“An intuitive control space for material appearance” by Serrano, Gutierrez, Myszkowski, Seidel and Masia
Conference:
Type(s):
Title:
- An intuitive control space for material appearance
Session/Category Title: Materials
Presenter(s)/Author(s):
Abstract:
Many different techniques for measuring material appearance have been proposed in the last few years. These have produced large public datasets, which have been used for accurate, data-driven appearance modeling. However, although these datasets have allowed us to reach an unprecedented level of realism in visual appearance, editing the captured data remains a challenge. In this paper, we present an intuitive control space for predictable editing of captured BRDF data, which allows for artistic creation of plausible novel material appearances, bypassing the difficulty of acquiring novel samples. We first synthesize novel materials, extending the existing MERL dataset up to 400 mathematically valid BRDFs. We then design a large-scale experiment, gathering 56,000 subjective ratings on the high-level perceptual attributes that best describe our extended dataset of materials. Using these ratings, we build and train networks of radial basis functions to act as functionals mapping the perceptual attributes to an underlying PCA-based representation of BRDFs. We show that our functionals are excellent predictors of the perceived attributes of appearance. Our control space enables many applications, including intuitive material editing of a wide range of visual properties, guidance for gamut mapping, analysis of the correlation between perceptual attributes, or novel appearance similarity metrics. Moreover, our methodology can be used to derive functionals applicable to classic analytic BRDF representations. We release our code and dataset publicly, in order to support and encourage further research in this direction.
References:
1. Aittala, M., Weyrich, T., and Lehtinen, J. 2015. Two-shot SVBRDF capture for stationary materials. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 4 (July), 110:1–13.
2. An, X., Tong, X., Denning, J. D., and Pellacini, F. 2011. Appwarp: Retargeting measured materials by appearance-space warping. ACM Trans. Graph. 30, 6 (Dec.), 147:1–147:10.
3. Ashikhmin, M., Premože, S., and Shirley, P. 2000. A Microfacet-based BRDF Generator. In Proc. of SIGGRAPH ’00, 65–74.
4. Bell, S., Upchurch, P., Snavely, N., and Bala, K. 2013. Opensurfaces: a richly annotated catalog of surface appearance. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 4 (July), 111:1–111:17.
5. Ben-Artzi, A., Overbeck, R., and Ramamoorthi, R. 2006. Real-time BRDF editing in complex lighting. ACM Trans. Graph. 25, 3 (July), 945–954.
6. Ben-Artzi, A., Egan, K., Durand, F., and Ramamoorthi, R. 2008. A Precomputed Polynomial Representation for Interactive BRDF Editing with Global Illumination. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 2 (May), 13:1–13:13.
7. Bousseau, A., O’shea, J. P., Durand, F., Ramamoorthi, R., and Agrawala, M. 2013. Gloss perception in painterly and cartoon rendering. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 2 (Apr.), 18:1–18:13.
8. Boyadzhiev, I., Bala, K., Paris, S., and Adelson, E. 2015. Band-sifting decomposition for image-based material editing. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 5 (Oct.), 163.
9. Burley, B. 2012. Physically based shading at Disney. In ACM SIGGRAPH Courses.
10. Chaudhuri, S., Kalogerakis, E., Giguere, S., and Funkhouser, T. 2013. AttribIt: Content creation with semantic attributes. In Proc. UIST, ACM.
11. Cheslack-Postava, E., Wang, R., Akerlund, O., and Pellacini, F. 2008. Fast, realistic lighting and material design using nonlinear cut approximation. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 5 (Dec.), 128:1–128:10.
12. Colbert, M., and Pattanaik, S. 2006. BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 30–36.
13. Cornell, 2001. Reflectance Database – Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics. http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/online/measurements/reflectance/index.html.
14. Du, S.-P., Masia, B., Hu, S.-M., and Gutierrez, D. 2013. A Metric of Visual Comfort for Stereoscopic Motion. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 6 (Nov.), 222:1–9.
15. Ershov, S., Kolchin, K., and Myszkowski, K. 2001. A realistic lighting model for computer animators. Computer Graphics Forum 20, 3. Cross Ref
16. Filip, J., and Vávra, R. 2014. Template-based sampling of anisotropic BRDFs. Computer Graphics Forum (Proc. of Pacific Graphics 2014).
17. Fleming, R. W., Wiebel, C., and Gegenfurtner, K. 2013. Perceptual qualities and material classes. Journal of Vision 13, 8, 9–9. Cross Ref
18. Fores, A., Ferwerda, J., Gu, J., and Zhao, X. 2012. Toward a perceptually based metric for BRDF modeling. In 20th Color and Imaging Conference, CIC’12, 142–148.
19. Garces, E., Agarwala, A., Gutierrez, D., and Hertzmann, A. 2014. A similarity measure for illustration style. ACM Trans. Graph. 33, 4 (July).
20. Gkioulekas, I., Xiao, B., Zhao, S., Adelson, E. H., Zickler, T., and Bala, K. 2013. Understanding the role of phase function in translucent appearance. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 5 (Oct.), 147:1–147:19.
21. Heer, J., and Bostock, M. 2010. Crowdsourcing graphical perception: Using mechanical turk to assess visualization design. In Proc. of CHI’10, CHI ’10, 203–212.
22. Hunter, R. S., and Harold, R. W. 1987. The Measurement of Appearance (2nd Edition). Wiley.
23. ITU. 2002. ITU-R.REC.BT.500-11. Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality for television pictures. Tech. rep.
24. ITU. 2008. ITU-R.REC.P.910. Subjective audivisual quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. Tech. rep.
25. Jarabo, A., Wu, H., Dorsey, J., Rushmeier, H., and Gutierrez, D. 2014. Effects of approximate filtering on the appearance of bidirectional texture functions. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 6.
