Noname manuscript No.
(will be inserted by the editor)

Image-based Synthesis for Deep 3D Human Pose Estimation

arXiv:1802.04216v1 [cs.CV] 12 Feb 2018

Grégory Rogez · Cordelia Schmid

Received: date / Accepted: date

Abstract This paper addresses the problem of 3D human
pose estimation in the wild. A significant challenge is the
lack of training data, i.e., 2D images of humans annotated
with 3D poses. Such data is necessary to train state-of-the-art
CNN architectures. Here, we propose a solution to generate
a large set of photorealistic synthetic images of humans with
3D pose annotations. We introduce an image-based synthesis
engine that artificially augments a dataset of real images with
2D human pose annotations using 3D motion capture data.
Given a candidate 3D pose, our algorithm selects for each
joint an image whose 2D pose locally matches the projected
3D pose. The selected images are then combined to generate
a new synthetic image by stitching local image patches in
a kinematically constrained manner. The resulting images
are used to train an end-to-end CNN for full-body 3D pose
estimation. We cluster the training data into a large number
of pose classes and tackle pose estimation as a K-way classification problem. Such an approach is viable only with large
training sets such as ours. Our method outperforms most
of the published works in terms of 3D pose estimation in
controlled environments (Human3.6M) and shows promising results for real-world images (LSP). This demonstrates
that CNNs trained on artificial images generalize well to real
images. Compared to data generated from more classical
rendering engines, our synthetic images do not require any
domain adaptation or fine-tuning stage.

1 Introduction
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) have been very successful for many different tasks in computer vision. However,
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Inria, CNRS, Grenoble INP*, LJK,
38000 Grenoble, France
* Institute of Engineering Univ. Grenoble Alpes
E-mail: gregory.rogez@inria.fr

training these deep architectures requires large scale datasets
which are not always available or easily collectable. This
is particularly the case for 3D human pose estimation, for
which an accurate annotation of 3D articulated poses in large
collections of real images is non-trivial: annotating 2D images with 3D pose information is impractical [6] while large
scale 3D pose capture is only available in constrained environments through marker-based (e.g., HumanEva [49], Human3.6M [20]) or makerless multiview systems (e.g., CMU
Panoptic Dataset [25], MARCOnI Dataset [13]). The images
captured in such conditions are limited in terms of subjects
and environment diversity and do not match well real environments, i.e., real-world scenes with cluttered backgrounds.
Moreover, with marker-based systems, the subjects have to
wear capture suits with markers on them to which learning
algorithms may overfit. This has limited the development of
end-to-end CNN architectures for real-world 3D pose understanding.
Learning architectures usually augment existing training data by applying synthetic perturbations to the original
images, e.g., jittering exemplars or applying more complex
affine or perspective transformations [22]. Such data augmentation has proven to be a crucial stage, especially for
training deep architectures. Recent work [21,37,54,64] has
introduced the use of data synthesis as a solution to train
CNNs when only limited data is available. Synthesis can potentially provide infinite training data by rendering 3D CAD
models from any camera viewpoint [37,54, 64]. Fisher et
al. [11] generate a synthetic “Flying Chairs” dataset to learn
optical flow with a CNN and show that networks trained
on this unrealistic data still generalize very well to existing
datasets. In the context of scene text recognition, Jaderberg
et al. [21] trained solely on data produced by a synthetic text
generation engine. In this case, the synthetic data is highly
realistic and sufficient to replace real data. Although synthesis seems like an appealing solution, there often exists a large

2

Grégory Rogez, Cordelia Schmid

Fig. 1 Image-based synthesis engine. Input: real images with manual annotation of 2D poses, and 3D poses captured with a motion capture system.
Output: 220x220 synthetic images and associated 3D poses.

domain shift from synthetic to real data [37]. Integrating a
human 3D model in a given background in a realistic way is
not trivial [20]. Rendering a collection of photo-realistic images (in terms of color, texture, context, shadow) that would
cover the variations in pose, body shape, clothing and scenes
is a challenging task.
Instead of rendering a human 3D model, we propose an
image-based synthesis approach that makes use of motion
capture data to augment an existing dataset of real images
with 2D pose annotations. Our system synthesizes a very
large number of new images showing more pose configurations and, importantly, it provides the corresponding 3D
pose annotations (see Figure 1). For each candidate 3D pose
in the motion capture library, our system combines several
annotated images to generate a synthetic image of a human
in this particular pose. This is achieved by “copy-pasting”
the image information corresponding to each joint in a kinematically constrained manner. Given this large “in-the-wild”
dataset, we implement an end-to-end CNN architecture for
3D pose estimation. Our approach first clusters the 3D poses
into K pose classes. Then, a K-way CNN classifier is trained
to return a distribution over probable pose classes given a
bounding box around the human in the image. Our method
outperforms most state-of-the-art results in terms of 3D pose
estimation in controlled environments and shows promising
results on images captured “in-the-wild”. The work presented
in this paper is an extension of [42]. We provide an additional
comparison of our image-based synthesis engine with a more
classical approach based on rendering a human 3D model.
The better performance of our method shows that for training
a deep pipeline with a classification or a regression objective,
it is more important to produce locally photorealistic data
than globally coherent data.

1.1 Related work
3D human pose estimation in monocular images. Recent
approaches employ CNNs for 3D pose estimation in monocular images [8, 28, 36] or in videos [71]. Due to the lack of
large scale training data, they are usually trained (and tested)
on 3D motion capture data in constrained environments [28].
Pose understanding in natural images is usually limited to 2D
pose estimation [9, 59,60]. Motivated by these well-working
off-the-shelf 2D detectors and inspired by earlier work in
single view 3D pose reconstruction [33,40, 50, 55], recent
work also tackles 3D pose understanding from 2D poses [2,
7,15, 32, 58]. Some approaches use as input the 2D joints
automatically provided by a 2D pose detector [7, 32, 52, 62],
while others jointly solve the 2D and 3D pose estimation [51,
58, 68]. Most similar to ours are the architectures that take
advantage of the different sources of training data, i.e., indoor images with motion capture 3D poses and real-world
images with 2D annotations [31,67,69]. Iqbal et al. [67] use
a dual-source approach that combines 2D pose estimation
with 3D pose retrieval. Mehta et al. [31] propose a 2D-to-3D
knowledge transfer to generalize to in-the-wild images, using pre-trained 2D pose networks to initialize the 3D pose
regression networks. The architecture of [69] shares the common representations between the 2D and the 3D tasks. Our
method uses the same two training sources, i.e., images with
annotated 2D pose and 3D motion capture data. However, we
combine both sources off-line to generate a large training set
that is used to train an end-to-end CNN 3D pose classifier.
This is shown to improve over [67], which can be explained
by the fact that training is performed in an end-to-end fashion.
Synthetic pose data. A number of works have considered
the use of synthetic data for human pose estimation. Synthetic data have been used for upper body [47], full-body
silhouettes [1], hand-object interactions [45], full-body pose

aware blending algorithm that m
on the human body while erasi
facts. For each pixel (u, v), we
region Ru,v whose size varies w
(u, v) to the pose:

Fig. 3 Illustration of the cost function employed to find pose matches.
We
show
twoPose
poses
aligned at joint j with red lines across all the other
Image-based Synthesis for Deep 3D
Human
Estimation
Grégory Rogez, Cordelia Schmid
joints denoting contributors to the distance.

