Art-Based Rendering of Fur Grass and Trees Michael

Art-Based Rendering of Fur, Grass, and Trees Michael A. Kowalski, Lee Markosian, J. D. Northrup, Lubomir Bourdev, Ronen Barzel

Overview • Introduction • Prior Work • Method • Results / Conclusion

Introduction • “Any art student can rapidly draw a teddy bear or a grassy field. But for computer graphics, fur and grass are complex and time consuming. ”

Introduction • The Problem – How can we use current 3 D graphics to create the effectiveness and persuasiveness or an artist’s few stroke drawings?

Introduction • Motivation – Expand 3 D graphics by using techniques for depicting complexity from art and illustration.

Introduction • Goals – Give designer of a scene control over the style of rendering. – Ease the burden of modeling complex scenes by treating the rendering strategy as an aspect of modeling. – Provide interframe coherence for the kinds of stylized renderings developed.

Introduction • Solution – To simulate making strokes on a 2 D surface, they propose stroke-based textures.

Prior Work • Particle Systems – Reeves introduced particle systems that he used to create trees, fireworks, and other complex images. – Alvy Ray Smith used particle systems and L-systems to create graftals that he used to create more accurate biological structures

Prior Work • Particle System – Cartoon Tree by Badler and Glassner is the direct precursor that uses fractals and graftals to create surfaces through an implicit model that produce data.

Prior Work • Stroke Placement – Difference Image by Salisbury et al. had a stroke-placing algorithm that was modified to place procedural texture elements at specific areas.

Prior Work • Stroke Placement – Winkenbach and Salesin used “indication” for pen-and-ink rendering. – Strothotte et al. wrote about artistic styles that result in specific effects or perceptions.

Prior Work • Particle Based Strokes – Meier provided two insights in her particle-based brush stokes method. • Using particles to govern strokes in her Monet works showed that not all complexity need be geometric. • Optimal particle on object hybrid space technique

Prior Work • NPR – Built on earlier efforts at interactive frame rates. More than one style.

Method • System Framework – Use Open. GL to render polyhedral models. – Models are divided into surface regions (patches). – Each patch has one or more procedural texture.

Method • System Framework – Reference Images: they are off-screen renders of scene that are rendered into textures • Use 2: – Color Reference image – ID reference image.

Method • System Framework – Color Reference Image • An active texture of each patch will render into this image in the appropriate manner. (How to draw and where to draw tufts, grass…)

Method • System Framework – ID Reference Image • Triangles or edges are each rendered with a color that uniquely identifies that triangle or edge. • Then these are edges or triangles are stored in the patches that contains that edge or triangle.

Method • Graftal Textures – Procedurally place fur, leaves, grass or other elements. – Two Rules: • Must be placed with controlled density • Seem stick to the surface.

Method • Placing Graftals – Use Difference Image Algorithm where a blurred image of the stroke is subtracted from a difference image. – At each subsequent step, they search the pixel most in need of darkening. – This handles the controled density for graftal placement.

Method • Graftal Placement – To control density each graftal texture draws its patch into the color reference image so that darker tones correspond to denser graftal areas. – Darker in silhouettes in this image.

Method • Graftal Placement – Use the ID Reference image to convert 2 D screen position to 2 D position on a surface. (Constant time)

Method • Graftal Placement – Frame to frame • In first frame graftals are place according to the Difference Image Algorithm • Each successive frame try to use prior graftal texture • If the old can not be used, the Difference Image Algorithm is used to place new graftals

Method • Graftal Placement – A graftal can be not selected for two reasons • It is not visible, it is zoomed too far out. • Insufficient desire for it to be placed in the new image. – Use a bucket sort to find greatest desire (Constant Time)

Method • Subtracting Blurred Image – This determines the desire of a graftal. • Graftals subtract a blurred image of themselves from the difference image. (Gaussian Dot) • Pixels in the desire image are coded with values from zero to one. This is associated with its screen space area based on their volume.

Method • Subtracting Blurred Image – Graftals can scale their geometry and volume to maintain desired density and size.