26. Keelan, B. 2003. ISO 20462: A psychophysical image quality measurement standard. In Proc. of the SPIE, vol. 5294, 181–189.
27. Kerr, W. B., and Pellacini, F. 2010. Toward evaluating material design interface paradigms for novice users. ACM Trans. Graph. 29, 4 (July), 35:1–35:10.
28. Koyama, Y., Sakamoto, D., and Igarashi, T. 2014. Crowd-powered parameter analysis for visual design exploration. In Proc. of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’14, 65–74.
29. Lawrence, J., Ben-Artzi, A., DeCoro, C., Matusik, W., Pfister, H., Ramamoorthi, R., and Rusinkiewicz, S. 2006. Inverse shade trees for non-parametric material representation and editing. ACM Trans. Graph. 25, 3 (July), 735–745.
30. Mantiuk, R. K., Tomaszewska, A., and Mantiuk, R. 2012. Comparison of four subjective methods for image quality assessment. Computer Graphics Forum 31, 8, 2478–2491.
31. Matusik, W., Pfister, H., Brand, M., and McMillan, L. 2003. A data-driven reflectance model. ACM Trans. Graph. 22, 3 (July), 759–769.
32. Matusik, W. 2003. A Data-Driven Reflectance Model. PhD thesis, MIT.
33. McCool, M. D., Ang, J., and Ahmad, A. 2001. Homomorphic Factorization of BRDFs for High-performance Rendering. In Proc. of SIGGRAPH ’01, 171–178.
34. McNamara, A., Mania, K., and Gutierrez, D. 2011. Perception in graphics, visualization, virtual environments and animation. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2011 Courses.
35. Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., and Teller, E. 1953. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. The Journal of Chemical Physics 21, 6, 1087–1092. Cross Ref
36. Ngan, A., Durand, F., and Matusik, W. 2005. Experimental Analysis of BRDF Models. In Proc. of EGSR’05, 117–126.
37. Ngan, A., Durand, F., and Matusik, W. 2006. Image-driven Navigation of Analytical BRDF Models. In Proc. of EGSR’06.
38. Nguyen, C. H., Kyung, M.-H., Lee, J.-H., and Nam, S.-W. 2010. A PCA Decomposition for Real-time BRDF Editing and Relighting with Global Illumination. In Eurographics Symposium on Rendering, 1469–1478.
39. Nielsen, J. B., Jensen, H. W., and Ramamoorthi, R. 2015. On Optimal, Minimal BRDF Sampling for Reflectance Acquisition. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 6 (Nov.).
40. Parikh, D., and Grauman, K. 2011. Relative attributes. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 503–510.
41. Park, J., and Sandberg, I. W. 1991. Universal approximation using radial-basis-function networks. Neural Comput. 3, 2 (June), 246–257. Cross Ref
42. Pellacini, F., Ferwerda, J. A., and Greenberg, D. P. 2000. Toward a psychophysically-based light reflection model for image synthesis. In Proc. of SIGGRAPH’00, 55–64.
43. Ramanarayanan, G., Ferwerda, J., Walter, B., and Bala, K. 2007. Visual equivalence: Towards a new standard for image fidelity. ACM Trans. Graph. 26, 3 (July).
44. Rubinstein, M., Gutierrez, D., Sorkine, O., and Shamir, A. 2010. A comparative study of image retargeting. ACM Trans. Graph. 29, 6 (Dec.), 160:1–160:10.
45. Sigal, L., Mahler, M., Diaz, S., McIntosh, K., Carter, E., Richards, T., and Hodgins, J. 2015. A perceptual control space for garment simulation. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 4 (July), 117:1–117:10.
46. Silverstein, D. A., and Farrell, J. E. 2001. Efficient method for paired comparison. J. Electronic Imaging 10, 2, 394–398. Cross Ref
47. Sun, X., Zhou, K., Chen, Y., Lin, S., Shi, J., and Guo, B. 2007. Interactive Relighting with Dynamic BRDFs. ACM Trans. Graph. 26, 3 (July).
48. Talton, J. O., Gibson, D., Yang, L., Hanrahan, P., and Koltun, V. 2009. Exploratory modeling with collaborative design spaces. ACM Trans. Graph. 28, 5 (Dec.), 167:1–167:10.
49. Tominaga, T., Hayashi, T., Okamoto, J., and Takahashi, A. 2010. Performance comparisons of subjective quality assessment methods for mobile video. In 2nd. International Workshop on Quality Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).
50. Vangorp, P., Laurijssen, J., and Dutré, P. 2007. The influence of shape on the perception of material reflectance. ACM Trans. Graph. 26, 3 (July).
51. Westlund, H. B., and Meyer, G. W. 2001. Applying appearance standards to light reflection models. In Proc. of SIGGRAPH ’01, 501–510.
52. Wills, J., Agarwal, S., Kriegman, D., and Belongie, S. 2009. Toward a perceptual space for gloss. ACM Trans. Graph. 28, 4 (Sept.), 103:1–103:15.
53. Yumer, M., Chaudhuri, S., Hodgins, J., and Kara, L. 2015. Semantic shape editing using deformation handles. ACM Trans. Graph. 34 (July), 86:1–12.
54. Zell, E., Aliaga, C., Jarabo, A., Zibrek, K., Gutierrez, D., McDonnell, R., and Botsch, M. 2015. To stylize or not to stylize?: The effect of shape and material stylization on the perception of computer-generated faces. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 6 (Oct.), 184:1–184:12.
55. Zickler, T., Ramamoorthi, R., Enrique, S., and Belhumeur, P. N. 2006. Reflectance sharing: Predicting appearance from a sparse set of images of a known shape. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 28, 8, 1287–1302.