3

Ru,v = ↵ + du,v .
joint 1
ctly connected joint to j in p. The rigid
in {q0j } obtaining a partition of the image into triangles, acRu,v will be larger when far
to the
pose.p,Then,
we assign
the probability
For each cording
joint j of
the selected
query pose
we retrieve
from
!q0j is obtained by combining the trans0
0 2
2
ing joint j injointp2 and q, and theour
rotation
(qk1), q=1 )exp(
dE, (p
qk of
) /images
) to each
vertex nearby.
qk0 . We The distance du,v is com
dataset Qprob
= j{(I
. . . (IN
qN
and ank ,)}
form to the rasterisation of the 2
ning joint i in p and q:
finally compute a probability map probj [u, v] by interpolatnotated 2D poses:
empirically set ↵=6 pixels and
ing values from these vertices using barycentric interpolation
(2)
!pi (pk ) + tqj !pj .
images.
qj = argmin
Djeach
(p, q)triangle.
8j 2The
{1...n}.
(4) maps
inside
resulting n probability
are Then, we evaluate how
q2Q
joint j
concatenated and an index map index[u, v] 2 {1...n}contribute
can be to the value of pixel (u
transformation is given in Fig.In
3. practice, we
do
not
search
for
self-occluded
joints,
i.e.,
computed as follows:
of the image indexes inside the
measures the similarity between
2 joints
joints
occluded by another body part, that can be labelled as
ing into account the entire poses.
Toby
in-simple
index[u,
v] = argmax
w[u,(5)
v] = Hist(index(Ru,v )) 8j
such
3D reasoning.
We j2{1...n}
obtain a prob
list of
n v],
matches
j [u,
0 dis0
0
of neighboring joints, we weight
the
{(Ij , qj ), j = 1...n} where Ij is the cropped image obtained
0
pointing
to thepose
training
image
I220
should
be
used
where
weights
each pair Fig.
of joints
{(pkengine.
, qk0 ),From
k after
= left
1...n}
j that
2 Synthesis
to
right: forthis
eachmap
joint
of a 2D
p (centered
in
asame
× pair
220
bounding
box), the
we align
all the are normaliz
0
transforming
Ij jwith
Tqquery
.
Note
that
a
j !qj
0
0
0
annotated
2D
poses
w.r.t
the
limb
and
search
for
the
best
pose
match,
resulting
in
a
list
of
n
matches
{(I
,
q
),
j
=
1...n}
where
I
is
obtained
for
each
pixel
(u,
v).
A
mosaic
M
[u,
v]
can
be
generated
by
j
j
j
The final mosaic M [u, v] (see e
stance to the query joint j in both
poses.
0
(I,j →
q)
appear multiple times in the list of candidates, i.e.,
after transforming Ij with Tq
qcan
j . For each retrieved pair, we compute a probability map probj [u, v]. These n maps are used to compute
“copy-pasting”
image
information
at
pixel
(u,
v)
indicated
by computes
0
as theeach
weighted sum
index[u, v] ∈ {1...n}, pointing
to theaimage
that should
used for ajoints.
particular pixel (u, v). Finally, our blendingcomputed
algorithm
being
goodIj match
forbeseveral
pixel value of the synthetic image M [u, v] as the
weightedv]:
sum over all aligned images Ij0 , the weights being calculated using a histogram of
index[u,
X
Finally,
to render a new image, we need to select the
indexes in a squared region Ru,v around
(u, v).
M
[u,
v]
=
wj [u, v]Ij0 [u, v].
0
0
⇤ pixel (u, v). In(p) + wkj (q)) dE (pk , qk0 )
(3) images
candidate
I
to
be
used
for
each
M [u, v]j = Ij ⇤ [u, v] with j = index[u, v].
(6)
j
stead
of
using
regular
patches,
we
compute
a
probability
from depth [48] or egocentric RGB-D scenes [43]. Zuffi and
torealistic images covering more body pose configurations
0
0
map pj [u,tov]sample
associated
with
pair
based
lo- by This
procedure
produces
plausi
Black [72] used a 3D mesh-model
synthetic
ex-each
than
the(I
original
Thison
is done
projecting
the motion
j , qj ) set.
1
inversely emplars
proportional
to
the
distance
be0
and jfit 3D scans.cal
Recently,
Chen
et al.
[8] trained
on do
random
camera views
obtain a set
matches
measured
by dEaimage
(pk ,capture
qkblending
) in3D
Eq.poses
1. To
so, we
icallytocorrect
andoflocally photo
2.2
Pose-aware
e query
j, i.e.,
= 1/dEon
(pk , pj ) training images ren- 2D poses for which new images are synthesized by selecting
human
3Dwpose
regressor
k (p)
P joint
first synthetic
apply a Delaunay triangulation to the set of 2D joints
sented in Figure 1 and Figure 4.
j
hat k wkdered
Thisacost
function is Similarly,
(p) =
1. such
from
3D mesh-model.
[19] trained
a v] resulting
and stitching
image
patches instage
a kinematically
The mosaic
M [u,
from
the previous
presents constrained
human detector for unusual pedestrian using synthetic data
manner. Our synthesis process consists of two stages: the mosignificant artifacts at the boundaries between image regenerated by a game engine. In both cases, a domain adaptasaic construction stage that selects and stitches image patches
gions.
Smoothing
is
necessary
prevent the
learning
al-that improves
tion stage was necessary to generalize to real images. In [17],
together
and ato
pose-aware
blending
process
gorithm
from
interpreting
these
artifacts
as
discriminative
a scene-specific pedestrian detector was learned without real
image quality and erases patch seams. These are discussed in
data while [14] synthesized virtual samples
with a generathe We
following
Figure
2 summarizes
pose-related
features.
first subsections.
experimented
with
off-the- our synthesis
tive model to enhance the classificationshelf
performance
of
a
process.
image filtering and alpha blending algorithms, but the
discriminative model. In [18], pictures of results
2D characters
weresatisfactory. Instead, we propose a new posewere not
animated by fitting and deforming a 3D mesh model. Later,
aware blending algorithm
that capture
maintains
image
information
2.1 Motion
guided
image
mosaicing
[39] augmented labelled training images with small perturonrequire
the human
body while erasing most of the stitching artibations in a similar way. These methods
a perfect
n×3
with
n joints P ∈ Rsquared
, and its projected
facts.Park
For and
eachRapixel Given
(u, v),a 3D
we pose
select
a surrounding
segmentation of the humans in the images.
2D
joints
p
=
{p
,
j
=
1...n}
in
a
particular
j
manan [35] synthesized hypothetical poses
for tracking
by size varies with the distance du,v of pixel camera view,
region
Ru,v whose
e cost function
employed
to
find
pose
matches.
we want to find for each joint j ∈ {1...n} an image whose
applying geometric transformations to (u,
the v)
firsttoframe
of a
the pose:
gned at joint j with red lines across all the other

annotated 2D pose presents a similar kinematic configuration
video sequence. We also use image-based synthesis to generutors to the distance.
around j. To do so, we define a distance function between 2
ate images but our rendering engine combines
regions
Ru,v image
=↵+
du,v .
(7)
different 2D poses p and q, conditioned on joint j as:
from several images to create images with associated 3D
poses.
n
Ru,v will be larger when far X
from
the body and smaller
of the query pose p, we retrieve from
Dj (p, q) =
dE (pk , qk0 )
(1)

