A theory of monte carlo visibility sampling

Abstract

Soft shadows from area lights are one of the most crucial effects in high-quality and production rendering, but Monte-Carlo sampling of visibility is often the main source of noise in rendered images. Indeed, it is common to use deterministic uniform sampling for the smoother shading effects in direct lighting, so that all of the Monte Carlo noise arises from visibility sampling alone. In this article, we analyze theoretically and empirically, using both statistical and Fourier methods, the effectiveness of different nonadaptive Monte Carlo sampling patterns for rendering soft shadows.

We start with a single image scanline and a linear light source, and gradually consider more complex visibility functions at a pixel. We show analytically that the lowest expected variance is in fact achieved by uniform sampling (albeit at the cost of visual banding artifacts). Surprisingly, we show that for two or more discontinuities in the visibility function, a comparable error to uniform sampling is obtained by “uniform jitter” sampling, where a constant jitter is applied to all samples in a uniform pattern (as opposed to jittering each stratum as in standard stratified sampling). The variance can be reduced by up to a factor of two, compared to stratified or quasi-Monte Carlo techniques, without the banding in uniform sampling.

We augment our statistical analysis with a novel 2D Fourier analysis across the pixel-light space. This allows us to characterize the banding frequencies in uniform sampling, and gives insights into the behavior of uniform jitter and stratified sampling. We next extend these results to planar area light sources. We show that the best sampling method can vary, depending on the type of light source (circular, Gaussian, or square/rectangular). The correlation of adjacent “light scanlines” in square light sources can reduce the effectiveness of uniform jitter sampling, while the smoother shape of circular and Gaussian-modulated sources preserves its benefits—these findings are also exposed through our frequency analysis. In practical terms, the theory in this article provides guidelines for selecting visibility sampling strategies, which can reduce the number of shadow samples by 20--40%, with simple modifications to existing rendering code.

References

1. Agrawala, M., Ramamoorthi, R., Heirich, A., and Moll, L. 2000. Efficient image-based methods for rendering soft shadows. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 00 Conferrence. 375--384.
2. Ben-Artzi, A., Ramamoorthi, R., and Agrawala, M. 2006. Efficient shadows for sampled environment maps. J. Graph. Tools 11, 1, 13--36.
3. Candes, E. 2006. Compressive sampling. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematics. Number 3, 1433--1452.
4. Candes, E., Romberg, J., and Tao, T. 2006. Stable signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate measurements. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 59, 8, 1207--1223.
5. Candes, E. and Tao, T. 2006. Near optimal signal recovery from random projections: Universal encoding strategies? IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 52, 12, 5406--5425.
6. Cook, R. 1986. Stochastic sampling in computer graphics. ACM Trans. Graph. 5, 1, 51--72.
7. Dippe, M. and Wold, E. 1985. Antialiasing through stochastic sampling. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 85 Conference. 69--78.
8. Dunbar, D. and Humphreys, G. 2006. A spatial data structure for fast poisson-disk sample generation. ACM Trans. Graph. 25, 3, 503--508.
9. Durand, F. 2011. A frequency analysis of monte-carlo and other numerical integration schemes. Tech. rep. MIT-CSAIL-TR-2011-052 http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/67677, MIT CSAIL.
10. Durand, F., Drettakis, G., and Puech, C. 1997. The visibility skeleton: A powerful and efficient multi-purpose global visibility tool. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 97 Conference. 89--100.
11. Durand, F., Holzschuch, N., Soler, C., Chan, E., and Sillion, F. 2005. A frequency analysis of light transport. ACM Trans. Graph. 25, 3, 1115--1126.
12. Egan, K., Hecht, F., Durand, F., and Ramamoorthi, R. 2011. Frequency analysis and sheared filtering for shadow light fields of complex occluders. ACM Trans. Graph. 30, 2.
13. Guo, B. 1998. Progressive radiance evaluation using directional coherence maps. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 98 Conference. 255--266.
14. Hachisuka, T., Jarosz, W., Weistroffer, R., Dale, K., Humphreys, G., Zwicker, M., and Jensen, H. 2008. Multidimensional adaptive sampling and reconstruction for ray tracing. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 3.
15. Heinrich, S. and Keller, A. 1994. Quasi-Monte carlo methods in computer graphics. Tech. rep. 242/3, University of Kaiserslautern.
16. Keller, A. 1997. Instant radiosity. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 97 Conference. 49--56.
17. Lagae, A. and Dutre, P. 2008. A comparison of methods for generating poisson disk patterns. Comput. Graph. Forum 27, 1, 114--129.
18. Lanman, D., Raskar, R., Agrawal, A., and Taubin, G. 2008. Shield fields: modeling and capturing 3D occluders. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 5.
19. Lee, M., Redner, A., and Uselton, S. 1985. Statistically optimized sampling for distributed ray tracing. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 85 Conference. 61--68.
20. Mitchell, D. 1987. Generating antialiased images at low sampling densities. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 87 Conference. 65--72.
21. Mitchell, D. 1991. Spectrally optimal sampling for distribution ray tracing. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 91 Conference. 157--164.
22. Mitchell, D. 1996. Consequences of stratified sampling in graphics. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 96 Conference. 277--280.
23. Ng, R., Ramamoorthi, R., and Hanrahan, P. 2004. Triple product wavelet integrals for all-frequency relighting. ACM Trans. Graph. 23, 3, 475--485.
24. Niederreiter, H. 1992. Random Number Generation and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods. SIAM.
25. Ouellette, M. and Fiume, E. 2001. On numerical solutions to one-dimensional integration problems with application to linear light sources. ACM Trans. Graph. 20, 4, 232--279.
26. Overbeck, R., Donner, C., and Ramamoorthi, R. 2009. Adaptive Wavelet Rendering. ACM Trans. Graph. 28, 5.
27. Purgathofer, W. 1986. A statistical model for adaptive stochastic sampling. In Proceedings of the Eurographics Conference. 145--152.
28. Ramamoorthi, R., Koudelka, M., and Belhumeur, P. 2005. A Fourier theory for cast shadows. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 27, 2, 288--295.
29. Ramamoorthi, R., Mahajan, D., and Belhumeur, P. 2007. A first order analysis of lighting, shading, and shadows. ACM Trans. Graph. 26, 1.
30. Sen, P. and Darabi, S. 2010. Compressive estimation for signal integration in rendering. Comput. Graph. Forum 29, 4, 1355--1363.
31. Shirley, P. and Chiu, K. 1997. A low distortion map between disk and square. J. Graph. Tools 2, 3, 45--52.
32. Soler, C. and Sillion, F. 1998. Fast calculation of soft shadow textures using convolution. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 98 Conference. 321--332.
33. Wei, L. 2008. Parallel poisson disk sampling. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 3.
34. Wei, L. 2010. Multi-Class blue noise sampling. ACM Trans. Graph. 29, 4.
35. Yellot, J. 1983. Spectral consequences of photoreceptor sampling in the rhesus retina. Science 221, 382--385.

Index Terms

• Computing methodologies

  • Computer graphics

    • Image manipulation

      • Texturing

    • Rendering

      • Ray tracing