.e., not extensions of published conference papers), and are also of archival quality with comprehensive evaluation and analysis; or
The ICCP Proceedings: for papers that meet traditional conference criteria for quality and novelty, but do not meet criteria for (1) above
Reviewing will be double-blind, and authors will be given an opportunity for a rebuttal after initial reviews. After review, authors of accepted papers will be informed by program chairs whether their paper has been selected for the special issue or the conference proceedings (see the Review & Decision Process section for further details). Both sets of accepted papers will be presented as talks at the conference.
Paper Submission Site Opens
November 6, 2019
Paper Submission Deadline
Reviews Released to Authors
February 3, 2019
February 9, 2020 (11:59 PM PT)
Notification to Authors
February 21, 2020
March 22, 2020 (11:59 PM PT)
April 24-26, 2020
Papers must be submitted through CMT3 using the submission link at the top of the page.
Submissions must be anonymized for double-blind review, and prepared using the provided LaTeX author kit (top of the page). Submitted versions should not include author names and biographies, or other information that may identify authors.
The page limit for submissions is 11 pages including references (PAMI format). Papers that exceed the limit will be rejected without review. For accepted papers, camera-ready versions can be upto 12 pages (including references, acknowledgments, and author biographies).
Papers can include supplementary material. This material must also be anonymized. Note that reviewers may, but are not required to, review the supplementary material.
The paper abstract can have a maximum size of 4000 characters. The paper must be uploaded as a PDF file, with a maximum file size of 30 MB. The supplementary material can be a PDF or ZIP file, with a maximum size of 100 MB.
For papers accepted to the PAMI special issue, authors will be notified of additional steps after the camera ready deadline for transfer to the PAMI publication team.
Please read through this page carefully, especially the Policies section below. By submitting a paper to ICCP, authors agree to all policies and understand that papers will be processed by the Toronto paper matching system to help select reviewers for each paper. For any questions, please contact the program chairs by sending an e-mail to email@example.com.
Review & Decision Process
Reviewing will be double-blind, and every submission (except those rejected administratively) will receive at least three expert reviews.
After the reviews are released to authors, they will have the opportunity to respond with a rebuttal on CMT3 (in the form of text-box entry with a character limit). There will be no opportunity to revise the paper at that time.
After weighing the rebuttal and discussions with reviewers, program chairs will make one of the following decisions for every paper:
Accept to Conference Proceedings.
To be Recommended to PAMI special issue. For papers in this category, program chairs may inform authors of suggested or required minor changes to be included in the camera-ready. This will be equivalent to a journal minor revision.
Authors will upload their final versions to CMT by the camera-ready deadline.
At this time for papers in category 3 above, program chairs will verify (without further input from reviewers) that the camera-ready has included all required changes, and also that it is otherwise substantially similar to the reviewed version. In the unlikely case where the camera-ready does not include the required changes, a paper may be moved to category 2 (i.e., Accept to conference proceedings). Otherwise, program chairs (as guest-editors) will forward the recommendation that the paper published in the special issue to the PAMI editor-in-chief.
For papers accepted to the PAMI special issue, authors will receive instructions for further processing by the IEEE Computer Society publications department.
Conflict Responsibilities: It is the primary author’s responsibility to ensure that all authors on their paper have registered their institutional conflicts into CMT3. If a paper is found to have an undeclared or incorrect institutional conflict, the paper may be summarily rejected at any time the conflict is discovered (including after notification of acceptance). To avoid undeclared conflicts, the author list is considered to be final after the submission deadline. No changes to the author list are allowed for accepted papers.
Every author of the paper should enter their institutional conflict domains in their CMT3 account (click on your name in the upper-right, and then “Domain Conflicts” under ICCP 2020). These should include domains of all institutions they have worked for, or have had very close collaboration with, within the last 3 years. The primary author should ensure they have added co-authors using the correct e-mail address linked to their CMT3 accounts.
Double-blind Review: ICCP reviewing is double blind, in that authors do not know names of reviewers, and reviewers cannot, beyond reasonable doubt, infer the names of the authors from the submission and the additional material. Avoid providing information that may identify the authors in the acknowledgments and in supplementary material. Avoid providing links to websites that identify authors. Violation of any of these guidelines may lead to rejection without review. If you need to cite a different paper of yours that will be under review during the ICCP review period, then either: (1) If a pre-print of that paper is available on arXiv, then cite the arXiv version just as you would as work, without suggesting that you are authors of that paper; or (2) Cite the paper in your submission without author names, and include an anonymized version with the supplementary material. In either case, you need to convincingly argue that your submission is novel compared to the other paper.
Dual and Concurrent Submissions: ICCP’s goal is to publish novel exciting work and to prevent duplication of reviewing effort. By submitting a manuscript to ICCP, authors acknowledge that it has not been previously published or accepted for publication in substantially similar form in any peer-reviewed venue including journal, conference or workshop, or archival forum. Furthermore, no publication substantially similar in content has been or will be submitted to this or another conference, workshop, or journal during the ICCP review period. Violation of any of these conditions will lead to rejection, and will be reported to the other venue to which the submission was sent.
A publication, for the purposes of this policy, is defined to be a written work longer than four pages (excluding references) that was submitted for review by peers for either acceptance or rejection, and, after review, was accepted. In particular, this definition of publication does not depend upon whether such an accepted written work appears in a formal proceedings or whether the organizers declare that such work “counts as a publication”.
The above definition does not consider an arXiv.org paper as a publication because it cannot be rejected. It also excludes university technical reports which are typically not peer reviewed. However, this definition of publication does include peer-reviewed workshop papers, even if they do not appear in a proceedings, if their length is more than four pages (excluding citations). Given this definition, any submission to ICCP should not have substantial overlap with prior publications or other concurrent submissions.
A submission with substantial overlap includes one that shares 20 percent or more material, or anything that may be viewed by the reviewers or readers as a “contribution”, with previous or concurrently submitted publications. If there is any possibility that a prior publication or concurrent submissions could be seen as having overlap with the ICCP manuscript, authors should discuss and cite that work (taking care to maintain anonymity as described in the previous section). Authors are encouraged to contact the Program Chairs about clarifications on borderline or unusual cases.
Note that a technical report (departmental, arXiv.org, etc.) version of the submission that is put up without any form of direct peer-review is NOT considered prior art and should NOT be cited in the submission.
Plagiarism: Plagiarism consists of appropriating the words or results of another, without credit. ICCP 2020’s policy on plagiarism is to refer suspected cases to the IEEE Intellectual Property office, which has an established mechanism for dealing with plagiarism and wide powers of excluding offending authors from future conferences and from IEEE journals. You can find information on this office, their procedures, and their definitions of five levels of plagiarism at this webpage. We will be actively checking for plagiarism. Furthermore, the paper matching system is quite accurate. As a result, it regularly happens that a paper containing plagiarized material goes to a reviewer from whom material was plagiarized; experience shows that such reviewers pursue plagiarism cases enthusiastically.