skip to main content
research-article

Potentially Visible Hidden-Volume Rendering for Multi-View Warping

Published:26 July 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper presents the model and rendering algorithm of Potentially Visible Hidden Volumes (PVHVs) for multi-view image warping. PVHVs are 3D volumes that are occluded at a known source view, but potentially visible at novel views. Given a bound of novel views, we define PVHVs using the edges of foreground fragments from the known view and the bound of novel views. PVHVs can be used to batch-test the visibilities of source fragments without iterating individual novel views in multi-fragment rendering, and thereby, cull redundant fragments prior to warping. We realize the model of PVHVs in Depth Peeling (DP). Our Effective Depth Peeling (EDP) can reduce the number of completely hidden fragments, capture important fragments early, and reduce warping cost. We demonstrate the benefit of our PVHVs and EDP in terms of memory, quality, and performance in multi-view warping.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

papers_214_VOD.mp4

presentation

mp4

555.6 MB

References

  1. Louis Bavoil, Steven P Callahan, Aaron Lefohn, Joao LD Comba, and Cláudio T Silva. 2007. Multi-fragment effects on the GPU using the k-buffer. In Proc. Symp. Interactive 3D Graphics and Games. 97--104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Louis Bavoil, Steven P Callahan, and Claudio T Silva. 2006. Robust soft shadow mapping with depth peeling. Technical Report UUSCI-2006-028. Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Louis Bavoil, Steven P Callahan, and Claudio T Silva. 2008. Robust soft shadow mapping with backprojection and depth peeling. Journal of Graphics Tools 13, 1 (2008), 19--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Louis Bavoil and Kevin Myers. 2008. Order independent transparency with dual depth peeling. OpenGL SDK. NVIDIA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Louis Bavoil and Miguel Sainz. 2009. Multi-layer dual-resolution screen-space ambient occlusion. In SIGGRAPH 2009 Talks. ACM, 1--1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Fabio F Bernardon, Christian A Pagot, Joao LD Comba, and Claudio T Silva. 2006. GPU-based tiled ray casting using depth peeling. Journal of Graphics tools 11, 4 (2006), 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Loren Carpenter. 1984. The A-buffer, an antialiased hidden surface method. In Proc. SIGGRAPH. 103--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Adam Cichocki. 2017. Optimized Pixel-Projected Reflections for Planar Reflectors. SIGGRAPH Advances in Real-Time Rendering in Games course.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Daniel Cohen-Or, Yiorgos L Chrysanthou, Claudio T. Silva, and Frédo Durand. 2003. A survey of visibility for walkthrough applications. IEEE Tran. Visualization and Computer Graphics 9, 3 (2003), 412--431.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Franklin C Crow. 1977. Shadow algorithms for computer graphics. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics 11, 2 (1977), 242--248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Elmar Eisemann, Michael Schwarz, Ulf Assarsson, and Michael Wimmer. 2011. Real-time shadows. CRC Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Cass Everitt. 2001. Interactive order-independent transparency. White Paper 6. NVIDIA. 7 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Linus Franke, Nikolai Hofmann, Marc Stamminger, and Kai Selgrad. 2018. Multi-layer depth of field rendering with tiled splatting. Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques 1, 1 (2018), 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Toshiya Hachisuka. 2005. High-quality global illumination rendering using rasterization. In GPU Gems 2, Matt Pharr (Ed.). Addison-Wesley, Chapter 38, 615--633.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Paul Haeberli and Kurt Akeley. 1990. The accumulation buffer: hardware support for high-quality rendering. ACM Computer Graphics 24, 4 (1990), 309--318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. John H. Halton. 1964. Algorithm 247: Radical-inverse quasi-random point sequence. Commun. ACM 7, 12 (1964), 701--702.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Jozef Hladky, Hans-Peter Seidel, and Markus Steinberger. 2019. The camera offset space: real-time potentially visible set computations for streaming rendering. ACM Trans. Graphics 38, 6 (2019), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Vladlen Koltun, Yiorgos Chrysanthou, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2000. Virtual Occluders: An Efficient Intermediate PVS Representation. In Proc. Eurographics Workshop on Rendering. 59--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Sungkil Lee, Elmar Eisemann, and Hans-Peter Seidel. 2009. Depth-of-Field Rendering with Multiview Synthesis. ACM Trans. Graphics 28, 5 (2009), 134:1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Sungkil Lee, Elmar Eisemann, and Hans-Peter Seidel. 2010. Real-Time Lens Blur Effects and Focus Control. ACM Trans. Graphics 29, 4 (2010), 65:1--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Sungkil Lee, Younguk Kim, and Elmar Eisemann. 2018. Iterative Depth Warping. ACM Trans. Graphics 37, 5 (2018), 177:1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Marc Levoy and Pat Hanrahan. 1996. Light field rendering. In Proc. SIGGRAPH. 31--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Fang Liu, Meng-Cheng Huang, Xue-Hui Liu, and En-Hua Wu. 2009. Efficient depth peeling via bucket sort. In Proc. High Performance Graphics. 51--57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Abraham Mammen. 1989. Transparency and antialiasing algorithms implemented with the virtual pixel maps technique. IEEE Computer graphics and Applications 9, 4 (1989), 43--55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Michael Mara, Morgan McGuire, Derek Nowrouzezahrai, and David P Luebke. 2016. Deep G-buffers for stable global illumination approximation. In Proc. High Performance Graphics. 87--98.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Morgan McGuire and Michael Mara. 2014. Efficient GPU screen-space ray tracing. Journal of Computer Graphics Techniques 3, 4 (2014), 73--85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Zoltán Nagy and Reinhard Klein. 2003. Depth-peeling for texture-based volume rendering. In Proc. Pacific Graphics. IEEE, 429--433.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Michael Potmesil and Indranil Chakravarty. 1981. A lens and aperture camera model for synthetic image generation. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics 15, 3 (1981), 297--305.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Bernhard Reinert, Johannes Kopf, Tobias Ritschel, Eduardo Cuervo, David Chu, and Hans-Peter Seidel. 2016. Proxy-guided image-based rendering for mobile devices. Computer graphics forum 35, 7 (2016), 353--362.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Gernot Schaufler, Julie Dorsey, Xavier Decoret, and François X Sillion. 2000. Conservative volumetric visibility with occluder fusion. In Proc. ACM SIGGRAPH. 229--238.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Kai Selgrad, Christian Reintges, Dominik Penk, Pascal Wagner, and Marc Stamminger. 2015. Real-time depth of field using multi-layer filtering. In Proc. Symp. Interactive 3D Graphics and Games. 121--127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Seth J Teller and Carlo H Séquin. 1991. Visibility preprocessing for interactive walkthroughs. Computer Graphics 25, 4 (1991), 61--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Andreas-Alexandros Vasilakis and Ioannis Fudos. 2012. Depth-fighting aware methods for multifragment rendering. IEEE Trans. Visualization and Computer Graphics 19, 6 (2012), 967--977.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Andreas-Alexandros Vasilakis and Georgios Papaioannou. 2015. Improving k-buffer Methods via Occupancy Maps. In Proc. Eurographics Short Papers. 69--72.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Andreas-Alexandros Vasilakis, Georgios Papaioannou, and Ioannis Fudos. 2015. k+-buffer: An Efficient, Memory-Friendly and Dynamic k-buffer Framework. IEEE Trans. Visualization and Computer Graphics 21, 6 (2015), 688--700.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Andreas-Alexandros Vasilakis, Konstantinos Vardis, and Georgios Papaioannou. 2020. A Survey of Multifragment Rendering. Computer graphics forum 39, 2 (2020), 623--642.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Andreas-Alexandros Vasilakis, Konstantinos Vardis, Georgios Papaioannou, and Konstantinos Moustakas. 2017. Variable k-buffer using Importance Maps. In Proc. Eurographics Short Papers. 21--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Peter Wonka, Michael Wimmer, and Dieter Schmalstieg. 2000. Visibility preprocessing with occluder fusion for urban walkthroughs. In Proc. Eurographics Workshop on Rendering. 71--82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Jason C. Yang, Justin Hensley, Holger Grün, and Nicolas Thibieroz. 2010. Real-time concurrent linked list construction on the GPU. Computer graphics forum 29, 4 (2010), 1297--1304.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Xuan Yu, Rui Wang, and Jingyi Yu. 2010. Real-time depth of field rendering via dynamic light field generation and filtering. Computer graphics forum 29, 7 (2010), 2099--2107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Potentially Visible Hidden-Volume Rendering for Multi-View Warping

      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 42, Issue 4
        August 2023
        1912 pages
        ISSN:0730-0301
        EISSN:1557-7368
        DOI:10.1145/3609020
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2023 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: 26 July 2023
        Published in tog Volume 42, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)114
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader