Essentially sections 1-3 contain very little new. Section 4 is marginally
interesting. Weak Reject.
 - R2, CVPR 2016

the paper too much relies on the supplemental material compared with the
standard usage of the supplemental material. I suggest the authors to directly
go for a journal submission by reformatting the paper together with the
supplemental material. Strong Reject.
 - R1, ECCV 2016

The paper solves a class of relevant problems in a neat manner. The method
should be made known to a wider audience. Oral.
 - R3, ECCV 2016