skip to main content
10.1145/3225153.3225169acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessapConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An appearance uniformity metric for 3D printing

Published:10 August 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

A method is presented for perceptually characterizing appearance non-uniformities that result from 3D printing. In contrast to physical measurements, the model is designed to take into account the human visual system and variations in observer conditions such as lighting, point of view, and shape. Additionally, it is capable of handling spatial reflectance variations over a material's surface. Motivated by Schrödinger's line element approach to studying color differences, an image-based psychophysical experiment that explores paths between materials in appearance space is conducted. The line element concept is extended from color to spatially-varying appearances-including color, roughness and gloss-which enables the measurement of fine differences between appearances along a path. We define two path functions, one interpolating reflectance parameters and the other interpolating the final imagery. An image-based uniformity model is developed, applying a trained neural network to color differences calculated from rendered images of the printed non-uniformities. The final model is shown to perform better than commonly used image comparison algorithms, including spatial pattern classes that were not used in training.

References

  1. S. P. Aran. 2012. Turning visual search time on its head. Vision Res. 74 (Dec. 2012), 86--92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Alan Brunton, Can Ates Arikan, and Philipp Urban. 2015. Pushing the Limits of 3D Color Printing. ACM Trans. Graph. 35, 1 (Dec. 2015), 1--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Peter J. Burt and Edward H. Adelson. 1983. The Laplacian Pyramid as a Compact Image Code. IEEE Trans. Commun. 31, 4 (April 1983), 532--540.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Edul N. Dalal and Kristen M. Natale-Hoffman. 1999. The Effect of Gloss on Color. Color Res. Appl. 24, 5 (Oct. 1999), 369--376.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. James A. Ferwerda, Fabio Pellacini, and Donald P. Greenberg. 2001. A psychophysically based model of surface gloss perception. In Proc. SPIE. SPIE, 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Roland W. Fleming, Ron O. Dror, and Edward H. Adelson. 2003. Real-world illumination and the perception of surface reflectance properties. Journal of Vision 3, 5 (June 2003), 347--368.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Andrew Gardner, Chris Tchou, Tim Hawkins, and Paul Debevec. 2003. Linear Light Source Reflectometry. ACM Trans. Graph. 22, 3 (July 2003), 749--758. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ioannis Gkioulekas, Bei Xiao, Shuang Zhao, Edward H. Adelson, Todd Zickler, and Kavita Bala. 2013. Understanding the Role of Phase Function in Translucent Appearance. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 5 (Sept. 2013), 1--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Martin T. Hagan, Howard B. Demuth, Mark H. Beale, and Orlando De Jesús. 2014. Neural Network Design (2nd ed.).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. V. Havran, Jiří Filip, and Karol Myszkowski. 2016. Perceptually Motivated BRDF Comparison using Single Image. Computer Graphics Forum 35, 4 (July 2016), 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Richard S. Hunter and Richard W. Harold. 1987. The Measurement of Appearance (2nd ed.). Wiley-Interscience, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Leonid L. Kontsevich and Christopher W. Tyler. 1999. Bayesian adaptive estimation of psychometric slope and threshold. Vision Res. 39, 16 (Aug. 1999), 2729--2737.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Michael Ludwig, Nathan Moroney, Ingeborg Tastl, Melanie Gottwals, and Gary Meyer. 2018. Perceptual Appearance Uniformity in 3D Printing. In Proceedings of IS&T Electronic Imaging. Society for Imaging Science and Technology, 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. David L. MacAdam. 1942. Visual Sensitivities to Color Differences in Daylight. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 32, 5 (May 1942), 247--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Rafat Mantiuk, Kil Joong Kim, Allan G. Rempel, and Wolfgang Heidrich. 2011. HDR-VDP-2. In SIGGRAPH. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Phillip J. Marlow, Barton L. Anderson, and Juno Kim. 2012. The Perception and Misperception of Specular Surface Reflectance. Current Biology 22, 20 (Oct. 2012), 1909--1913.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Mathworks Inc. 2018. MATLAB and Neural Network Toolbox. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. David Kirk Mcallister. 2002. A Generalized Surface Appearance Representation for Computer Graphics. Ph.D. Dissertation.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Alexander A. Muryy, Roland W. Fleming, and Andrew E. Welchman. 2014. Key characteristics of specular stereo. Journal of Vision 14, 14 (Dec. 2014), 1--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Thiago Pereira and Szymon Rusinkiewicz. 2012. Gamut Mapping Spatially Varying Reflectance with an Improved BRDF Similarity Metric. Computer Graphics Forum 31, 4 (July 2012), 1557--1566. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Tim Reiner, Nathan Carr, Radomír Měch, Ondřej Št'ava, Carsten Dachsbacher, and Gavin Miller. 2014. Dual-Color Mixing for Fused Deposition Modeling Printers. Computer Graphics Forum 33, 2 (May 2014), 479--486. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Erwin Schrödinger. 1920. Grundlinien einer Theorie der Farbenmetrik im Tagessehen. Annalen der Physik 368, 21 (1920), 397--426.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Gaurav Sharma, Wencheng Wu, and Edul N. Dalal. 2004. The CIEDE2000 Color-Difference Formula. Color Res. Appl. 30, 1 (Dec. 2004), 21--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Peter Vangorp, Jurgen Laurijssen, and Philip Dutré. 2007. The Influence of Shape on the Perception of Material Reflectance. ACM Trans. Graph. 26, 3 (July 2007), 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Weiming Wang, Haiyuan Chao, Jing Tong, Zhouwang Yang, Xin Tong, Hang Li, Xiuping Liu, and Ligang Liu. 2015. Saliency-Preserving Slicing Optimization for Effective 3D Printing. Computer Graphics Forum 34, 6 (Sept. 2015), 148--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Josh Wills, Sameer Agarwal, David Kriegman, and Serge Belongie. 2009. Toward a Perceptual Space for Gloss. ACM Trans. Graph. 28, 4 (Aug. 2009), 1--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Gunter Wyszecki and W. S. Stiles. 1982. Color Science (2nd ed.). Wiley-Interscience, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Hector Yee, Sumanita Pattanaik, and Donald P. Greenberg. 2001. Spatiotemporal sensitivity and visual attention for efficient rendering of dynamic environments. ACM Trans. Graph. 20, 1 (Jan. 2001), 39--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Xuemei Zhang and Brian A. Wandell. 1997. A spatial extension of CIELAB for digital color-image reproduction. J. Soc. Inf. Display 5, 1 (March 1997), 61--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. An appearance uniformity metric for 3D printing

      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
        SAP '18: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Applied Perception
        August 2018
        162 pages
        ISBN:9781450358941
        DOI:10.1145/3225153

        Copyright © 2018 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: 10 August 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate43of94submissions,46%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader