skip to main content
research-article

A View-Dependent Metric for Patch-Based LOD Generation 8 Selection

Published:25 July 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

With hardware tessellation, highly detailed geometric models are decomposed into patches whose tessellation factor can be specified dynamically and independently at render time to control polygon resolution. Yet, to achieve maximum efficiency, an appropriate factor needs to be selected for each patch according to its content (geometry and appearance) and the current viewpoint distance and orientation. We propose a novel patch-based error metric that addresses this problem. It summarizes both the geometrical error and the texture parametrization deviation of a simplified patch compared to the corresponding detailed surface. This metric is compact and can be efficiently evaluated on the GPU along any view direction. Furthermore, based on this metric, we devise an easy-to-implement refitting optimization that further reduces the simplification error of any decimation algorithm, and propose a new placement strategy and cost function for edge-collapses to reach the best quality/performances trade-off.

References

  1. Iain Cantlay. 2001. DirectX 11 Terrain Tessellation. Technical Report. https://developer.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/akamai/gamedev/files/sdk/11/terraintessellation_whitepaper.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrea Ciampalini, Paolo Cignoni, Claudio Montani, and Roberto Scopigno. 1997. Multiresolution decimation based on global error. The Visual Computer 13, 5 (1997), 228--246.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Paolo Cignoni, Claudio Montani, and Roberto Scopigno. 1998a. A comparison Paolomesh simplification algorithms. Computers 8 Graphics 22, 1 (1998), 37--54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Paolo Cignoni, C. Rocchini, and Roberto Scopigno. 1998b. Metro: Measuring Error on Simplified Surfaces. Computer Graphics Forum 17, 2 (1998), 167--174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jonathan Cohen, Marc Olano, and Dinesh Manocha. 1998. Appearance-preserving Simplification. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH '98). ACM, 115--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Jonathan Cohen, Amitabh Varshney, Dinesh Manocha, Greg Turk, Hans Weber, Pankaj Agarwal, Frederick Brooks, and William Wright. 1996. Simplification Envelopes. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH '96). ACM, 119--128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Massimiliano Corsini, Mohamed-Chaker Larabi, Guillaume Lavoué, Oldrich Petrík, Libor Vása, and Kai Wang. 2013. Perceptual metrics for static and dynamic triangle meshes. Computer Graphics Forum 32, 1 (2013), 101--125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Evgenij Derzapf and Michael Guthe. 2012. Dependency-Free Parallel Progressive Meshes. Computer Graphics Forum 31, 8 (2012), 2288--2302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Michael Garland and Paul S. Heckbert. 1997. Surface simplification using quadric error metrics. In Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques (SIGGRAPH '97). 209--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Michael Garland and Paul S. Heckbert. 1998. Simplifying surfaces with color and texture using quadric error metrics. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS '98). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gaël Guennebaud, Benoît Jacob, et al. 2016. Eigen v3. http://eigen.tuxfamily.org. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Hugues Hoppe. 1997. View-Dependent Refinement of Progressive Meshes. In Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques (SIGGRAPH '97). 189--198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hugues Hoppe. 1999. New Quadric Metric for Simplifying Meshes with Appearance Attributes. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS '99). IEEE. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Hanyoung Jang and Junghyun Han. 2013. GPU-optimized indirect scalar displacement mapping. CAD Computer Aided Design 45, 2 (2013), 517--522. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Benjamin Keinert, Matthias Innmann, Michael Sänger, and Marc Stamminger. 2015. Spherical Fibonacci Mapping. ACM Transactions on Graphics 34, 6 (2015), 193:1--193:7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Reinhard Klein, Gunther Liebich, and Wolfgang Straßer. 1996. Mesh Reduction with Error Control. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS '96). IEEE, 311--318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Thibaud Lambert, Pierre Bénard, and Gaël Guennebaud. 2016. Multi-Resolution Meshes for Feature-Aware Hardware Tessellation. Computer Graphics Forum 35, 2 (2016), 253--262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Liang Hu, Pedro V Sander, and Hugues Hoppe. 2010. Parallel View-Dependent Level-of-Detail Control. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16, 5 (2010), 718--728. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Peter Lindstrom and Greg Turk. 1998. Fast and memory efficient polygonal simplification. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS '98). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. David Luebke, Benjamin Watson, Jonathan D Cohen, Martin Reddy, and Amitabh Varshney. 2002. Level of Detail for 3D Graphics. Elsevier Science Inc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Rafat Mantiuk, Kil Joong Kim, Allan G. Rempel, and Wolfgang Heidrich. 2011. HDR-VDP-2: A Calibrated Visual Metric for Visibility and Quality Predictions in All Luminance Conditions. ACM Transactions on Graphics 30, 4 (2011), 40:1--40:14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Matthias Nießner, Benjamin Keinert, Matthew Fisher, Marc Stamminger, Charles Loop, and Henry Schäfer. 2016. Real-Time Rendering Techniques with Hardware Tessellation. Computer Graphics Forum 35, 1 (2016), 113--137. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Jarek Rossignac and Paul Borrel. 1993. Multi-resolution 3D approximations for rendering complex scenes. In Modeling in Computer Graphics: Methods and Applications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 455--465.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Michaël Roy, Sebti Foufou, and Frédéric Truchetet. 2004. Mesh comparison using attribute deviation metric. International Journal of Image and Graphics 04, 01 (2004), 127--140.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Pedro V. Sander, John Snyder, Steven J. Gortler, and Hugues Hoppe. 2001. Texture Mapping Progressive Meshes. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH '01). ACM, 409--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Henry Schäfer, Magdalena Prus, Quirin Meyer, Jochen Süssmuth, and Marc Stamminger. 2013. Multiresolution attributes for hardware tessellated objects. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 19, 9 (2013), 1488--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Donald Shepard. 1968. A Two-dimensional Interpolation Function for Irregularly-spaced Data. In Proceedings of the 1968 23rd ACM National Conference (ACM '68). ACM, 517--524. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Samuel Silva, Joaquim Madeira, and Beatriz Sousa Santos. 2009. PolyMeCo -- An integrated environment for polygonal mesh analysis and comparison. Computers 8 Graphics 33, 2 (2009), 181--191. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. ZhouWang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13, 4 (2004), 600--612. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Nathaniel Williams, David Luebke, Jonathan D. Cohen, Michael Kelley, and Brenden Schubert. 2003. Perceptually Guided Simplification of Lit, Textured Meshes. In Proceedings of the 2003 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics (I3D '03). ACM, 113--121. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Andrew Willmott. 2011. Rapid Simplification of Multi-attribute Meshes. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on High Performance Graphics (HPG '11). ACM, 151--158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Yazhen Yuan, Rui Wang, Jin Huang, Yanming Jia, and Hujun Bao. 2016. Simplified and tessellated mesh for realtime high quality rendering. Computers 8 Graphics 54 (2016), 135--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A View-Dependent Metric for Patch-Based LOD Generation 8 Selection

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques
        Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques  Volume 1, Issue 1
        July 2018
        378 pages
        EISSN:2577-6193
        DOI:10.1145/3242771
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 25 July 2018
        Published in pacmcgit Volume 1, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)10
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!