nearby. The distance du,v is computed using a distance transk=1
form to the rasterisation of the 2D skeleton. In this paper, we
2 Image-based synthesis engine
where and
dE is the
Euclidean
distance.220⇥220
q0 is the aligned version
empirically set ↵=6 pixels
=0.25
to synthesise
of q with respect to joint j after applying
a rigid transformaAt the
heart of our approach is(4)
an image-based
synthesis
images. Then,
we evaluate
how much each image
Ij0 should
(p, q) 8j
2 {1...n}.
0
0
tion Tqj →qj , which respects qj = pj and qi0 = pi , where
engine that artificially generates “in-the-wild” images with
contribute to the value
pixel
(u, v)
by building
a histogram
i isofthe
farthest
directly
connected
joint to j in p. The rigid
3D pose annotations. Our method takes as input a dataset of
not search for self-occluded joints, i.e.,
of
the
image
indexes
inside
the
region
R
:
transformation Tqj →q0ju,v
is obtained by combining the transreal images with 2D annotations and a library of 3D motion
nother body
part,data,
thatand
cangenerates
be labelled
as number of synthetic im- lation tqj →pj aligning joint j in p and q, and the rotation
capture
a large
w[u,
v] =
Hist(index(R
))qi8j
{1 . . . joint
n}, i in p and q: (8)
reasoning.ages
Wewith
obtain
a list of
matches
u,vR
matrix
→pi2aligning
associated
3Dnposes
(see Figure
1). We
introduce
0
} where Ijanisimage-based
the croppedrendering
image obtained
engine that augments the existing
P
0 (pk ) = Rq →p (pk ) + tq →p .
Tqnormalized
(2)
where
the
weights
are
soi that
i
j →qj
of
annotated
images
with
a
very
large
set
of
phoj wjj[u, jv] = 1.
0
Ij with Tdatabase
.
Note
that
a
same
pair
qj !qj
The final mosaic M [u, v] (see examples in Figure 1) is then
ultiple times in the list of candidates, i.e.,
computed as the weighted sum over all aligned images:
for several joints.
X
er a new image, we need to select the
M
[u,
v]
=
wj [u, v]Ij0 [u, v].
(9)
0
to
be
used
for
each
pixel
(u,
v).
Inj
j
ular patches, we compute a probability

I1 , q1 ) . . . (IN , qN )} of images and an-

0

0

4

Grégory Rogez, Cordelia Schmid

An example of such transformation is given in Fig. 3.
The function Dj measures the similarity between 2 joints
by aligning and taking into account the entire poses. To increase the influence of neighboring joints, we weight the distances dE between each pair of joints {(pk , qk0 ), k = 1...n}
according to their distance to the query joint j in both poses.
Eq. 1 becomes:
Dj (p, q) =

n
X

(wkj (p) + wkj (q)) dE (pk , qk0 )

(3)

concatenated and an index map index[u, v] ∈ {1...n} can be
computed as follows:
index[u, v] = argmaxj∈{1...n} probj [u, v],

(5)

this map pointing to the training image Ij0 that should be used
for each pixel (u, v). A mosaic M [u, v] can be generated by
“copy-pasting” image information at pixel (u, v) indicated by
index[u, v]:

k=1

where weight wkj is inversely proportional to the distance between joint k and the query joint j, i.e., wkj (p) = 1/dE (pk , pj )
P
and normalized so that k wkj (p) = 1. This cost function is
illustrated in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 Illustration of the cost function employed to find pose matches.
We show two poses aligned at joint j with red lines across all the other
joints denoting contributors to the distance.

For each joint j of the query pose p, we retrieve from
our dataset Q = {(I1 , q1 ) . . . (IN , qN )} of images and annotated 2D poses:
qj = argminq∈Q Dj (p, q) ∀j ∈ {1...n}.

(4)

In practice, we do not search for self-occluded joints, i.e.,
joints occluded by another body part, that can be labelled as
such by simple 3D reasoning. We obtain a list of n matches
{(Ij0 , q0j ), j = 1...n} where Ij0 is the cropped image obtained
after transforming Ij with Tqj →q0j . Note that a same pair
(I, q) can appear multiple times in the list of candidates, i.e.,
being a good match for several joints.
Finally, to render a new image, we need to select the
candidate images Ij0 to be used for each pixel (u, v). Instead of using regular patches, we compute a probability
map pj [u, v] associated with each pair (Ij0 , q0j ) based on local matches measured by dE (pk , qk0 ) in Eq. 1. To do so, we
first apply a Delaunay triangulation to the set of 2D joints
in {q0j } obtaining a partition of the image into triangles, according to the selected pose. Then, we assign the probability
probj (qk0 ) = exp(−dE (pk , qk0 )2 /σ 2 ) to each vertex qk0 . We
finally compute a probability map probj [u, v] by interpolating values from these vertices using barycentric interpolation
inside each triangle. The resulting n probability maps are

M [u, v] = Ij0 ∗ [u, v] with j ∗ = index[u, v].

(6)

2.2 Pose-aware image blending
The mosaic M [u, v] resulting from the previous stage presents
significant artifacts at the boundaries between image regions. Smoothing is necessary to prevent the learning algorithm from interpreting these artifacts as discriminative
pose-related features. We first experimented with off-theshelf image filtering and alpha blending algorithms, but the
results were not satisfactory. Instead, we propose a new poseaware blending algorithm that maintains image information
on the human body while erasing most of the stitching artifacts. For each pixel (u, v), we select a surrounding squared
region Ru,v whose size varies with the distance du,v of pixel
(u, v) to the pose:
Ru,v = α + βdu,v .

(7)

Ru,v will be larger when far from the body and smaller
nearby. The distance du,v is computed using a distance transform to the rasterisation of the 2D skeleton. In this paper, we
empirically set α=6 pixels and β=0.25 to synthesise 220×220
images. Then, we evaluate how much each image Ij0 should
contribute to the value of pixel (u, v) by building a histogram
of the image indexes inside the region Ru,v :
w[u, v] = Hist(index(Ru,v )),

(8)

P
where the weights are normalized so that j wj [u, v] = 1.
The final mosaic M [u, v] (see examples in Figure 1) is then
computed as the weighted sum over all aligned images:
M [u, v] =

X

wj [u, v]Ij0 [u, v].

(9)

j

This procedure produces plausible images that are kinematically correct and locally photorealistic. See examples presented in Figure 1 and Figure 4.

Image-based Synthesis for Deep 3D Human Pose Estimation

5

Fig. 4 Examples of synthetics images generated using Leeds Sport dataset (LSP)[23] and CMU motion capture dataset as 2D and 3D sources
respectively. For each case, we show the 2D pose overlaid on the image and the corresponding orientated 3D pose.

3 CNN for full-body 3D pose estimation
Human pose estimation has been addressed as a classification problem in the past [4, 34, 41, 43]. Here, the 3D pose
space is partitioned into K clusters and a K-way classifier is
trained to return a distribution over pose classes. Such a classification approach allows modeling multimodal outputs in
ambiguous cases, and produces multiple hypothesis that can
be rescored, e.g., using temporal information. Training such
a classifier requires a reasonable amount of data per class
which implies a well-defined and limited pose space (e.g.
walking action) [4, 41], a large-scale synthetic dataset [43]
or both [34]. Here, we introduce a CNN-based classification
approach for full-body 3D pose estimation. Inspired by the
DeepPose algorithm [60] where the AlexNet CNN architecture [27] is used for full-body 2D pose regression, we select
the same architecture and adapt it to the task of 3D body
pose classification. This is done by adapting the last fullyconnected layer to output a distribution of scores over pose
classes as illustrated in Figure 5. Training such a classifier
requires a large amount of training data that we generate
using our image-based synthesis engine.
Given a library of motion capture data and a set of camera
views, we synthesize for each 3D pose a 220 × 220 image.
This size has proved to be adequate for full-body pose estimation [60]. The 3D poses are then aligned with respect to the
camera center and translated to the center of the torso, i.e., the

average position between shoulders and hips coordinates. In
that way, we obtain orientated 3D poses that also contain the
viewpoint information. We cluster the resulting 3D poses to
define our classes which will correspond to groups of similar
orientated 3D poses, i.e., body pose configuration and camera
viewpoint. We empirically found that K=5000 clusters was
a sufficient number of clusters and that adding more clusters
did not further improve the results. For evaluation, we return
the average 2D and 3D poses of the top scoring class.
To compare with [60], we also train a holistic pose regressor, which regresses to 2D and 3D poses (not only 2D). To do
so, we concatenate the 3D coordinates expressed in meters
normalized to the range [−1, 1], with the 2D pose coordinates,
also normalized in the range [−1, 1] following [60].
4 Experiments
We address 3D pose estimation in the wild. However, there
does not exist a dataset of real-world images with 3D annotations. We thus evaluate our method in two different settings
using existing datasets: (1) we validate our 3D pose predictions using Human3.6M [20] which provides accurate 3D and
2D poses for 15 different actions captured in a controlled indoor environment; (2) we evaluate on the Leeds Sport dataset
(LSP) [23] that presents real-world images together with
full-body 2D pose annotations. We demonstrate competitive
results with state-of-the-art methods for both of them.

