The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.05 - September/October (2001 vol.21)
pp: 68-75
ABSTRACT
<p>Using models of visual perception, the author removes nonperceptible components of a 3D computer graphics scene and optimizes the computational load. He presents a model of human visual threshold performance and uses this within a real-time 3D graphics system to cull nonperceptible elements of a scene. The model takes into consideration the velocity of a target and the degree to which it exists in peripheral vision.</p>
CITATION
Martin Reddy, "Perceptually Optimized 3D Graphics", IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol.21, no. 5, pp. 68-75, September/October 2001, doi:10.1109/38.946633
REFERENCES
1. M. Levoy et al., "The Digital Michelangelo Project: 3D Scanning of Large Statues," Proc. Siggraph 2000, ACM Press, New York, 2000.
2. B A. Watson et al., "Evaluation of the Effects of Frame Time Variation on VR Task Performance," Proc. IEEE Virtual Reality Annual Int'l Symp.(VRAIS 97), IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos, Calif., 1997, pp. 38-44.
3. L.H. Frank, J.G. Casali, and W.W. Wierwille, "Effects of Visual Display and Motion System Delays on Operator Performance and Uneasiness in a Driving Simulator," Human Factors, vol. 30, no. 2, 1988, pp. 201-217.
4. R. Sekuler and R. Blake, Perception, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994.
5. F.W. Campbell and J.G. Robson, "An Application of Fourier Analysis to the Visibility of Contrast Gratings," J. Physiology, vol. 197, 1968, pp. 551-566.
6. H. Rushmeier et al., "Comparing Real and Synthetic Images: Some Ideas About Metrics," Proc. 6th Eurographics Workshop on Rendering, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995, pp. 82-91.
7. D.H. Kelly, "Motion and Vision. II. Stabilized Spatio-Temporal Threshold Surface," J. Optical Soc. of America, vol. 69, no. 10, 1979, pp. 1340-1349.
8. M. Reddy, Perceptually Modulated Level of Detail for Virtual Environments, doctoral thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, UK, 1997.
9. K. Nakayama, "Properties of Early Motion Processing: Implications for the Sensing of Egomotion," The Perception and Control of Self Motion, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 1990, pp. 69-80.
10. J. Rovamo and V. Virsu, "An Estimation and Application of the Human Cortical Magnification Factor," Experimental Brain Research, vol. 37, 1979, pp. 495-510.
11. H. Yee, S. Pattanaik, and D.P. Greenberg, "Spatiotemporal Sensitivity and Visual Attention for Efficient Rendering of Dynamic Environments," ACM Trans. Graphics, Jan. 2001.
12. G. Barnes, "Vestibulo-Ocular Function During Coordinated Head and Eye Movements to Acquire Visual Targets," J. Physiology, vol. 287, 1979, pp. 127-147.
13. T. Funkhouser and C. Sequin, “Adaptive Display Algorithm for Interactive Frame Rates During Visualization of Complex Virtual Environments,” Proc. SIGGRAPH '93, pp. 247-254, 1993.
14. T. Ohshima, H. Yamamoto, and H. Tamura, "Gaze-Directed Adaptive Rendering for Interacting with Virtual Space," Proc. IEEE Virtual Reality Annual Int'l Symp.(VRAIS 96), IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos, Calif., 1996, pp. 103-110.
15. P. Lindstrom and G. Turk, "Image Driven Simplification," ACM Trans. Graphics, vol. 19, no. 3, 2000, pp. 204-241.
16. R. Sen, R.B. Yates, and N.A. Thacker, "Virtual Reality Based on Cost/Benefit Analysis," Proc. Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments(FIVE 95), QMW Univ., London, 1995, pp. 213-221.
17. H. Hoppe, “View-Dependent Refinement of Progressive Meshes,” Proc. SIGGRAPH '97, pp. 189-198, 1997.
18. J. Xia and A. Varshney, "Dynamic View-Dependent Simplification for Polygonal Models," Proc. IEEE Visualization 96, ACM Press, New York, 1996, pp. 327-334.
19. D. Luebke and C. Erikson, “View-Dependent Simplification of Arbitrary Polygonal Environments,” Proc. SIGGRAPH '97, pp. 199-208, 1997.
20. L. Shams, Y. Kamitani, and S. Shimojo, "What You See Is What You Hear," Nature, vol. 408, no. 6814, 2000, p. 788.
14 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool