“OverCoat: an implicit canvas for 3D painting” by Schmid, Senn, Gross and Sumner

We present a technique to generalize the 2D painting metaphor to 3D that allows the artist to treat the full 3D space as a canvas. Strokes painted in the 2D viewport window must be embedded in 3D space in a way that gives creative freedom to the artist while maintaining an acceptable level of controllability. We address this challenge by proposing a canvas concept defined implicitly by a 3D scalar field. The artist shapes the implicit canvas by creating approximate 3D proxy geometry. An optimization procedure is then used to embed painted strokes in space by satisfying different objective criteria defined on the scalar field. This functionality allows us to implement tools for painting along level set surfaces or across different level sets. Our method gives the power of fine-tuning the implicit canvas to the artist using a unified painting/sculpting metaphor. A sculpting tool can be used to paint into the implicit canvas. Rather than adding color, this tool creates a local change in the scalar field that results in outward or inward protrusions along the field’s gradient direction. We address a visibility ambiguity inherent in 3D stroke rendering with a depth offsetting method that is well suited for hardware acceleration. We demonstrate results with a number of 3D paintings that exhibit effects difficult to realize with existing systems.

1. Baerentzen, J. A., and Aanaes, H. 2005. Signed distance computation using the angle weighted pseudonormal. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 11 (May), 243–253. Google ScholarDigital Library
2. Baxter, W., Chu, N., and Govindaraju, N. 2010. Project gustav: immersive digital painting. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2010 Talks, ACM, 41:1–41:1. Google Scholar
3. Bernhardt, A., Pihuit, A., Cani, M.-P., and Barthe, L. 2008. Matisse: Painting 2D regions for modeling freeform shapes. In Eurographics Workshop on Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling, 57–64. Google Scholar
4. Booker, P. 1963. A history of engineering drawing. Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
5. Bourguignon, D., Cani, M.-P., and Drettakis, G. 2001. Drawing for illustration and annotation in 3d. Computer Graphics Forum 20, 3, 114–122.Google ScholarCross Ref
6. Bousseau, A., Kaplan, M., Thollot, J., and Sillion, F. X. 2006. Interactive watercolor rendering with temporal coherence and abstraction. In Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on Non-photorealistic animation and rendering, 141–149. Google Scholar
7. Cohen, J. M., Hughes, J. F., and Zeleznik, R. C. 2000. Harold: A world made of drawings. In Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on Non-photorealistic Animation and Rendering, 83–90. Google Scholar
8. Durand, F. 2002. An invitation to discuss computer depiction. In Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on Non-photorealistic animation and rendering, ACM, 111–124. Google Scholar
9. Frisken, S. F., Perry, R. N., Rockwood, A. P., and Jones, T. R. 2000. Adaptively sampled distance fields: A general representation of shape for computer graphics. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2000, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, 249–254. Google Scholar
10. Gottschalk, S., Lin, M., and Manocha, D. 1996. Obb-tree: A hierarchical structure for rapid interference detection. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 96, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, 171–180. Google Scholar
11. Haeberli, P. E. 1990. Paint by numbers: Abstract image representations. In Computer Graphics (Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 90), 207–214. Google Scholar
12. Hart, J. C. 1994. Sphere tracing: A geometric method for the antialiased ray tracing of implicit surfaces. The Visual Computer 12, 527–545.Google ScholarCross Ref
13. Hertzmann, A. 2003. A survey of stroke-based rendering. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE 23, 4 (july-aug.), 70–81. Google Scholar
14. Igarashi, T., Matsuoka, S., and Tanaka, H. 1999. Teddy: A sketching interface for 3d freeform design. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 99, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, 409–416. Google Scholar
15. Judd, T., Durand, F., and Adelson, E. 2007. Apparent ridges for line drawing. ACM Transactions on Graphics 26, 3 (July), 19:1–19:7. Google ScholarDigital Library
16. Kalnins, R. D., Markosian, L., Meier, B. J., Kowalski, M. A., Lee, J. C., Davidson, P. L., Webb, M., Hughes, J. F., and Finkelstein, A. 2002. Wysiwyg npr: Drawing strokes directly on 3d models. ACM Transactions on Graphics 21, 3 (July), 755–762. Google ScholarDigital Library
17. Karpenko, O., Hughes, J. F., and Raskar, R. 2002. Free-form sketching with variational implicit surfaces. Computer Graphics Forum 21, 3, 585–594.Google ScholarCross Ref
18. Katanics, G., and Lappas, T. 2003. Deep Canvas: Integrating 3D Painting and Painterly Rendering. In Theory and Practice of Non-Photorealistic Graphics: Algorithms, Methods, and Production Systems, ACM SIGGRAPH 2003 Course Notes.Google Scholar
19. Keefe, D. F., Feliz, D. A., Moscovich, T., Laidlaw, D. H., and LaViola, Jr., J. J. 2001. Cavepainting: a fully immersive 3d artistic medium and interactive experience. In Proceedings of the 2001 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics, ACM, 85–93. Google Scholar
20. Keefe, D., Zeleznik, R., and Laidlaw, D. 2007. Drawing on air: Input techniques for controlled 3d line illustration. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 13, 1067–1081. Google ScholarDigital Library
21. Kowalski, M. A., Markosian, L., Northrup, J. D., Bourdev, L., Barzel, R., Holden, L. S., and Hughes, J. F. 1999. Art-based rendering of fur, grass, and trees. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 99, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, 433–438. Google Scholar
22. Lu, J., Sander, P. V., and Finkelstein, A. 2010. Interactive painterly stylization of images, videos and 3d animations. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games, 127–134. Google Scholar
23. Markosian, L., Kowalski, M. A., Trychin, S. J., Bourdev, L. D., Goldstein, D., and Hughes, J. F. 1997. Real-time nonphotorealistic rendering. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 97, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, 415–420. Google Scholar
24. Markosian, L., Meier, B. J., Kowalski, M. A., Holden, L. S., Northrup, J. D., and Hughes, J. F. 2000. Art-based rendering with continuous levels of detail. In Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on Non-photorealistic animation and rendering, 59–66. Google Scholar
25. Maya. http://www.autodesk.com/maya.Google Scholar
26. Meier, B. J. 1996. Painterly rendering for animation. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 96, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, 477–484. Google Scholar
27. Mudbox. http://www.autodesk.com/mudbox.Google Scholar
28. Nealen, A., Igarashi, T., Sorkine, O., and Alexa, M. 2007. Fibermesh: Designing freeform surfaces with 3d curves. ACM Transactions on Graphics 26, 3 (July), 41:1–41:9. Google ScholarDigital Library
29. Paint Effects. 2011. Painting in 3d using paint effects. In Autodesk Maya Learning Resources. http://download.autodesk.com/us/maya/2011help.Google Scholar
30. Peng, J., Kristjansson, D., and Zorin, D. 2004. Interactive modeling of topologically complex geometric detail. ACM Transactions on Graphics 23, 3 (Aug.), 635–643. Google ScholarDigital Library
31. Praun, E., Hoppe, H., Webb, M., and Finkelstein, A. 2001. Real-time hatching. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2001, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, 579–584. Google Scholar
32. Rademacher, P. 1999. View-dependent geometry. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 99, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, 439–446. Google Scholar
33. Rivers, A., Igarashi, T., and Durand, F. 2010. 2.5d cartoon models. ACM Transactions on Graphics 29, 4 (July), 59:1–59:7. Google ScholarDigital Library
34. Schkolne, S., Pruett, M., and Schröder, P. 2001. Surface drawing: creating organic 3d shapes with the hand and tangible tools. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, 261–268. Google Scholar
35. Schmidt, R., Wyvill, B., Sousa, M., and Jorge, J. 2005. Shapeshop: Sketch-based solid modeling with blobtrees. In Eurographics Workshop on Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling, 53–62.Google Scholar
36. Teece, D. 2000. Animating with expressive 3d brush strokes (animation abstract). In Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on Non-photorealistic animation and rendering, ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
37. Tolba, O., Dorsey, J., and McMillan, L. 2001. A projective drawing system. In Proceedings of the 2001 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics, ACM, 25–34. Google Scholar
38. Willats, J. 1997. Art and representation: new principles in the analysis of pictures. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
39. Wyvill, G., McPheeters, C., and Wyvill, B. 1986. Data structure for soft objects. The Visual Computer 2, 4, 227–234.Google ScholarCross Ref
40. ZBrush. http://www.pixologic.com/zbrush.Google Scholar