6

Grégory Rogez, Cordelia Schmid

K

4096

4096

13 x 13 x 286

13 x 13 x 384

13 x 13 x 384

27 x 27 x 256

55 x 55 x 96

2
3
1

220 x 220

Top score 1

Top score 2

Top score 3

Fig. 5 CNN-based pose classifier. We show the different layers and their corresponding dimensions, with convolutional layers depicted in blue
and fully connected ones in green. The output is a distribution over K pose classes. Pose estimation is obtained by taking the highest score in this
distribution. We show on the right the 3D poses for 3 highest scores. For this example, the top scoring class (top score 1) is correct.
Table 1 Impact of synthetic data on the performances for the regressor and the classifier. The 3D pose estimation results are given following the
protocol P1 of Human3.6M (see text for details).
Method
Reg.
Class.
Reg.
Class.
Reg.
Class.
Reg.
Class.

Type
of images
Real
Real
Synth
Synth
Real
Real
Synth + Real
Synth + Real

2D source
size
17,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
190,000
190,000
207,000
207,000

Our image-based rendering engine requires two different
training sources: 1) a 2D source of images with 2D pose annotations and 2) a motion capture 3D source. We consider two
different datasets for each: for 3D poses we use the CMU motion capture dataset1 and the Human3.6M 3D poses [20], and
for 2D pose annotations the MPII-LSP-extended dataset [38]
and the Human3.6M 2D poses and images.
Motion capture 3D source. The CMU motion capture dataset
consists of 2500 sequences and a total of 140,000 3D poses.
We align the 3D poses w.r.t. the torso and select a subset
of 12,000 poses, ensuring that selected poses have at least
one joint 5 cm apart. In that way, we densely populate our
pose space and avoid repeating common poses, e.g., neutral standing or walking poses which are over-represented in
the dataset. For each of the 12,000 original motion capture
poses, we sample 180 random virtual views with azimuth
angle spanning 360 degrees and elevation angles in the range
[−45, 45]. We generate over 2 million pairs of 3D/2D pose
configurations (articulated poses + camera position and angle). For Human3.6M, we randomly selected a subset of
190,000 orientated 3D poses, discarding similar poses, i.e.,
when the average Euclidean distance of the joints is less than
15mm as in [67].
2D source. For the training dataset of real images with 2D
pose annotations, we use the MPII-LSP-extended [38] which
is a concatenation of the extended LSP [24] and the MPII
dataset [3]. Some of the poses were manually corrected as
a non-negligible number of annotations are not accurate
enough or completely wrong (eg., right-left inversions or
1

http://mocap.cs.cmu.edu

3D source
size
17,000
17,000
190,000
190,000
190,000
190,000
190,000
190,000

Training
pairs
17,000
17,000
190,000
190,000
190,000
190,000
380,000
380,000

Error
(mm)
112.9
149.7
101.9
97.2
139.6
97.7
125.5
88.1

bad ordering of the joints along a limb). We mirror the images to double the size of the training set, obtaining a total of
80,000 images with 2D pose annotations. For Human3.6M,
we consider the 4 cameras and create a pool of 17,000 images and associated 2D poses that we also mirror. To create a
diverse set of images, we ensure that the maximum joint-tojoint distance between corresponding 3D poses is over 5 cm,
i.e., similar poses have at least one joint 5 cm apart in 3D.
4.1 Evaluation on Human3.6M Dataset
To compare our results with recent work in 3D pose estimation [67], we follow the protocol introduced in [26] and
employed in [67]: we consider six subjects (S1, S5, S6, S7,
S8 and S9) for training, use every 64th frame of subject S11
for testing and evaluate the 3D pose error (mm) averaged
over the 13 joints. We refer to this protocol by P1. As in [67],
we measure a 3D pose error that aligns the pose by a rigid
transformation, but we also report the absolute error.
We first evaluate the impact of our synthetic data on the
performances for both the regressor and classifier. The results
are reported in Table 1. We can observe that when considering
few training images (17,000), the regressor clearly outperforms the classifier which, in turns, reaches better performances when trained on larger sets. This can be explained by
the fact that the classification approach requires a sufficient
amount of examples. We, then, compare results when training both regressor and classifier on the same 190,000 poses
considering a) synthetic data generated from Human3.6M,
b) the real images corresponding to the 190,000 poses and

Image-based Synthesis for Deep 3D Human Pose Estimation

7

Fig. 6 Human 3.6M real and synthetic data. We show on the left a training image from protocol 2 with the overlayed 2D pose. In the middle, we
show a “mosaic” image synthetized using the 2D pose from the real image on the left. In this case, the mosaic has been built by stitching image
patches from 3 different subjects. On the right, we show a synthetic “surreal” image obtained after rendering the SMPL model using the 3D pose
from the real image on the left. Note that for more realism, the surreal image is rendered at the exact same 3D location in the motion capture room,
using the same camera and background as in the real image.

Table 2 Comparison with state-of-the-art methods on Human3.6M
following protocol P1 that measures an aligned 3D pose distance.
Method
Bo&Sminchisescu [5]
Kostrikov&Gall [26]
Iqbal et al. [67]
Ours

2D source
size
120,000
120,000
300,000
207,000

3D source
size
120,000
120,000
380,000
190,000

Error
(mm)
117.9
115.7
108.3
88.1

c) the synthetic and real images together. We observe that the
classifier has similar performance when trained on synthetic
or real images, which means that our image-based rendering
engine synthesizes useful data. Furthermore, we can see that
the classifier performs much better when trained on synthetic
and real images together. This means that our data is different
from the original data and allows the classifier to learn better features. Note that we retrain AlexNet from scratch. We
found that it performed better than just fine-tuning a model
pre-trained on Imagenet (3D error of 88.1mm vs 98.3mm
with fine-tuning).
In Table 2, we compare our results to three state-of-the-art
approaches. Our best classifier, trained with a combination of
synthetic and real data, outperforms these methods in terms
of 3D pose estimation by a margin. Note that even though
we compute 3D pose error after 3D alignment, our method
initially estimates absolute pose (with orientation w.r.t. the
camera). That is not the case of Bo et al. [5] for instance, who
estimate a relative pose and do not provide 3D orientation.
Comparison with classical synthetic images. We make additional experiments to further understand how useful our
data is with respect to more classical synthetic data, i.e. obtained by rendering a human 3D model as in [8, 61]. To do so,
we consider the same 190,000 poses from the previous experiments and render the SMPL 3D human mesh model [30] in
these exact same poses using the body parameters and texture
maps from [61]. To disambiguate the type of synthetic data,

we refer to these new rendered images as “surreal” images, as
named in [61] and refer to our data as “mosaic” images. Note
that for more realism and to allow for a better comparison,
we place the 3D model in the exact same location within
the Human3.6M capture room and use the backgrounds and
camera parameters of the corresponding views to render the
scenes. An example of the resulting surreal images is visualized in Figure 6 where we also show the corresponding
original real image as well as our mosaic image obtained for
the exact same pose. When the 2D annotations are accurate
and consistent, as it is the case with the Human3.6M dataset,
our algorithm produces very plausible images that are locally
photorealistic and kinematically correct without significant
artefacts at the boundaries between the image patches. Note
that for this experiment, we use the poses and images from
subjects S1, S5, S6, S7 and S8 to generate our synthetic sets,
i.e. removing S9 from the training set. This allows us to also
evaluate on a second protocol (P2) employed in [28, 57, 71]
where only these 5 subjects are used for training.
We then performed quantitative evaluation by training
the same classifier on different combinations of the 3 types of
data (real, mosaic and surreal). When combining 2 or 3 types
of data, we alternate the batches of each data type considering
the exact same poses in the different batches. In practice, we
consider batches of 256 images and train for 80k iterations,
i.e. 110, 55 and 37 epochs for respectively 1, 2 or 3 types
of data in the training set. We evaluate on the same subset
of frames from subject S11 that was used in the previous
experiments (protocol P1). The numerical results are given in
Figure 7 where we report classification rate, absolute 3D pose
error and 3D pose error after alignment. We can observe that
the model trained on real data (green plot) performs significantly worse than the model trained on our synthetic mosaics
(blue) both in terms of classification and 3D pose errors. With
even less real data available, subject S9 being removed from
the training set for this experiment, our data augmentation

