Jaroslav Křivánek James Ferwerda Kavita Bala
Effects of Global Illumination Approximations on Material Appearance
Cornell University & Charles University, Prague Rochester Institute of Technology Cornell University
Effects of Global Illumination Approximations on Material - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Effects of Global Illumination Approximations on Material Appearance Jaroslav James Kavita Kivnek Ferwerda Bala Cornell University & Rochester Institute of Cornell University Charles University, Prague Technology Global
Jaroslav Křivánek James Ferwerda Kavita Bala
Effects of Global Illumination Approximations on Material Appearance
Cornell University & Charles University, Prague Rochester Institute of Technology Cornell University
2
Global illumination rendering
scene: Autodesk | rendering: Edgar Velázquez-Armendáriz
3
Global illumination rendering
scene: Autodesk | rendering: Edgar Velázquez-Armendáriz
– Fast & popular – Image artifacts & energy losses
– Systematic perceptual study
4
Overview
– Visible Difference Predictor
[Mitchell 87, Bolin and Meyer 95/98, Myszkowski 02, …]
– Illumination components
[Stokes et al. 04; Debattista et al 05]
– Higher-level processing
[Yee et al. 01, O’Sullivan et al. 04]
– Material appearance
[Pellacini et al. 00; Westlund and Meyer 01; Fleming et al. 03; Khan et al. 06; Vangorp et al. 07/08]
– Visual Equivalence [Ramanarayanan et al. 2007] …
5
Related work
– Same scene appearance – Visibly different
– Apply visual equivalence to VPL rendering
6
Related work – Visual equivalence
7
Related work – VPL rendering
[Wald et al. 02; Segovia et al. 07; Laine et al. 07; Ritschel et al. 08; Dong et al. 09; Yu et al. 09 ; …]
[Hašan et al. 07/09]
[Walter et al. 05/06]
8
Related work – VPL rendering
VPL rendering is fast, but…
9
renderings?
– trade-offs : VPL parameters vs. visual fidelity
10
VPLs for high-fidelity rendering
– VPL count – clamping level
VPL Rendering Parameters
VPL count clamping level
VPL rendering parameters
– VPL count – clamping level
VPL Rendering Parameters
VPL count clamping level
VPL rendering parameters
Space of rendering parameters
clamping level VPL count
– shape complexity? – material? – illumination?
– Experiment design – Results & validation – Applications
14
Psychophysical experiments
clamping level VPL count
15
Test objects – Shape complexity
16
Test objects – Materials
Ward-Dür BRDF:
17
Test objects – Materials
17
Ward-Dür BRDF:
18
Test objects – Materials
Ward-Dür BRDF:
Test objects – Materials
19
Ward-Dür BRDF:
20
Scene
parameters
– 3 VPL counts – 11 clamping levels
clamping level VPL count
21
Stimulus images
22
Stimulus images –VPL count
1,000 (1k) Interactive rendering 100,000 (100k) Preview-quality rendering 5,000,000 (5M) High-quality rendering
(C0 – C10)
23
Stimulus images – Clamping level
24
Experiment 1: Artifact visibility
clamping level VPL count
25
Experiment 2: Material change
VPL count clamping level
VPL count clamping level
– Standard 75% 2 AFC threshold criterion
Data analysis
26
1k 100k 5M C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9
27
Experiment results
1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M 1k 100k 5M C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C9 C0 C2 C4 C6 C8 C10 C1 C3 C5 C7 C928
Trends – VPL count
29
Trends – VPL count
30
Trends – VPL count
31
Trends – VPL count
32
Trends – VPL count
33
Trends – Material contrast gloss
34
Trends – Shape complexity
35
Trends – Shape complexity
36
Trends – Illumination
indirect-only direct-and-indirect
material appearance?
– No significant improvement measured – Further investigation needed
geometry
– Trends confirmed
– Most forgiving material – Need more than 1k VPL to achieve equivalence
37
Validation
38
Applications
39
Application – Per-object clamping
+ =
clamping (VPL) compensation (PT)
→
+ =
– VPL count – Shape complexity – Contrast gloss decrease
40
Summary of results
clamping level VPL count VPL count
rendering
– VPL methods produce equivalent renderings for a wide range of scene settings – 1k VPLs used in interactive apps → no equivalence – Smooth metal & simple shape → no equivalence
41
Conclusions
– Ambiguity between artifacts and highlights
42
Future work
43
Acknowledgements
Thank you
Additional Slides
46
Ambiguity: highlights vs. artifacts
47
match avg. luminance
Apps: Luminance normalization
– Can increase equivalence
48
Apps: Luminance normalization
49
Trends – Material roughness