skip to main content
research-article

Tangent-space optimization for interactive animation control

Published:12 July 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Character animation tools are based on a keyframing metaphor where artists pose characters at selected keyframes and the software automatically interpolates the frames inbetween. Although the quality of the interpolation is critical for achieving a fluid and engaging animation, the tools available to adjust the result of the automatic inbetweening are rudimentary and typically require manual editing of spline parameters. As a result, artists spend a tremendous amount of time posing and setting more keyframes. In this pose-centric workflow, animators use combinations of forward and inverse kinematics. While forward kinematics leads to intuitive interpolations, it does not naturally support positional constraints such as fixed contact points. Inverse kinematics can be used to fix certain points in space at keyframes, but can lead to inferior interpolations, is slow to compute, and does not allow for positional contraints at non-keyframe frames. In this paper, we address these problems by formulating the control of interpolations with positional constraints over time as a space-time optimization problem in the tangent space of the animation curves driving the controls. Our method has the key properties that it (1) allows the manipulation of positions and orientations over time, extending inverse kinematics, (2) does not add new keyframes that might conflict with an artist's preferred keyframe style, and (3) works in the space of artist editable animation curves and hence integrates seamlessly with current pipelines. We demonstrate the utility of the technique in practice via various examples and use cases.

References

  1. Andreas Aristidou, Joan Lasenby, Yiorgos Chrysanthou, and Ariel Shamir. 2018. Inverse Kinematics Techniques in Computer Graphics: A Survey. Computer Graphics Forum 37, 6 (2018), 35--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Autodesk. 2018. Maya.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Jinxiang Chai and Jessica K. Hodgins. 2007. Constraint-based Motion Optimization Using a Statistical Dynamic Model. ACM Trans. Graph. 26, 3 (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Byungkuk Choi, Roger B. i Ribera, J. P. Lewis, Yeongho Seol, Seokpyo Hong, Haegwang Eom, Sunjin Jung, and Junyong Noh. 2016. SketchiMo: Sketch-based Motion Editing for Articulated Characters. ACM Trans. Graph. 35, 4 (2016), 146:1--146:12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Myung G. Choi and Kang H. Lee. 2016. Points-based user interface for character posing. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 27, 3--4 (2016), 213--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Loïc Ciccone, Martin Guay, Maurizio Nitti, and Robert W. Sumner. 2017. Authoring Motion Cycles. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation. 8:1--8:9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Michael F. Cohen. 1992. Interactive Spacetime Control for Animation. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. 293--302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Oliver Glauser, Wan-Chun Ma, Daniele Panozzo, Alec Jacobson, Otmar Hilliges, and Olga Sorkine-Hornung. 2016. Rig Animation with a Tangible and Modular Input Device. ACM Trans. Graph. 35, 4 (2016), 144:1--144:11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Michael Gleicher. 1997. Motion Editing with Spacetime Constraints. In Proceedings of the 1997 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics. 139--ff. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Michael Gleicher and Andrew P. Witkin. 1991. Differential Manipulation. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Martin Guay, Marie-Paule Cani, and Rémi Ronfard. 2013. The Line of Action: An Intuitive Interface for Expressive Character Posing. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 6 (2013), 205:1--205:8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Martin Guay, Rémi Ronfard, Michael Gleicher, and Marie-Paule Cani. 2015. Space-time Sketching of Character Animation. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 4 (2015), 118:1--118:10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Fabian Hahn, Frederik Mutzel, Stelian Coros, Bernhard Thomaszewski, Maurizio Nitti, Markus Gross, and Robert W. Sumner. 2015. Sketch Abstractions for Character Posing. In Proc. of the 14th ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation. 185--191. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Félix G. Harvey and Christopher Pal. 2018. Recurrent Transition Networks for Character Locomotion. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2018 Technical Briefs. 4:1--4:4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ollie Johnston and Frank Thomas. 1981. The illusion of life: Disney animation. Disney Editions New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Yuki Koyama and Masataka Goto. 2018. OptiMo: Optimization-Guided Motion Editing for Keyframe Character Animation. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 161:1--161:12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Mikko Kytö, Krupakar Dhinakaran, Aki Martikainen, and Perttu Hämäläinen. 2017. Improving 3D Character Posing with a Gestural Interface. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 37, 1 (2017), 70--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Andreas M. Lehrmann, Peter V. Gehler, and Sebastian Nowozin. 2014. Efficient Nonlinear Markov Models for Human Motion. In 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 1314--1321. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Jianyuan Min, Yen-Lin Chen, and Jinxiang Chai. 2009. Interactive Generation of Human Animation with Deformable Motion Models. ACM Trans. Graph. 29, 1 (2009), 9:1--9:12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. APS Mosek. 2010. The MOSEK optimization software. Online at http://www.mosek.com 54, 2--1 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Jean-Christophe Nebel. 1999. Keyframe interpolation with self-collision avoidance. In Computer Animation and Simulation '99. 77--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. A. Cengiz Öztireli, Ilya Baran, Tiberiu Popa, Boris Dalstein, Robert W. Sumner, and Markus Gross. 2013. Differential Blending for Expressive Sketch-based Posing. In Proc. of the 12th ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation. 155--164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Charles Rose, Brian Guenter, Bobby Bodenheimer, and Michael F. Cohen. 1996. Efficient Generation of Motion Transitions Using Spacetime Constraints. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. 147--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Xiaohan Shi, Kun Zhou, Yiying Tong, Mathieu Desbrun, Hujun Bao, and Baining Guo. 2007. Mesh Puppetry: Cascading Optimization of Mesh Deformation with Inverse Kinematics. ACM Trans. Graph. 26, 3 (2007), 81--89. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jack M. Wang, David J. Fleet, and Aaron Hertzmann. 2008. Gaussian Process Dynamical Models for Human Motion. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 30, 2 (2008), 283--298. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Xiaolin Wei and Jinxiang Chai. 2011. Intuitive Interactive Human-Character Posing with Millions of Example Poses. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 31, 4 (2011), 78--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Harold Whitaker and John Halas. 2013. Timing for animation. CRC Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Andrew Witkin and Michael Kass. 1988. Spacetime Constraints. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. 159--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Katsu Yamane and Yoshihiko Nakamura. 2003. Natural Motion Animation through Constraining and Deconstraining at Will. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 9, 3 (2003), 352--360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Wataru Yoshizaki, Yuta Sugiura, Albert C. Chiou, Sunao Hashimoto, Masahiko Inami, Takeo Igarashi, Yoshiaki Akazawa, Katsuaki Kawachi, Satoshi Kagami, and Masaaki Mochimaru. 2011. An Actuated Physical Puppet As an Input Device for Controlling a Digital Manikin. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 637--646. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Xinyi Zhang and Michiel van de Panne. 2018. Data-driven Autocompletion for Keyframe Animation. In MIG'18: Motion, Interaction and Games (MIG 2018). 1--11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Tangent-space optimization for interactive animation control

      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 ACM Transactions on Graphics
        ACM Transactions on Graphics  Volume 38, Issue 4
        August 2019
        1480 pages
        ISSN:0730-0301
        EISSN:1557-7368
        DOI:10.1145/3306346
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 12 July 2019
        Published in tog Volume 38, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader