Head-mounted body and bimanual motion capture supports self-avatars, teleoperation, and embodied demonstrations. However, a single egocentric camera is vulnerable to a limited field of view, scale ambiguity, and hand-object occlusion. We present EgoWholeView, a wearable capture system of six synchronized wide-angle RGB cameras with a role-specialized pipeline. The outward views localize the rig in a world frame, while an overlapping downward pair independently predicts SMPL-X body and MANO hand parameters. Both predictors are adapted to egocentric fisheye data. To combine the two, reliability cues measured from the predictions themselves weight the fusion of body and hand joint rotations, while shape is aggregated across views and frames. The pair's baseline fixes metric scale, and triangulation recovers root translation. Relative to monocular prediction, fusion reduces PA-MPJPE by 3.7% for the body and 11.2% for the hands, and temporal refinement lowers angular-acceleration magnitude by 32.2% and 31.0%, respectively. On our six-camera recording, the pipeline produces body and hand states in a shared world frame using benchmark-fitted gates without retuning, and temporal refinement lowers hand acceleration magnitude by 41.08%. Using only RGB cameras and no third-person view, EgoWholeView offers a low-cost, portable route to egocentric interaction data.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of EgoWholeView. Six synchronized cameras on a wearable rig provide observations for continuous outward-view multi-camera trajectory estimation and downward-view body and bimanual pose estimation. Paired downward-view predictions undergo reliability-aware fusion in the canonical space, followed by temporal refinement of local rotations. The system exports world-frame body and bimanual motion.
Output
Representation / frame
Cam.
Step
Rig pose Trig,tw
SE(3) , rig to world
1/2, 5/6
multi-view SLAM
Body XtB
SMPL-X, root relative
3/4
gated fusion + temporal
Hand Xth
MANO, root relative
3/4
gated fusion + temporal
Placement Pt
root SE(3) , Cam3 frame
3/4
SO(3) orientation fusion + stereo triangulation
Table 1: System outputs, representations, coordinate frames, and processing.
Figure 2: Six-camera wearable prototype and task-specialized layout. (a) Physical prototype. (b) Side view: the forward pair (Cam1/2) and the overlapping downward pair (Cam3/4). (c) Front view: the lateral pair (Cam5/6) and the downward-pair baseline b . (d) Downward-view evidence coverage; full-body prediction extends beyond the directly observed regions.
Figure 3: Processing overview. The outward branch recovers the rig trajectory; the downward branch predicts body and hand parameters per view. Paired predictions are fused in the canonical space: local rotations are weighted per joint, shape is aggregated across views and frames. The fused rotations are temporally refined and the roots placed metrically by triangulation.
Figure 4: Per-view prediction and egocentric-domain adaptation. Body and hand crops from each downward view are processed by separate SMPL-X and MANO regressors, with branch-specific weights shared between Cam3 and Cam4. The loss boxes apply during adaptation only. At inference, paired Cam3/Cam4 hypotheses enter the independently parameterized body or hand fusion module in Section 4.3 .
Figure 5: Reliability-aware parametric fusion. (a) Gate structure, shared by the body and hand branches but fitted with independent parameters; every normalized cue and aggregate score follows the higher-is-more-reliable convention. (b)–(c) Per-joint view preference and the resulting weights on a MANO hand.
Cue
Reliable when
Body
Hand
Visibility V
Higher
0.3228
0.3716
Perturbation dispersion U
Lower
0.0912
0.3243
Crop-boundary support B
Higher
0.1109
0.0029
Temporal inconsistency T
Lower
0.4551
0.2950
Feature dispersion F
Lower
0.0201
0.0062
Gate temperature τgate
—
0.1245
0.2285
Table 2: Learned normalized cue weights, raw-cue reliability directions, and gate temperatures for the body and hand gates.
Figure 6: Qualitative body local-pose fusion on UnrealEgo-RW. From left to right: stereo inputs with projected monocular SMPL-X predictions, left- and right-view predictions, equal-weight fusion, and VUBTF soft fusion. Predictions are independently Procrustes-aligned to GT15 (gray dashed), and values report PA-MPJPE in mm ( ↓ ). Yellow joints and white wireframes show the projected predictions; dotted ankle–foot links indicate the heel–toe correspondences used for GT15 evaluation. The examples have monocular errors close to the test-set mean.
Method
Mean
Median
P90
P95
Gain vs. mono. avg.
Left-view prediction
79.6188
74.1331
102.4118
115.0452
—
Right-view prediction
80.1623
74.5614
101.6197
116.6663
—
Monocular average
79.8905
75.1588
101.2589
112.1287
0.0000
Equal-weight fusion
77.3151
72.9845
96.8666
106.8710
+2.5754
VUBTF soft fusion
76.9409
72.6824
96.0671
106.3893
+2.9496
Table 3: SMPL-X fusion on the UnrealEgo-RW test split. PA-MPJPE uses GT15 and is given in mm.
Method
Mean
Median
P90
P95
Gain vs. mono. avg.
PA-MPJPE (21 joints)
Mono A
4.9092
4.3793
7.7093
9.1141
—
Mono B
4.7478
4.2562
7.4034
8.8242
—
Monocular average
4.8285
4.4214
7.2355
8.4284
0.0000
Equal-weight fusion
4.3642
3.9486
6.7328
7.9130
+0.4643
VUBTF soft fusion
4.2872
3.8732
6.6027
7.7682
+0.5413
Table 4: Dual-view MANO fusion on DexYCB S0 test and frozen transfer to HO3Dv3 (mm). PA-MPJPE uses 21 joints and PA-MPVPE all 778 MANO vertices.
Figure 7: Qualitative dual-view MANO fusion on DexYCB. (a)–(b) Synchronized views with monocular predictions and enlarged hand crops. (c) Ground-truth joints (GT), equal-weight fusion, and VUBTF soft fusion. (d) Per-joint view weights for proximal (Prox.), middle (Mid.), and distal (Dist.) finger joints.
Method
PA- MPJPE
Angular- velocity error
Angular- acceleration error
Acceleration magnitude
VUBTF observation
4.2872
6.1053
8.1901
2.2269
Fixed gain, κ=0.75
4.2687
5.9673
7.8929
1.4968
Adaptive gain
4.2621
5.9601
7.8861
1.5356
Table 5: Temporal-refinement results on DexYCB S0 test. PA-MPJPE is in mm; angular metrics use ∘ /frame for velocity and ∘ /frame 2 for acceleration.
Figure 8: World-frame rig trajectory and sparse map estimated from the four outward views, colored by time over the 35.7-s sequence. Sampled axes show rig orientation.
Figure 9: Downward-pair output: no occlusion, hand–object interaction, hand–object occlusion, and one hand out of view. SMPL-X body (white) and MANO hands (blue left, red right) are reprojected into Cam3 and Cam4. The right hand in case (3) and the left hand in case (4) are seen in one view only, so they are single-view predictions.