8

Grégory Rogez, Cordelia Schmid
Classification rate (%)

Abs. 3D pose error (mm)

3D pose error (mm)

30

200

140

23
Real
Mosaic
Surreal
16
Mosaic+Real
Real+Surreal
Surreal+Mosaic
9
Real+Surreal+Mosaic

178

126

155

113

133

99

3

4000

28000

52000

76000

110

4000

28000

iterations

52000

76000

85

4000

28000

iterations

52000

76000

iterations

Fig. 7 Human pose estimation results on Human3.6M when training the classifier with different combinations of real, surreal and mosaic data. We
report classification rate, absolute 3D pose estimation error and 3D pose error after rigid alignment. We show the performance with respect to the
number of training iterations. The three sets of training images all correspond to the same 190,000 3D poses and are labelled with the same class
labels.
Method
Tekin et al.[57]
Zhou et al.[71]
Du et al.[12]
Li et al.[28]
Li et al.[29]
Tekin et al.[56]
Sanzari et al.[46]
Zhou et al.[70]
Tome et al.[58]
Moreno [32]
Rogez et al.[44]
Pavlakos et al.[36]
Ours (real+mosaic)
Ours (real+mosaic+surreal)
Method
Tekin et al.[57]
Zhou et al.[71]
Du et al.[12]
Li et al.[28]
Li et al.[29]
Tekin et al.[56]
Sanzari et al.[46]
Zhou et al.[70]
Tome et al.[58]
Moreno [32]
Rogez et al.[44]
Pavlakos et al.[36]
Ours (real+mosaic)
Ours (real+mosaic+surreal)

Im

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Im

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Directions
102.4
87.4
85.1
48.8
91.8
65.0
69.5
76.2
58.6
94.5
87.7
Smoke
118.4
107.4
120.0
97.8
106.9
85.0
89.7
88.0
65.7
123.8
107.4

Discussion
147.7
109.3
112.7
134.1
133.5
129.1
56.3
102.4
73.5
80.2
80.2
64.6
110.4
100.7
Photo
182.7
143.3
135.9
166.2
163.3
162.2
105.6
125.2
110.7
102.7
105.7
70.7
160.3
155.2

Eat
88.8
87.0
104.9
97.4
97.6
91.4
96.0
97.0
76.8
78.2
75.8
63.7
109.3
93.6
Wait
138.7
118.1
117.6
65.9
94.4
85.8
98.5
83.7
61.6
133.0
130.7

Greet
125.3
103.2
122.1
122.3
120.4
121.7
84.8
98.8
86.4
87.0
83.3
62.4
143.9
139.6
Walk
55.1
79.4
99.3
68.5
73.7
65.7
92.6
79.0
71.4
79.2
64.9
56.4
77.4
71.6

Phone
118.0
116.2
139.1
96.5
113.4
86.3
100.8
92.2
66.9
125.9
107.9
WalkDog
126.3
114.2
137.4
132.5
135.2
130.5
130.5
126.0
86.3
82.4
86.6
69.0
129.5
114.6

Pose
112.3
106.9
105.9
66.3
90.0
68.9
76.0
79.0
57.7
95.5
88.1
WalkTogether
65.8
97.7
106.5
102.2
99.0
73.1
77.2
84.0
59.5
91.3
83.1

Purchase
129.2
99.8
166.2
107.4
93.8
74.8
69.7
71.7
62.5
89.8
78.9

Sit
138.9
124.5
117.5
116.9
132.2
110.2
104.7
105.9
78.6
134.2
119.0
Avg. (All)
125.0
113.0
126.5
93.1
107.3
88.4
87.3
87.7
66.9
121.2
110.6

SitDown
224.9
199.2
226.9
129.6
159.0
173.9
113.9
127.1
103.5
179.2
171.9
Avg. (6)
121.0
106.1
118.7
121.3
121.6
116.8
83.0
119.5
112.6

Table 3 Comparison with state of the art on Human3.6M using protocol P2 (average 3D distance without pose alignment). We show per-class
results. Im refers to image-based approaches working at the frame level, i.e., that do not leverage temporal information. Note that Du et al. [12] only
evaluate on camera 2.

process proves to be even more useful. We can also clearly
see that the model trained on surreal images (red plot) does
not generalize well to new images as the humans are visibly different. This domain gap problem disappears when the
surreal images are mixed with real images (yellow curve).
These observations are in par with the conclusions from other
works. A domain adaptation process [8, 65] or a fine-tuning
stage [19] is often required when training on purely synthetic
human data. Recently, de Souza et al. [10] also showed in the
context of action recognition that overfitting can be avoided
by training their classifier on a combination of real and synthetic data. Such domain adaptation is not required when
using our mosaic data. We can observe that the model trained

on mosaic (blue) performs similarly to the model trained on
surreal+real data (yellow) and that adding the real data to the
mosaic images results in a better model (cyan). Finally, we
can see that combining surreal and mosaic images results in
an even better model (magenta curve) and that adding real
data to the mosaics and surreal data marginally improves
the performance (black). This indicates that our data and the
surreal data are complimentary and their association allows
to significantly improve the performance when little training data is available. The surreal images bring diversity in
terms of body shapes and textures while our mosaics add
photo-realism. We believe that we generate hard examples
where the symmetry of the body in terms of shape, color and

Image-based Synthesis for Deep 3D Human Pose Estimation
2D
source
Human3.6M
MPII+LSP
MPII+LSP
MPII+LSP

3D
source
Human3.6M
Human3.6M
CMU
CMU

Number of
training samples
190,000
190,000
190,000
2.106

9
Human3.6M
Abs Error (mm)
130.1
248.9
320.0
216.5

Human3.6M
Align. Error (mm)
97.2
122.1
150.6
138.0

Human3.6M
Error (pix)
8.8
17.3
19.7
11.2

LSP
Error (pix)
31.1
20.7
22.4
13.8

Table 4 Pose error on LSP and Human3.6M using different 2D and 3D sources for rendering the mosaic images and considering different numbers
of training samples, i.e., 3D poses and corresponding rendered images.

clothing has not been imposed. This seems to help learning
more discriminative features.
In Table 3, we compare our results to state-of-the-art approaches for the second protocol (P2) where all the frames
from subjects S9 and S11 are used for testing (and only S1,
S5, S6, S7 and S8 are used for training). Our best classifier,
trained with a combination of synthetic (mosaic & surreal)
and real data, outperforms recent approaches in terms of 3D
pose estimation for single frames, even methods such as Zhou
et al. [71] who integrate temporal information. Note that our
method estimates absolute pose (including orientation w.r.t.
the camera), which is not the case for other methods such as
Bo et al. [5], who estimate a relative pose and do not provide
3D orientation. Only the most recent methods report a better performance [32, 36, 44, 58]. They use accurate 2D joint
detectors [32, 58] or rely on much more complex architecture [36,44] while we employ a simple AlexNet architecture
and return a coarse pose estimate.
4.2 Evaluation on Leeds Sport Dataset (LSP)
We now train our pose classifier using different combinations
of training sources and use them to estimate 3D poses on
images captured in-the-wild, i.e., LSP. Since 3D pose evaluation is not possible on this dataset, we instead compare 2D
pose errors expressed in pixels and measure this error on the
normalized 220 × 220 images following [71]. We compute
the average 2D pose error over the 13 joints on both LSP and
Human3.6M (see Table 4).
As expected, we observe that when using a pool of the
in-the-wild images to generate the mosaic data, the performance increases on LSP and drops on Human3.6M, showing
the importance of realistic images for good performance inthe-wild and the lack of generability of models trained on
constrained indoor images. The error slightly increases in
both cases when using the same number (190,000) of CMU
3D poses. The same drop was observed by [67] and can be explained by the fact that by CMU data covers a larger portions
of the 3D pose space, resulting in a worse fit. The results
improve on both test sets when considering more poses and
synthetic images (2 millions). The larger drop in Abs 3D
error and 2D error compared to aligned 3D error means that
a better camera view is estimated when using more synthetic
data. In all cases, the performance (in pixel) is lower on LSP

than on Human3.6M due to the fact that the poses observed
in LSP are more different from the ones in the CMU motion
capture data. In Figure 8 , we visualize the 2D pose error on
LSP and Human3.6M 1) for different pools of annotated 2D
images, 2) varying the number of synthesized training images
and 3) considering different number of pose classes K. As
expected using a bigger set of annotated images improves
the performance in-the-wild. Pose error converges both on
LSP and Human3.6M when using 1.5 million of images;
using more than K=5000 classes does not further improve
the performance. The lower-bound on the 2D error, i.e., computed with the closest classes from ground-truth annotations,
clearly decreases when augmenting the number K of classes.
Smaller clusters and finer pose classes are considered when
increasing K. However, the performance does not further
increase for larger values of K. The classes become probably too similar, resulting in ambiguities in the classification.
Another reasons for this observation could be the amount
of training data available for each class that also decreases
when augmenting K.
Performance with a deeper architecture. To further improve the performance, we also experiment with fine-tuning
a VGG-16 architecture [53] for pose classification. By doing so, the average (normalized) 2D pose error decreases
by 2.3 pixels. In Table 5, we compare our results on LSP to
the state-of-the-art 2D pose estimation methods. Although
our approach is designed to estimate a coarse 3D pose, its
performances is comparable to recent 2D pose estimation
methods [9, 66]. In Figure 9, we present some qualitative results obtained with our method. For each image, we show the
3D pose corresponding to the average pose of the top scoring
class, i.e., the highest peak in the distribution. The qualitative results in Figure 9 show that our algorithm correctly
estimates the global 3D pose. We also show some failure
cases.
Re-ranking. After a visual analysis of the results, we found
that failures occur in two cases: 1) when the observed pose
does not belong to the motion capture training database,
which is a limitation of purely holistic approaches (e.g., there
exists no motion capture 3D pose of a diver as in the second
example on the last row in Figure 9), or 2) when there is a possible right-left or front-back confusion. We observed that this
later case is often correct for subsequent top-scoring poses.
For the experiments in Table 5 using a VGG architecture,

10

Grégory Rogez, Cordelia Schmid

Fig. 8 2D pose error on LSP and Human3.6M using different pools of annotated images to generate 2 millions of mosaic training images (left),
varying the number of mosaic training images (center) and considering different number of pose classes K (right). On this last plot, we also report
the lower-bound (LB) on the 2D error, i.e., computed with the closest classes from ground-truth annotations.
Method
Wei et al. [63]
Pishchulin et al. [38]
Chen & Yuille [9]
Yang et al. [66]
Ours (AlexNet)
Ours (VGG)

Feet
6.6
10.0
15.7
15.5
19.1
16.2

Knees
5.3
6.8
11.5
11.5
13
10.6

Hips
4.8
5.0
8.1
8.0
4.9
4.1

Hands
8.6
11.1
15.6
14.7
21.4
17.7

Elbows
7.0
8.2
12.1
12.2
16.6
13.0

Shoulder
5.2
5.7
8.6
8.9
10.5
8.4

Head
5.3
5.9
6.8
7.4
10.3
9.8

All
6.2
7.6
11.5
11.5
13.8
11.5

Table 5 State-of-the-art results on LSP. The 2D pose error in pixels is computed on the normalized 220 × 220 images.

the classification rate2 on LSP is only 21.4%, meaning that
the classes are very similar and very hard to disambiguate.
However, this classification rate reaches 48.5% when considering the best of the 5 top scoring classes, re-ranked using
ground truth, as depicted in Fig. 10. It even reaches 100%
when re-ranking the 1000 top scoring classes. i.e., 20% of the
K=5000 classes. The 2D error lower bound (≈ 8.7 pixels)
is reached when re-ranking the first 100 top scoring classes,
only 2% of the K=5000 classes. This highlights a property of
our approach that can keep multiple pose hypotheses which
could be re-scored adequately, for instance, using temporal
information in videos.
4.3 Discussion
We now analyse the limitations of the proposed method and
discuss future research.
Limitations of the method. In Fig. 11, we show more visual
examples of generated images with our approach before and
after blending. To better compare the images with/without
blending, some close-ups are provided. In general, our imagebased synthesis engine works well when poses and camera
views are similar in the query pose and the annotated images.
For instance, if the annotated images only include people
observed from the front, our engine will not produce acceptable images from side or top views. In the same way, if the
2

ground truth classes being obtained by assigning the ground truth
2D pose to the closest cluster.

2D source only contains standing persons, the engine will
not be able to synthesise an acceptable image of a sitting
pose. If viewpoint and pose are similar in query and annotated images, several factors can influence the quality of the
synthesised images. We found three main reasons for failure
and show an example of each case in Fig. 12: 1) the similarity in person’s morphology and clothing in the selected
images, in the example given in Fig. 12a, stitching patches of
persons wearing trousers or shorts leads to poor result. 2) the
3D depth ambiguities, this inherent to the fact that matching
is performed in 2D and several 3D poses can correspond to
the same 2D pose (see Fig. 12b). 3) the quality of the 2D
annotations. While the “perfect” 2D poses from Human3.6M
led to very plausible images, this is not always the case for
manual annotations of real images. If the 2D annotations are
not consistent or inaccurate, as it often happens with body
keypoints such as hips or shoulders, this can results in a
synthetic image of poor quality as depicted in Fig. 12c.
Pose and views. A limitation of the proposed approach is
that it does not learn the statistics of human poses in real
images nor the typical views that can be found in real images.
These are two presumably important cues. Ideally, one would
want to synthesise useful training images that better match
the test conditions. This could be achieved by sampling from
a prior distribution of poses and camera viewpoints instead
of randomly selecting them as done in this paper.
Image mosaicing. Our mosaic images do not look realistic.
While it seems to be more important for the problem at hand
to be locally photorealistic as opposed to globally coherent,

Image-based Synthesis for Deep 3D Human Pose Estimation

11

Fig. 9 Qualitative results on LSP. We show for each image, the 3D pose corresponding to the top scoring class, i.e. the highest peak in the
distribution. We show correct 3D pose estimations (top 3 rows), imprecise pose estimation due to coarse discretization (fourth row) and typical
failure cases (bottom row), corresponding to unseen poses or right-left and front-back confusions.

this is only true for the 3D pose estimation approaches which
were tested in this paper, i.e., deep pipeline with regression
or classification objective on images centered on the human.
The proposed data might not be appropriate to train more
advanced approaches to 3D pose estimation based on a more
global reasoning such as [44] who jointly detect the humans
in a natural image and estimate their 3D poses. The proposed

optimization ignores image compatibility, which it could take
into account in future work. If a big enough 2D source, i.e.,
pool of annotated images, was available, one could constrain
the matching in a way that the smallest set of images is
used for synthesis, resulting in more satisfactory synthetic
images. A new cost function could minimize not just the
individual joint scores as a “unary” but also some “binary”

Grégory Rogez, Cordelia Schmid
100

12

75

11

2D Error (pix)

Classif. Accuracy (%)

12

50

25

0

10

9

1

10

100

1000

8

1

num. re-ranked classes

10

100

1000

num. re-ranked classes

Fig. 10 Classification accuracy and 2D pose error on LSP when re-ranking the top scoring classes. To show the potential improvement of a
reranking stage, we report the performance when varying the number of top scoring classes re-ranked using ground truth annotations.

Fig. 11 Examples of synthetic images generated using LSP and MPII datasets and CMU motion capture dataset as 2D and 3D sources respectively.
For each case, we show the image before (up) and after (bottom) blending with close-ups.

cost that evaluates the match between pairs of joint matches,
and also a prior term that encourages color and geometric
consistency/minimal images.

Image blending. In this work, we have proposed to solve
the lack of color and geometric consistency with a poseaware blending algorithm that removes the artefacts at the
boundaries between image regions while maintaining pose
informative edges on the person. In Table 6, we report the performance of the proposed approach without this image blending step and show that this second step is actually necessary.
The proposed blending function can seem rather heuristic.
Another solution could be a GAN-style [16] image synthesis approach: given images and the probability maps, find a
generator to generate images that also defeat a discriminative loss. The resulting images would probably look more
compelling and probably respect the overall image structure
better (coherent body parts and background geometry). This
will be explored in future work. Another intriguing question
for future research is whether and to what extent a similar approach could generate synthetic videos with 3D annotations.

5 Conclusion
In this paper, we introduce an approach for creating a synthetic training dataset of “in-the-wild” images and their corresponding 3D pose. Our algorithm artificially augments a
dataset of real images with new synthetic images showing
new poses and, importantly, with 3D pose annotations. We
showed that CNNs can be trained on these artificially looking
images and still generalize well to real images without requiring any domain adaptation or fine-tuning stage. We train
an end-to-end CNN classifier for 3D pose estimation and
show that, with our synthetic training images, our method
outperforms most published methods in terms of 3D pose estimation in controlled environments while employing a much
simpler architecture. We also demonstrated our approach on
the challenging task of estimating 3D body pose of humans
in natural images (LSP). Finally, our experiments highlight
that 3D pose classification can outperform regression in the
large data regime, an interesting and not necessarily intuitive
conclusion. In this paper, we have estimated a coarse 3D
pose by returning the average pose of the top scoring cluster.
In future work, we will investigate how top scoring classes
could be re-ranked and also how the pose could be refined.

Image-based Synthesis for Deep 3D Human Pose Estimation

13

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 12 Examples of failure cases for synthetic images generated using LSP and MPII datasets and CMU motion capture dataset as 2D and 3D
sources respectively. For each case, we show the image before (up) and after (bottom) blending with close-ups. We show failures due to differences
in clothing (a), 3D depth ambiguity (b) and inaccurate 2D pose annotations (c).
Pose-aware
Blending
yes
no

Human3.6M
Abs Error (mm)
320.0
337.6

Human3.6M
Error (mm)
150.6
186.2

Human3.6M
Error (pix)
19.7
22.8

LSP
Error (pix)
22.4
35.9

Table 6 Pose error on LSP and Human3.6M with and without blending stage. We compare the results obtained by the AlexNet architecture when
trained on 190,000 mosaic images synthesized using CMU motion capture 3D poses and MPII+LSP dataset as 3D and 2D sources respectively.

Acknowledgments. This work was supported by the European Commission under FP7 Marie Curie IOF grant (PIOFGA-2012-328288) and partially supported by the ERC advanced grant ALLEGRO and an Amazon Academic Research
Award (AARA). We acknowledge the support of NVIDIA
with the donation of the GPUs used for this research. We
thank Dr Philippe Weinzaepfel for his help. We also thank
the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions
that helped improve the paper.
References
1. A. Agarwal and B. Triggs. Recovering 3D human pose from
monocular images. PAMI, 28(1):44–58, 2006.
2. I. Akhter and M. Black. Pose-conditioned joint angle limits for 3D
human pose reconstruction. In CVPR, 2015.
3. M. Andriluka, L. Pishchulin, P. Gehler, and B. Schiele. 2D human
pose estimation: New benchmark and state-of- the-art analysis. In
CVPR, 2014.
4. A. Bissacco, M.-H. Yang, and S. Soatto. Detecting humans via
their pose. In NIPS, 2006.
5. L. Bo and C. Sminchisescu. Twin Gaussian processes for structured
prediction. IJCV, 87(1-2):28–52, 2010.
6. L. Bourdev and J. Malik. Poselets: Body part detectors trained
using 3D human pose annotations. In ICCV, 2009.
7. Ching-Hang Chen and Deva Ramanan. 3D human pose estimation
= 2D pose estimation + matching. In CVPR, 2017.
8. W. Chen, H. Wang, Y. Li, H. Su, Z. Wang, C. Tu, D. Lischinski, D. Cohen-Or, and B. Chen. Synthesizing training images for
boosting human 3D pose estimation. In 3DV, 2016.
9. X. Chen and A. L. Yuille. Articulated pose estimation by a graphical model with image dependent pairwise relations. In NIPS,
2014.

10. C. R. de Souza, A. Gaidon, Y. Cabon, and A.M. Lopez. Procedural
generation of videos to train deep action recognition networks. In
CVPR, 2017.
11. A. Dosovitskiy, P. Fischer, E. Ilg, P. Häusser, C. Hazirbas,
V. Golkov, P. van der Smagt, D. Cremers, and T. Brox. Flownet:
Learning optical flow with convolutional networks. In ICCV, 2015.
12. Y. Du, Y. Wong, Y. Liu, F. Han, Y. Gui, Z. Wang, M. Kankanhalli, and W. Geng. Marker-less 3D human motion capture with
monocular image sequence and height-maps. In ECCV, 2016.
13. A. Elhayek, E. Aguiar, A. Jain, J. Tompson, L. Pishchulin, M. Andriluka, C. Bregler, B. Schiele, and C. Theobalt. Efficient convnetbased marker-less motion capture in general scenes with a low
number of cameras. In CVPR, 2015.
14. M. Enzweiler and D. M. Gavrila.
A mixed generativediscriminative framework for pedestrian classification. In CVPR,
2008.
15. X. Fan, K. Zheng, Y. Zhou, and S. Wang. Pose locality constrained
representation for 3D human pose reconstruction. In ECCV, 2014.
16. I.J. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. WardeFarley, S. Ozair, A. C. Courville, and Y. Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. In NIPS, 2014.
17. H. Hattori, V. N. Boddeti, K. M. Kitani, and T. Kanade. Learning
scene-specific pedestrian detectors without real data. In CVPR,
2015.
18. A. Hornung, E. Dekkers, and L. Kobbelt. Character animation
from 2D pictures and 3D motion data. ACM Trans. Graph., 26(1),
2007.
19. S. Huang and D. Ramanan. Expecting the unexpected: Training
detectors for unusual pedestrians with adversarial imposters. In
CVPR, 2017.
20. C. Ionescu, D. Papava, V. Olaru, and C. Sminchisescu. Human3.6M: Large scale datasets and predictive methods for 3D
human sensing in natural environments. PAMI, 36(7):1325–1339,
2014.

14
21. M. Jaderberg, K. Simonyan, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman. Reading
text in the wild with convolutional neural networks. IJCV, 116(1):1–
20, 2016.
22. M. Jaderberg, K. Simonyan, A. Zisserman, and K. Kavukcuoglu.
Spatial transformer networks. In NIPS, 2015.
23. S. Johnson and M. Everingham. Clustered pose and nonlinear
appearance models for human pose estimation. In BMVC, 2010.
24. S. Johnson and M. Everingham. Learning effective human pose
estimation from inaccurate annotation. In CVPR, 2011.
25. H. Joo, H. Liu, L. Tan, L. Gui, B. Nabbe, I. Matthews, T. Kanade,
S. Nobuhara, and Y. Sheikh. Panoptic studio: A massively multiview system for social motion capture. In ICCV, 2015.
26. I. Kostrikov and J. Gall. Depth sweep regression forests for estimating 3D human pose from images. In BMVC, 2014.
27. A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In NIPS, 2012.
28. S. Li, W. Zhang, and A. B. Chan. Maximum-margin structured
learning with deep networks for 3D human pose estimation. In
ICCV, 2015.
29. S. Li, W. Zhang, and A. B. Chan. Maximum-margin structured
learning with deep networks for 3D human pose estimation. IJCV,
2016.
30. M. Loper, N. Mahmood, J. Romero, G. Pons-Moll, and M. J. Black.
SMPL: A skinned multi-person linear model. ACM Trans. Graphics
(Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia), 34(6):248:1–248:16, 2015.
31. D. Mehta, H. Rhodin, D. Casas, P. Fua, O. Sotnychenko, W. Xu,
and C. Theobalt. Monocular 3D human pose estimation in the wild
using improved CNN supervision. In 3D Vision (3DV), 2017.
32. F. Moreno-Noguer. 3D human pose estimation from a single image
via distance matrix regression. In CVPR, 2017.
33. G. Mori and J. Malik. Recovering 3D human body configurations
using shape contexts. PAMI, 28(7):1052–1062, 2006.
34. R. Okada and S. Soatto. Relevant feature selection for human pose
estimation and localization in cluttered images. In ECCV, 2008.
35. D. Park and D. Ramanan. Articulated pose estimation with tiny
synthetic videos. In CVPR ChaLearn Looking at People Workshop,
2015.
36. G. Pavlakos, X. Zhou, K. G. Derpanis, and K. Daniilidis. Coarseto-fine volumetric prediction for single-image 3D human pose. In
CVPR, 2017.
37. X. Peng, B. Sun, K. Ali, and K. Saenko. Learning deep object
detectors from 3D models. In ICCV, 2015.
38. L. Pishchulin, E. Insafutdinov, S. Tang, B. Andres, M. Andriluka,
P. V. Gehler, and B. Schiele. DeepCut: Joint subset partition and
labeling for multi person pose estimation. CVPR, 2016.
39. L. Pishchulin, A. Jain, M. Andriluka, T. Thormählen, and
B. Schiele. Articulated people detection and pose estimation: Reshaping the future. In CVPR, 2012.
40. V. Ramakrishna, T. Kanade, and Y. Sheikh. Reconstructing 3D
human pose from 2D image landmarks. In ECCV, 2012.
41. G. Rogez, J. Rihan, C. Orrite, and P. Torr. Fast human pose detection using randomized hierarchical cascades of rejectors. IJCV,
99(1):25–52, 2012.
42. G. Rogez and C. Schmid. MoCap-guided data augmentation for
3D pose estimation in the wild. In NIPS, 2016.
43. G. Rogez, J. Supancic, and D. Ramanan. First-person pose recognition using egocentric workspaces. In CVPR, 2015.
44. G. Rogez, P. Weinzaepfel, and C. Schmid. LCR-Net: LocalizationClassification-Regression for human pose. In CVPR, 2017.
45. J. Romero, H. Kjellstrom, and D. Kragic. Hands in action: Realtime 3D reconstruction of hands in interaction with objects. In
ICRA, 2010.
46. M. Sanzari, V. Ntouskos, and F. Pirri. Bayesian image based 3D
pose estimation. In ECCV, 2016.
47. G. Shakhnarovich, P. A. Viola, and T. Darrell. Fast pose estimation
with parameter-sensitive hashing. In ICCV, 2003.

Grégory Rogez, Cordelia Schmid
48. J. Shotton, A. W. Fitzgibbon, M. Cook, T. Sharp, M. Finocchio,
R. Moore, A. Kipman, and A. Blake. Real-time human pose recognition in parts from single depth images. In CVPR, 2011.
49. L. Sigal, A. O. Balan, and M. J. Black. Humaneva: Synchronized
video and motion capture dataset and baseline algorithm for evaluation of articulated human motion. IJCV, 87(1-2):4–27, 2010.
50. L. Sigal and M. J. Black. Predicting 3D people from 2D pictures.
In AMDO, 2006.
51. E. Simo-Serra, A. Quattoni, C. Torras, and F. Moreno-Noguer. A
joint model for 2D and 3D pose estimation from a single image. In
CVPR, 2013.
52. E. Simo-Serra, A. Ramisa, G. Alenyà, C. Torras, and F. MorenoNoguer. Single image 3D human pose estimation from noisy
observations. In CVPR, 2012.
53. K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks
for large-scale image recognition. CoRR, abs/1409.1556, 2014.
54. H. Su, C. Ruizhongtai Qi, Y. Li, and L. J. Guibas. Render for CNN:
viewpoint estimation in images using CNNs trained with rendered
3D model views. In ICCV, 2015.
55. Camillo J. Taylor. Reconstruction of articulated objects from point
correspondences in a single uncalibrated image. In CVPR, 2000.
56. B. Tekin, I. Katircioglu, M. Salzmann, V. Lepetit, and P. Fua. Structured prediction of 3D human pose with deep neural networks. In
BMVC, 2016.
57. B. Tekin, A. Rozantsev, V. Lepetit, and P. Fua. Direct prediction
of 3D body poses from motion compensated sequences. In CVPR,
2016.
58. D. Tome, C. Russell, and L. Agapito. Lifting from the deep: Convolutional 3D pose estimation from a single image. In CVPR,
2017.
59. J. J. Tompson, A. Jain, Y. LeCun, and C. Bregler. Joint training
of a convolutional network and a graphical model for human pose
estimation. In NIPS, 2014.
60. A. Toshev and C. Szegedy. DeepPose: Human pose estimation via
deep neural networks. In CVPR, 2014.
61. G. Varol, J. Romero, X. Martin, N. Mahmood, M.J. Black, I. Laptev,
and C. Schmid. Learning from synthetic humans. In CVPR, 2017.
62. C. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Lin, A. L. Yuille, and W. Gao. Robust
estimation of 3D human poses from a single image. In CVPR,
2014.
63. S-E Wei, V. Ramakrishna, T. Kanade, and Y. Sheikh. Convolutional
pose machines. In CVPR, 2016.
64. Z. Wu, S. Song, A. Khosla, F. Yu, L. Zhang, X. Tang, and J. Xiao.
3D shapenets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes. In
CVPR, 2015.
65. J. Xu, S. Ramos, D.Vázquez, and A. M. López. Domain adaptation
of deformable part-based models. PAMI, 36(12):2367–2380, 2014.
66. W. Yang, W. Ouyang, H. Li, and X. Wang. End-to-end learning of deformable mixture of parts and deep convolutional neural
networks for human pose estimation. In CVPR, 2016.
67. H. Yasin, U. Iqbal, B. Krüger, A. Weber, and J. Gall. A dual-source
approach for 3D pose estimation from a single image. In CVPR,
2016.
68. F. Zhou and F. De la Torre. Spatio-temporal matching for human
detection in video. In ECCV, 2014.
69. X. Zhou, Q. Huang, X. Sun, X. Xue, and Y. Wei. Towards 3D
human pose estimation in the wild: A weakly-supervised approach.
In ICCV, 2017.
70. X. Zhou, X. Sun, W. Zhang, S. Liang, and Y. Wei. Deep kinematic
pose regression. In ECCV Workshop on Geometry Meets Deep
Learning, 2016.
71. X. Zhou, M. Zhu, S. Leonardos, K. Derpanis, and K. Daniilidis.
Sparseness meets deepness: 3D human pose estimation from
monocular video. In CVPR, 2016.
72. S. Zuffi and M. J. Black. The stitched puppet: A graphical model
of 3D human shape and pose. In CVPR, 2015.

