skip to main content
research-article

DR-Occluder: Generating Occluders Using Differentiable Rendering

Published:05 December 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The target of the occluder is to use very few faces to maintain similar occlusion properties of the original 3D model. In this paper, we present DR-Occluder, a novel coarse-to-fine framework for occluder generation that leverages differentiable rendering to optimize a triangle set to an occluder. Unlike prior work, which has not utilized differentiable rendering for this task, our approach provides the ability to optimize a 3D shape to defined targets. Given a 3D model as input, our method first projects it to silhouette images, which are then processed by a convolution network to output a group of vertex offsets. These offsets are used to transform a group of distributed triangles into a preliminary occluder, which is further optimized by differentiable rendering. Finally, triangles whose area is smaller than a threshold are removed to obtain the final occluder. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that DR-Occluder significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods in terms of occlusion quality. Furthermore, we compare the performance of our method with other approaches in a commercial engine, providing compelling evidence of its effectiveness.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

papers_371s4-file3.mp4

mp4

107.9 MB

References

  1. Timo Aila and Ville Miettinen. 2004. dpvs: An occlusion culling system for massive dynamic environments. IEEE Computer graphics and Applications 24, 2 (2004), 86--97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. John M Airey, John H Rohlf, and Frederick P Brooks Jr. 1990. Towards image realism with interactive update rates in complex virtual building environments. ACM SIGGRAPH computer graphics 24, 2 (1990), 41--50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Federica Bogo, Angjoo Kanazawa, Christoph Lassner, Peter Gehler, Javier Romero, and Michael J Black. 2016. Keep it SMPL: Automatic estimation of 3D human pose and shape from a single image. In European conference on computer vision. Springer, 561--578.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Angel X. Chang, Thomas Funkhouser, Leonidas Guibas, Pat Hanrahan, Qixing 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. Technical Report arXiv:1512.03012 [cs.GR]. Stanford University --- Princeton University --- Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Wenzheng Chen, Huan Ling, Jun Gao, Edward Smith, Jaakko Lehtinen, Alec Jacobson, and Sanja Fidler. 2019. Learning to predict 3d objects with an interpolation-based differentiable renderer. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Paolo Cignoni, Claudio Montani, and Roberto Scopigno. 1998. A comparison of mesh simplification algorithms. Computers & Graphics 22, 1 (1998), 37--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Jonathan Cohen, Amitabh Varshney, Dinesh Manocha, Greg Turk, Hans Weber, Pankaj Agarwal, Frederick Brooks, and William Wright. 1996. Simplification envelopes. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. 119--128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. N Darnell. 2011. Automated occluders for GPU culling. Game Developer Magazine (Sep. 2011) (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Epic Games. 2023. Visibility and Occlusion Culling. https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.1/en-US/visibility-and-occlusion-culling-in-unreal-engine/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Michael Garland and Paul S Heckbert. 1997. Surface simplification using quadric error metrics. In Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. 209--216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Michael Garland and Paul S Heckbert. 1998. Simplifying surfaces with color and texture using quadric error metrics. In Proceedings Visualization'98 (Cat. No. 98CB36276). IEEE, 263--269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Kyle Genova, Forrester Cole, Aaron Maschinot, Aaron Sarna, Daniel Vlasic, and William T Freeman. 2018. Unsupervised training for 3d morphable model regression. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 8377--8386.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Rick Germs and Frederik W Jansen. 2001. Geometric simplification for efficient occlusion culling in urban scenes. (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jon Hasselgren, Jacob Munkberg, Jaakko Lehtinen, Miika Aittala, and Samuli Laine. 2021. Appearance-Driven Automatic 3D Model Simplification. In Eurographics Symposium on Rendering.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Paul Henderson and Vittorio Ferrari. 2020. Learning single-image 3d reconstruction by generative modelling of shape, pose and shading. International Journal of Computer Vision 128, 4 (2020), 835--854.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Hugues Hoppe. 1996. Progressive meshes. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. 99--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Hugues Hoppe. 1999. New quadric metric for simplifying meshes with appearance attributes. In Proceedings Visualization'99 (Cat. No. 99CB37067). IEEE, 59--510.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Hiroharu Kato, Deniz Beker, Mihai Morariu, Takahiro Ando, Toru Matsuoka, Wadim Kehl, and Adrien Gaidon. 2020. Differentiable rendering: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.12057 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Hiroharu Kato, Yoshitaka Ushiku, and Tatsuya Harada. 2018. Neural 3d mesh renderer. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 3907--3916.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Leif Kobbelt, Swen Campagna, and Hans-Peter Seidel. 1998. A general framework for mesh decimation. In Graphics interface, Vol. 98. Citeseer, 43--50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Vladlen Koltun, Yiorgos Chrysanthou, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2000. Virtual occluders: An efficient intermediate pvs representation. In Eurographics Workshop on Rendering Techniques. Springer, 59--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Kiefer Kuah. 2016. Software Occlusion Culling. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/software-occlusion-culling.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Stanford Computer Graphics Laboratory. 2005. The stanford 3d scanning repository. http://www-graphics.stanford.edu/data/3Dscanrep/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Fei-Ah Law and Tiow-Seng Tan. 1999. Preprocessing occlusion for real-time selective refinement. In Proceedings of the 1999 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics. 47--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Xueting Li, Sifei Liu, Kihwan Kim, Shalini De Mello, Varun Jampani, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Jan Kautz. 2020. Self-supervised single-view 3d reconstruction via semantic consistency. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 677--693.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Peter Lindstrom. 2000. Out-of-core simplification of large polygonal models. In Proceedings of the 27th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. 259--262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Peter Lindstrom and Greg Turk. 2000. Image-driven simplification. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) 19, 3 (2000), 204--241.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Shichen Liu, Weikai Chen, Tianye Li, and Hao Li. 2019. Soft rasterizer: Differentiable rendering for unsupervised single-view mesh reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.05567 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Songrun Liu, Zachary Ferguson, Alec Jacobson, and Yotam I Gingold. 2017. Seamless: seam erasure and seam-aware decoupling of shape from mesh resolution. ACM Trans. Graph. 36, 6 (2017), 216--1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Zhuang Liu, Hanzi Mao, Chao-Yuan Wu, Christoph Feichtenhofer, Trevor Darrell, and Saining Xie. 2022. A ConvNet for the 2020s. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.03545 (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Matthew M Loper and Michael J Black. 2014. OpenDR: An approximate differentiable renderer. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 154--169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Kok-Lim Low and Tiow-Seng Tan. 1997. Model simplification using vertex-clustering. In Proceedings of the 1997 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics. 75--ff.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. David Luebke, Martin Reddy, Jonathan D Cohen, Amitabh Varshney, Benjamin Watson, and Robert Huebner. 2003. Level of detail for 3D graphics. Morgan Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. David P Luebke. 2001. A developer's survey of polygonal simplification algorithms. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 21, 3 (2001), 24--35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jacob Norris. 2015. Modular Building Set. https://www.unrealengine.com/marketplace/zh-CN/product/modular-building-setGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Georgios Pavlakos, Luyang Zhu, Xiaowei Zhou, and Kostas Daniilidis. 2018. Learning to estimate 3D human pose and shape from a single color image. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 459--468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Felix Petersen, Amit H Bermano, Oliver Deussen, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2019. Pix2vex: Image-to-geometry reconstruction using a smooth differentiable renderer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.11149 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Nikhila Ravi, Jeremy Reizenstein, David Novotny, Taylor Gordon, Wan-Yen Lo, Justin Johnson, and Georgia Gkioxari. 2020. Accelerating 3d deep learning with pytorch3d. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.08501 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. David Salinas, Florent Lafarge, and Pierre Alliez. 2015. Structure-aware mesh decimation. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 34. Wiley Online Library, 211--227.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Manolis Savva, Angel X. Chang, and Pat Hanrahan. 2015. Semantically-Enriched 3D Models for Common-sense Knowledge. CVPR 2015 Workshop on Functionality, Physics, Intentionality and Causality (2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. William J Schroeder. 1997. A topology modifying progressive decimation algorithm. In Proceedings. Visualization'97 (Cat. No. 97CB36155). IEEE, 205--212.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. William J Schroeder, Jonathan A Zarge, and William E Lorensen. 1992. Decimation of triangle meshes. In Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. 65--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Ari Silvennoinen, Hannu Saransaari, Samuli Laine, and Jaakko Lehtinen. 2014. Occluder simplification using planar sections. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 33. Wiley Online Library, 235--245.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Jerry O Talton. 2004. A short survey of mesh simplification algorithms. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Gino van den Bergen. 2021. Conservative mesh decimation for collision detection and occlusion culling. In Game Developers Conference (GDC), Vol. 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Kui Wu, Xu He, Zherong Pan, and Xifeng Gao. 2022. Occluder Generation for Buildings in Digital Games. (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Xiong Zhang, Qiang Li, Hong Mo, Wenbo Zhang, and Wen Zheng. 2019. End-to-end hand mesh recovery from a monocular rgb image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2354--2364.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Qingnan Zhou and Alec Jacobson. 2016. Thingi10k: A dataset of 10,000 3d-printing models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.04797 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. DR-Occluder: Generating Occluders Using Differentiable Rendering

      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 6
        December 2023
        1565 pages
        ISSN:0730-0301
        EISSN:1557-7368
        DOI:10.1145/3632123
        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: 5 December 2023
        Published in tog Volume 42, Issue 6

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader