The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.06 - Nov.-Dec. (2013 vol.33)
pp: 58-68
Ondrej Karlik , Charles Univ. in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
Jaroslav Krivanek , Charles Univ. in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
ABSTRACT
Progressive rendering is becoming a popular alternative to precomputational approaches to appearance design. However, progressive algorithms create images exhibiting visual artifacts at early stages. A user study investigated these artifacts' effects on user performance in appearance design tasks. Novice and expert subjects performed lighting and material editing tasks with four algorithms: random path tracing, quasirandom path tracing, progressive photon mapping, and virtual-point-light rendering. Both the novices and experts strongly preferred path tracing to progressive photon mapping and virtual-point-light rendering. None of the participants preferred random path tracing to quasirandom path tracing or vice versa; the same situation held between progressive photon mapping and virtual-point-light rendering. The user workflow didn’t differ significantly with the four algorithms. The Web Extras include a video showing how four progressive-rendering algorithms converged (at http://youtu.be/ck-Gevl1e9s), the source code used, and other supplementary materials.
INDEX TERMS
Lighting, Rendering (computer graphics), Algorithm design and analysis, Photonics, Cameras, User interfaces, Algorithm design and analysis,appearance design, progressive rendering, random path tracing, quasirandom path tracing, progressive photon mapping, virtual point lights, computer graphics
CITATION
Jiawei Ou, Ondrej Karlik, Jaroslav Krivanek, Fabio Pellacini, "Evaluating Progressive-Rendering Algorithms in Appearance Design Tasks", IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol.33, no. 6, pp. 58-68, Nov.-Dec. 2013, doi:10.1109/MCG.2012.109
REFERENCES
1. W.B. Kerr and F. Pellacini, “Toward Evaluating Lighting Design Interface Paradigms for Novice Users,” ACM Trans. Graphics, vol. 28, no. 3, 2009, article 26.
2. W.B. Kerr and F. Pellacini, “Toward Evaluating Material Design Interface Paradigms for Novice Users,” ACM Trans. Graphics, vol. 29, no. 4, 2010, article 35.
3. F. Pellacini et al., “Lpics: A Hybrid Hardware-Accelerated Relighting Engine for Computer Cinematography,” ACM Trans. Graphics, vol. 24, no. 3, 2005, pp. 464-470.
4. M. Hasa˘n, F. Pellacini, and K. Bala, “Direct-to-Indirect Transfer for Cinematic Relighting,” ACM Trans. Graphics, vol. 25, no. 3, 2006, pp. 1089-1097.
5. J. Krˇivánek et al., “Global Illumination across Industries,” ACM Siggraph 2010 Courses, ACM, 2010, article 8.
6. A. Keller, “Strictly Deterministic Sampling Methods in Computer Graphics,” ACM Siggraph 2003 Course Notes, Course No. 44: Monte Carlo Ray Tracing, ACM, 2003.
7. T. Hachisuka, S. Ogaki, and H.W. Jensen, “Progressive Photon Mapping,” ACM Trans. Graphics, vol. 27, no. 5, 2008, article 130.
8. C. Knaus and M. Zwicker, “Progressive Photon Mapping: A Probabilistic Approach,” ACM Trans. Graphics, vol. 30, no. 3, 2011, article 25.
9. A. Keller, “Instant Radiosity,” Proc. Siggraph, ACM, 1997, pp. 49-56.
10. J. Krˇivánek, J.A. Ferwerda, and K. Bala, “Effects of Global Illumination Approximations on Material Appearance,” ACM Trans. Graphics, vol. 29, no. 4, 2010, article 112.
11. M. Hasa˘n et al., “Virtual Spherical Lights for Many-Light Rendering of Glossy Scenes,” ACM Trans. Graphics, vol. 28, no. 5, 2009, article 143.
12. B. Walter et al., “Lightcuts: A Scalable Approach to Illumination,” ACM Trans. Graphics, vol. 24, no. 3, 2005, pp. 1098-1107.
27 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool