“Floating scale surface reconstruction” by Fuhrmann and Goesele

  • ©Simon Fuhrmann and Michael Goesele




    Floating scale surface reconstruction

Session/Category Title: Points & Reconstruction



    Any sampled point acquired from a real-world geometric object or scene represents a finite surface area and not just a single surface point. Samples therefore have an inherent scale, very valuable information that has been crucial for high quality reconstructions. We introduce a new method for surface reconstruction from oriented, scale-enabled sample points which operates on large, redundant and potentially noisy point sets. The approach draws upon a simple yet efficient mathematical formulation to construct an implicit function as the sum of compactly supported basis functions. The implicit function has spatially continuous “floating” scale and can be readily evaluated without any preprocessing. The final surface is extracted as the zero-level set of the implicit function. One of the key properties of the approach is that it is virtually parameter-free even for complex, mixed-scale datasets. In addition, our method is easy to implement, scalable and does not require any global operations. We evaluate our method on a wide range of datasets for which it compares favorably to popular classic and current methods.


    1. Blinn, J. F. 1982. A Generalization of Algebraic Surface Drawing. ACM Transactions on Graphics 1, 3, 235–256. Google ScholarDigital Library
    2. Bolitho, M., Kazhdan, M., Burns, R., and Hoppe, H. 2007. Multilevel Streaming for Out-of-core Surface Reconstruction. In Proc. SGP, 69–78. Google ScholarDigital Library
    3. Calakli, F., and Taubin, G. 2011. SSD: Smooth Signed Distance Surface Reconstruction. Computer Graphics Forum 30, 7, 1993–2002.Google ScholarCross Ref
    4. Carr, J., Beatson, R., Cherrie, J., Mitchell, T., Fright, W., and McCallum, B. 2001. Reconstruction and Representation of 3D Objects with Radial Basis Functions. In Proc. SIGGRAPH, 67–76. Google ScholarDigital Library
    5. Curless, B., and Levoy, M. 1996. A Volumetric Method for Building Complex Models from Range Images. In Proc. SIGGRAPH, 303–312. Google ScholarDigital Library
    6. Dey, T. K., Li, G., and Sun, J. 2005. Normal Estimation for Point Clouds: A Comparison Study for a Voronoi Based Method. In Eurographics Symposium on Point-Based Graphics, 39–46. Google ScholarDigital Library
    7. Fuhrmann, S., and Goesele, M. 2011. Fusion of Depth Maps with Multiple Scales. In Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia, 148:1–148:8. Google ScholarDigital Library
    8. Goesele, M., Snavely, N., Curless, B., Hoppe, H., and Seitz, S. M. 2007. Multi-View Stereo for Community Photo Collections. In Proc. ICCV.Google Scholar
    9. Hoppe, H., DeRose, T., Duchamp, T., McDonald, J., and Stuetzle, W. 1992. Surface Reconstruction from Unorganized Points. In Proc. SIGGRAPH, 71–78. Google ScholarDigital Library
    10. Kazhdan, M., and Hoppe, H. 2013. Screened Poisson Surface Reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics 32, 3, 29. Google ScholarDigital Library
    11. Kazhdan, M., Bolitho, M., and Hoppe, H. 2006. Poisson Surface Reconstruction. In Proc. SGP, 61–70. Google ScholarDigital Library
    12. Kazhdan, M., Klein, A., Dalal, K., and Hoppe, H. 2007. Unconstrained Isosurface Extraction on Arbitrary Octrees. In Proc. SGP. Google ScholarDigital Library
    13. Klowsky, R., Kuijper, A., and Goesele, M. 2012. Modulation Transfer Function of Patch-based Stereo Systems. In Proc. CVPR. Google ScholarDigital Library
    14. Levoy, M., Pulli, K., Curless, B., Rusinkiewicz, S., Koller, D., Pereira, L., Ginzton, M., Anderson, S., Davis, J., Ginsberg, J., Shade, J., and Fulk, D. 2000. The Digital Michelangelo Project: 3D Scanning of Large Statues. In Proc. SIGGRAPH, 131–144. Google ScholarDigital Library
    15. Lorensen, W. E., and Cline, H. E. 1987. Marching Cubes: A High Resolution 3D Surface Construction Algorithm. Proc. SIGGRAPH 21, 5, 79–86. Google ScholarDigital Library
    16. Muecke, P., Klowsky, R., and Goesele, M. 2011. Surface Reconstruction from Multi-Resolution Sample Points. In Proc. of Vision, Modeling, and Visualization, 398–418.Google Scholar
    17. Ohtake, Y., Belyaev, A., Alexa, M., Turk, G., and Seidel, H.-P. 2003. Multi-level partition of unity implicits. In Proc. SIGGRAPH, 463–470. Google ScholarDigital Library
    18. Seitz, S. M., Curless, B., Diebel, J., Scharstein, D., and Szeliski, R. 2006. A Comparison and Evaluation of Multi-View Stereo Reconstruction Algorithms. In Proc. CVPR, 519–528. Google ScholarDigital Library
    19. Shen, C., O’Brien, J. F., and Shewchuk, J. R. 2004. Interpolating and Approximating Implicit Surfaces from Polygon Soup. In Proc. SIGGRAPH, 896–904. Google ScholarDigital Library
    20. Stanford Scanning Repository, 2013. http://graphics.stanford.edu/data/3Dscanrep/.Google Scholar
    21. Turk, G., and Levoy, M. 1994. Zippered Polygon Meshes from Range Images. In Proc. SIGGRAPH, 311–318. Google ScholarDigital Library
    22. Turk, G., and O’Brien, J. F. 1999. Variational Implicit Surfaces. Tech. rep., Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
    23. Vrubel, A., Bellon, O., and Silva, L. 2009. A 3D Reconstruction Pipeline for Digital Preservation of Natural and Cultural Assets. In Proc. CVPR.Google Scholar
    24. Yu, J., and Turk, G. 2013. Reconstructing Surfaces of Particle-Based Fluids using Anisotropic Kernels. ACM Transactions on Graphics 32, 1, 5:1–5:12. Google ScholarDigital Library

ACM Digital Library Publication:

Overview Page: