skip to main content
10.1145/3092912.3092918acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnparConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Polygons, points, or voxels?: stimuli selection for crowdsourcing aesthetics preferences of 3D shape pairs

Published: 29 July 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Visual aesthetics is one of the fundamental perceptual properties of 3D shapes. Since the perception of shape aesthetics can be subjective, we take a data-driven approach and consider the human preferences of shape aesthetics. Previous work has considered a pairwise data collection approach, in which pairs of 3D shapes are shown to human participants and they are asked to choose one from each pair that they perceive to be more aesthetic. In this research, we study the question of whether the 3D modeling representation (e.g. polygon, points, or voxels) affects how people perceive the aesthetics of shape pairs. We find surprising results: for example the single-view and multi-view of shape pairs lead to similar user aesthetics choices; and a relatively low resolution of points or voxels is comparable to polygon meshes as they do not lead to significantly different user aesthetics choices. Our results has implications towards the data collection process of pairwise aesthetics data and the further use of such data in shape modeling problems.

Supplementary Material

ZIP File (a2-dev.zip)
Supplemental material.

References

[1]
Olivia C. Adkins and J. Farley Norman. 2016. The Visual Aesthetics of Snowflakes. Perception (July 2016).
[2]
Abhishek Agrawal, Vittal Premachandran, and Ramakrishna Kakarala. 2014. Rating Image Aesthetics Using a Crowd Sourcing Approach. Pacific-Rim Symposium on Image and Video Technology 2013 Workshops - Volume 8334 (2014), 24--32.
[3]
Steve Bergen and Brian J. Ross. 2012. Aesthetic 3D Model Evolution. International Conference on Evolutionary and Biologically Inspired Music, Sound, Art and Design (2012), 11--22.
[4]
Angel X. Chang, Thomas A. Funkhouser, Leonidas J. Guibas, Pat Hanrahan, Qi-Xing Huang, Zimo Li, Silvio Savarese, Manolis Savva, Shuran Song, Hao Su, Jianxiong Xiao, Li Yi, and Fisher Yu. 2015. ShapeNet: An Information-Rich 3D Model Repository. CoRR (2015).
[5]
Siddhartha Chaudhuri, Evangelos Kalogerakis, Stephen Giguere, and Thomas Funkhouser. 2013. AttribIt: Content Creation with Semantic Attributes. ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) (Oct. 2013).
[6]
Doug DeCarlo, Adam Finkelstein, Szymon Rusinkiewicz, and Anthony Santella. 2003. Suggestive Contours for Conveying Shape. ACM Transactions on Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH) 22, 3 (July 2003), 848--855.
[7]
Kapil Dev, Manfred Lau, and Ligang Liu. 2016. A Perceptual Aesthetics Measure for 3D Shapes. CoRR (2016).
[8]
James A. Ferwerda, Stephen H. Westin, Randall C. Smith, and Richard Pawlicki. 2004. Effects of Rendering on Shape Perception in Automobile Design. Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization (2004), 107--114.
[9]
Megan Gambino. 2013. Do Our Brains Find Certain Shapes More Attractive Than Others? Smithsonian.com (Nov. 2013).
[10]
Sarah Howlett, John Hamill, and Carol O'Sullivan. 2005. Predicting and Evaluating Saliency for Simplified Polygonal Models. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 2, 3 (July 2005), 286--308.
[11]
B. W. Keelan and H. Urabe. 2003. ISO 20462: a psychophysical image quality measurement standard. Proceedings of the SPIE 5294 (Dec. 2003), 181--189.
[12]
Manfred Lau, Kapil Dev, Weiqi Shi, Julie Dorsey, and Holly Rushmeier. 2016. Tactile Mesh Saliency. ACM Trans. Graph. 35, 4, Article 52 (July 2016), 52:1--52:11 pages.
[13]
Tommer Leyvand, Daniel Cohen-Or, Gideon Dror, and Dani Lischinski. 2008. Data-driven Enhancement of Facial Attractiveness. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 3 (Aug. 2008), 38:1--38:9.
[14]
Ligang Liu, Renjie Chen, Lior Wolf, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2010. Optimizing Photo Composition. Computer Graphics Forum 29, 2 (2010), 469--478.
[15]
Tianqiang Liu, Aaron Hertzmann, Wilmot Li, and Thomas Funkhouser. 2015. Style Compatibility for 3D Furniture Models. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 4, Article 85 (July 2015), 85:1--85:9 pages.
[16]
Zhaoliang Lun, Evangelos Kalogerakis, and Alla Sheffer. 2015. Elements of Style: Learning Perceptual Shape Style Similarity. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 4 (July 2015), 84:1--84:14.
[17]
Rafal K. Mantiuk, Anna Tomaszewska, and Radoslaw Mantiuk. 2012. Comparison of Four Subjective Methods for Image Quality Assessment. Comput. Graph. Forum 31, 8 (Dec. 2012), 2478--2491.
[18]
Rachel McDonnell, Martin Breidt, and Heinrich H. Bülthoff. 2012. Render Me Real?: Investigating the Effect of Render Style on the Perception of Animated Virtual Humans. ACM Trans. Graph. 31, 4, Article 91 (July 2012), 11 pages.
[19]
Peter O'Donovan, Janis Libeks, Aseem Agarwala, and Aaron Hertzmann. 2014. Exploratory Font Selection Using Crowdsourced Attributes. ACM Trans. Graph. 33, 4, Article 92 (July 2014), 92:1--92:9 pages.
[20]
Alice J. O'Toole, Theodore Price, T. Vetter, James C. Bartlett, and V. Blanz. 1999. 3D shape and 2D surface textures of human faces: the role of averages in attractiveness and age. Image and Vision Computing 18, 1 (1999), 9--19.
[21]
Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J. Guibas. 2016. PointNet: Deep Learning on Point Sets for 3D Classification and Segmentation. CoRR (2016).
[22]
Adrian Secord, Jingwan Lu, Adam Finkelstein, Manish Singh, and Andrew Nealen. 2011. Perceptual models of viewpoint preference. ACM Transactions on Graphics 30, 5 (Oct. 2011).
[23]
Carlo H. Séquin. 2005. CAD Tools for Aesthetic Engineering. Computer-Aided Design 37, 7 (June 2005), 737--750.
[24]
James T. Todd. 2004. The Visual Perception of 3D Shape. Trends Cogn Sci. 8, 3 (March 2004), 115--121.
[25]
Zhirong Wu, Shuran Song, Aditya Khosla, Fisher Yu, Linguang Zhang, Xiaoou Tang, and Jianxiong Xiao. 2015. 3D ShapeNets: A Deep Representation for Volumetric Shape Modeling. CVPR (2015).
[26]
Brian Wyvill, Paul G. Kry, Raimund Seidel, and David Mould. 2012. Determining an Aesthetic Inscribed Curve. Symposium on Computational Aesthetics in Graphics, Visualization, and Imaging (2012), 63--70.
[27]
Eduard Zell, Carlos Aliaga, Adrian Jarabo, Katja Zibrek, Diego Gutierrez, Rachel McDonnell, and Mario Botsch. 2015. To Stylize or Not to Stylize?: The Effect of Shape and Material Stylization on the Perception of Computer-generated Faces. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 6, Article 184 (Oct. 2015), 12 pages.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Comparing Shape Representations for the Aesthetic Judgment of 3-D Shape PairsIEEE Computer Graphics and Applications10.1109/MCG.2023.328604743:6(33-45)Online publication date: Nov-2023
  • (2022)Critiquing-based Modeling of Subjective PreferencesProceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization10.1145/3503252.3531314(234-242)Online publication date: 4-Jul-2022
  • (2018)Aesthetic Discrimination of Graph LayoutsGraph Drawing and Network Visualization10.1007/978-3-030-04414-5_12(169-184)Online publication date: 26-Sep-2018

Index Terms

  1. Polygons, points, or voxels?: stimuli selection for crowdsourcing aesthetics preferences of 3D shape pairs

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CAE '17: Proceedings of the symposium on Computational Aesthetics
      July 2017
      71 pages
      ISBN:9781450350808
      DOI:10.1145/3092912
      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]

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 29 July 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. 3D modeling
      2. aesthetics
      3. perception

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Funding Sources

      • Microsoft Research PhD Program

      Conference

      Expressive '17
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 11 of 25 submissions, 44%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)10
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
      Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2023)Comparing Shape Representations for the Aesthetic Judgment of 3-D Shape PairsIEEE Computer Graphics and Applications10.1109/MCG.2023.328604743:6(33-45)Online publication date: Nov-2023
      • (2022)Critiquing-based Modeling of Subjective PreferencesProceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization10.1145/3503252.3531314(234-242)Online publication date: 4-Jul-2022
      • (2018)Aesthetic Discrimination of Graph LayoutsGraph Drawing and Network Visualization10.1007/978-3-030-04414-5_12(169-184)Online publication date: 26-Sep-2018

      View Options

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media