Method • Computing Scale Factors – Convert Object space length L to screen space length s every frame. – Uses scale factor r composed of 2 users specified variables • d: the screen space length • Vo: corresponding volume

Method • Computing Scaling Factors – Volume per frame is calculated

Method • Computing Gaussian Dot of Graftal – Calculate the gaussion dot using this equation. – The Pixels are then subtracted from the desired image. The desire should equal the volume. (Optimal)

Method • Displaying Graftals – If the desire is less than the volume of a graftal, the LOD of the graftal is reduced. This prevents popping.

Method • Drawing the Tuft – They use a tapering shape guided by a central spine. The tapered values are stored in an array. – To orient the tufts, the compute the dot product of the view vector and the normal. This determines the LOD. – The tufts are drawn in an almost orthogonal to the view and pointed down or clockwise.

Results / Conclusions • They were able to produce scenes with simple geometry models. • They were able to produce interactive scenes on higher-end PCs. • Problem – Its still easy to create cluttered graftals from the DIA at a frame to frame.

Results / Conclusions • Future Work – Use of fading and alpha blending to fade out graftals. • Depends highly on style being used. • Silhouettes seem to be missing some graftals because they are so faded. • Use another call to the DIA for a back-faced and front-faced graftals. This would reduce the popping of graftals along the silhouettes.

Results / Conclusions • Future Work – Static graftal placement • Draw in a view dependent manner with lower detail the farther a graftal is away from the silhouette. • Problem is that you can not zoom in and out too far. • A fix they have planned to priority values from 0 to 2. They will do work on the graftals with the lowest priority value first using the DIA. Then the next are drawn.

Results / Conclusions • Future Work – Static Graftal Placement • Successful for single instances, but has not been tested for landscapes yet.

Questions? ? ? • ? ? ?

References • • • • • • • • • • • [1] Norman I. Badler and Andrew S. Glassner. 3 D object modeling. In SIGGRAPH 97 Introduction to Computer Graphics Course Notes. ACM SIGGRAPH, August 1997. [2] Open. GL Architecture Review Board. Open. GL Reference Manual, 2 nd Edition. Addison-Wesley Developers Press, 1996. [3] J. D. Foley, A. van Dam, S. K. Feiner, and J. F. Hughes. Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 2 nd edition, 1992. [4] Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel). The Lorax. Random House, New York, 1971. [5] Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel). The Foot Book. Random House, New York, 1988. [6] Amy Gooch, Bruce Gooch, Peter Shirley, and Elaine Cohen. A nonphotorealistic lighting model for automatic technical illustration. In SIGGRAPH 98 Conference Proceedings, pp. 447– 452. ACM SIGGRAPH, July 1998. [7] Geoffrey Hayes. Patrick and Ted. Scholastic, Inc. , New York, 1984. [8] Lee Markosian. Art-based Modeling and Rendering for Computer Graphics. Ph. D thesis, Brown University, November 1999 (expected completion). [9] Lee. Markosian, Jonathan. M. Cohen, Thomas Crulli, and John. Hughes. Skin: A constructive approach to modeling free-form shapes. In SIGGRAPH 99 Conference Proceedings. ACM SIGGRAPH, August 1999. [10] Lee. Markosian, Michael. A. Kowalski, Samuel J. Trychin, Lubomir D. Bourdev, Daniel Goldstein, and John F. Hughes. Real-time nonphotorealistic rendering. In SIGGRAPH 97 Conference Proceedings, pp. 415– 420. ACM SIGGRAPH, August 1997. [11] Barbara J. Meier. Painterly rendering for animation. In SIGGRAPH 96 Conference Proceedings, pp. 477– 484. ACMSIGGRAPH, August 1996. [12] W. T. Reeves. Particle systems – a technique for modeling a class of fuzzy objects. ACM Trans. Graphics, 2: 91– 108, April 1983. [13] William T. Reeves and Ricki Blau. Approximate and probabilistic algorithms for shading and rendering structured particle systems. In SIGGRAPH 85 Conference Proceedings, pp. 313– 322. ACM SIGGRAPH, July 1985. [14] Michael P. Salisbury, Michael T. Wong, John F. Hughes, and David H. Salesin. Orientable textures for image-based pen-and-ink illustration. In SIGGRAPH 97 Conference Proceedings, pp. 401– 406. ACM SIGGRAPH, August 1997.