skip to main content
10.1145/1080402.1080415acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesapgvConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

A comparison of material and illumination discrimination performance for real rough, real smooth and computer generated smooth spheres

Published:26 August 2005Publication History

ABSTRACT

The appearance of objects in natural scenes is determined by their reflectance, their 3D texture, their shape and by the nature of the illumination. Results of previous experiments using computer generated images of spheres with different reflectance modes and under different canonical illuminations suggested that perception of reflectance mode and illumination are basically confounded. In the present study we investigate whether the conclusions from the experiments with simplified rendered spheres can be extended to ecologically valid images. We use two sets of photographs of real spheres, the first set is taken from the Dror Database [Dror et al. 2001], with simple reflectance modes but complex natural illumination (e.g. desklamp, lab, foodcourt). The second set is taken from the Utrecht Oranges Database [Pont and Koenderink 2003], with simple canonical illumination but material consisting of both reflectance and 3D texture differences (e.g. orange, golf ball, christmas decoration).We find that, although to a lesser extent, even in images of complex objects, perception of material and illumination are basically confounded. Overall, illumination and material are confounded most when we present rendered spheres that differ only in reflectance mode under simple canonical illumination conditions. Interestingly, adding complex natural illumination containing higher order angular frequencies helps to disambiguate this confound in material judgments, but not in illumination judgments. Most helpful was the addition of 3D texture.

References

  1. Adelson, E. H., and Pentland, A. P. 1996. The perception of shading and reflectance. In D. Knill and W. Richards (Eds.), "Perception as Bayesian inference" (Pp 409--423), Cambridge University Press, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Adelson, E. H. 2001. On seeing stuff: The perception of materials by humans and machines. In B. E. Rogowitz and T. N. Pappas (Eds.) "Proceedings of the SPIE Vol 4299. Human Vision and Electgronic Imagagin VI" (Pp 1--12).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Belhumeur, P. N., Kriegman, D., and Yuille, A. 1999. The bas-relief ambiguity. Int. Journal of Computer Vision 35(1), 33--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Brainard, D. H. 1997. The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision 10, 433--436.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Dana, K. J., van Ginneken, B., Nayar, S. K., and Koen-Derink, J. J. 1999. Reflectance and texture of real-world surfaces. ACM Transactions on Graphics 18, 1--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Dror, R. O., and Willsky, A. 2004. Statistical characterization of real-world illumination. Journal of Vision 4, 821--837.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Dror, R. O., Adelson, E. H., and Willsky, A. S. 2001. Estimating surface reflectance properties from images under unknown illumination. In Proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Human Vision and Electronic Imaging, San Jose, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Fleming, R. W., Dror, R. O., and Adelson, E. H. 2003. Real-world illumination and the perception of surface reflectance properties. Journal of Vision 3, 347--368.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Gershun, A. 1939. The light field. transl. by p. moon and g. timoshenko. J.Math.Phys. 18(51).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gooch, B., and Gooch, A. 2001. Non-Photorealistic Rendering. A. K. Peters Ltd. Publishers. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Koenderink, J. J., and Pont, S. C. 2003. The secret of velvety skin. Machine Vision and Applications; Special Issue on Human Modeling, Analysis and Synthesis 14, 260--268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Koenderink, J. J., and van Doorn, A. J. 1996. Illuminance texture due to surface mesostructure. JOSA A 13(3), 452--463.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Lambert, J. H. 1760. Photometria Sive de Mensure de Gradibus Luminis, Colorum et Umbræ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Meier, B. J. 1996. Painterly rendering for animation. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 1996, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Oren, M., and Nayar, S. K. 1995. Visual appearance of matte surfaces. Science 267, 1153--1156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Pelli, D. G. 1997. The videotoolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision 10, 437--442.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Pont, S. C., and Koenderink, J. J. 2002. Brdf of specular surfaces with hemispherical pits. JOSA A 19(2), 2456--2466.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Pont, S. C., and Koenderink, J. J. 2003. The utrecht oranges set. Technical report and database.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Pont, S. C., and Koenderink, J. J. 2005. Reflectance from locally glossy thoroughly pitted surfaces. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 98, 211--2222. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Pont, S. C., and Te Pas, S. F. 2005. Material-illumination ambiguities and the perception of solid objects. submitted to Perception.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Torrance, K. E., Sparrow, E. M., and Birkebak, R. C. 1966. Polarization, directional distribution, and off-specular peak phenomena in light reflected from roughened surfaces. JOSA A 56(7), 916--925.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. van Ginneken, B., Stavridi, M., and Koenderink, J. J. 1998. Diffuse and specular reflection from rough surfaces. Applied Optics 37(1), 130--139.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. A comparison of material and illumination discrimination performance for real rough, real smooth and computer generated smooth spheres

        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
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          APGV '05: Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on Applied perception in graphics and visualization
          August 2005
          187 pages
          ISBN:1595931392
          DOI:10.1145/1080402

          Copyright © 2005 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 ACM 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: 26 August 2005

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • Article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate19of33submissions,58%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader