“Perceptual Models of Viewpoint Preference” by Secord, Lu, Finkelstein, Singh and Nealen

  • ©Adrian Secord, Jingwan Lu, Adam Finkelstein, Manish Singh, and Andrew (Andy) Nealen




    Perceptual Models of Viewpoint Preference



    The question of what are good views of a 3D object has been addressed by numerous researchers in perception, computer vision, and computer graphics. This has led to a large variety of measures for the goodness of views as well as some special-case viewpoint selection algorithms. In this article, we leverage the results of a large user study to optimize the parameters of a general model for viewpoint goodness, such that the fitted model can predict people’s preferred views for a broad range of objects. Our model is represented as a combination of attributes known to be important for view selection, such as projected model area and silhouette length. Moreover, this framework can easily incorporate new attributes in the future, based on the data from our existing study. We demonstrate our combined goodness measure in a number of applications, such as automatically selecting a good set of representative views, optimizing camera orbits to pass through good views and avoid bad views, and trackball controls that gently guide the viewer towards better views.


    1. 3ds Max. 2010. Autodesk, http://www.autodesk.com/3dsmax.
    2. Attneave, F. 1954. Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psych. Rev. 61, 3, 183–193.
    3. Barral, P., Dorme, G., and Plemenos, D. 2000. Visual understanding of a scene by automatic movement of a camera, short paper. In Proceedings of the Eurographics Conference 2000.
    4. Biederman, I. 1987. Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psych. Rev. 94, 115–147.
    5. Blanz, V., Vetter, T., Bülthoff, H., and Tarr, M. 1999. What object attributes determine canonical views? Percept. 24, 575–599.
    6. Bradley, R. and Terry, M. 1952. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs, i. the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 39, 324–345.
    7. Byers, Z., Dixon, M., Goodier, K., Grimm, C., and Smart, W. 2003. An autonomous robot photographer. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems 3, 2636–2641, vol. 3.
    8. Christie, M., Olivier, P., and Normand, J.-M. 2008. Camera control in computer graphics. Comput. Graph. Forum 27, 8, 2197–2218.
    9. Cole, F., Sanik, K., DeCarlo, D., Finkelstein, A., Funkhouser, T., Rusinkiewicz, S., and Singh, M. 2009. How well do line drawings depict shape? ACM Trans. Graph. 28.
    10. Comaniciu, D. and Meer, P. 2002. Mean shift: A robust approach toward feature space analysis. IEEE Trans. Patt. Anal. Mach. Intell. 24, 5, 603–619.
    11. David, H. A. 1963. The Method of Paired Comparison. Hafner Publishing.
    12. Downs, J. S., Holbrook, M. B., Sheng, S., and Cranor, L. F. 2010. Are your participants gaming the system?: Screening mechanical turk workers. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2399–2402.
    13. Drucker, S. and Zeltzer, D. 1995. Camdroid: A system for implementing intelligent camera control. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics. 139–144.
    14. Feldman, J. and Singh, M. 2005. Information along contours and object boundaries. Psych. Rev. 112, 243–252.
    15. Fix, E. and Hodges, J. 1951. Discriminatory analysis, nonparametric discrimination: Consistency properties. Tech. rep. 4, USAF School of Aviation Medicine, Randolph Field, Texas.
    16. Fleishman, S., Cohen-or, D., and Lischinski, D. 1999. Automatic camera placement for image-based modeling. Comput. Graph. Forum 19, 12–20.
    17. Fu, H., Cohen-Or, D., Dror, G., and Sheffer, A. 2008. Upright orientation of man-made objects. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 3, 42:1–42:7.
    18. Gooch, B., Reinhard, E., Moulding, C., and Shirley, P. 2001. Artistic composition for image creation. In Proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop on Rendering. 83–88.
    19. Google. 2010. Google 3D warehouse and SketchUp. http://sketchup. google.com/3dwarehouse/.
    20. Heer, J. and Bostock, M. 2010. Crowdsourcing graphical perception: Using mechanical turk to assess visualization design. In Proceedings of Computer Human Interaction (CHI’10).
    21. Hoffman, D. D. and Singh, M. 1997. Salience of visual parts. Cogn. 63, 1, 29–78.
    22. Hsu, J. 1996. Multiple Comparisons: Theory and Methods. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
    23. Kamada, T. and Kawai, S. 1988. A simple method for computing general position in displaying three-dimensional objects. Comput. Vision Graph. Image Process. 41, 1, 43–56.
    24. Kass, M., Witkin, A., and Terzopoulos, D. 1988. Snakes: Active contour models. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 1, 4, 321–331.
    25. Koenderink, J. and Doorn, A. v. 1979. The internal representation of solid shape with respect to vision. Biol. Cybern. 32, 211–216.
    26. Kwon, J. and Lee, I. 2008. Determination of camera parameters for character motions using motion area. Vis. Comput. 24, 7, 475–483.
    27. Laga, H. and Nakajima, M. 2008. Supervised learning of salient 2D views of 3D models. J. Soc. Art Sci. 7, 4, 124–131.
    28. Lee, C. H., Varshney, A., and Jacobs, D. W. 2005. Mesh saliency. ACM SIGGRAPH’05 Papers. 659–666.
    29. Maya. 2010. Autodesk. http://www.autodesk.com/maya.
    30. Meyer, M., Desbrun, M., Schröder, P., and Barr, A. 2002. Discrete differential-geometry operators for triangulated 2-manifolds. In Proceedings of VisMath’02.
    31. Nelder, J. A. and Mead, R. 1965. A simplex method for function minimization. Comput. J. 7, 308–313.
    32. Page, D., Koschan, A., Sukumar, S., Roui-Abidi, B., and Abidi, M. 2003. Shape analysis algorithm based on information theory. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP’03) 1. 29–32.
    33. Palmer, S., Rosch, E., and Chase, P. 1981. Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. Atten. Perform. IX, 135–151.
    34. Plemenos, D. and Benayada, M. 1996. Intelligent display in scene modeling: New techniques to automatically compute good views. In Proceedings of GraphiCon (Conference).
    35. Podolak, J., Shilane, P., Golovinskiy, A., Rusinkiewicz, S., and Funkhouser, T. 2006. A planar-reflective symmetry transform for 3D shapes. ACM Trans. Graph. 25, 3.
    36. Polonsky, O., Patane, G., Biasotti, S., Gotsman, C., and Spagnuolo, M. 2005. What’s in an image: Towards the computation of the best view of an object. Vis. Comput. 21, 8-10, 840–847.
    37. Roberts, D. and Marshall, A. 1998. Viewpoint selection for complete surface coverage of three dimensional objects. In Proceedings of the Britsh Machine Vision Conference. 740–750.
    38. Saleem, W., Song, W., Belyaev, A., and Seidel, H.-P. 2007. On computing best fly. In Proceedings of the 23rd Spring Conference on Computer Graphics. 143–149.
    39. Shannon, C. E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379–423.
    40. Shilane, P., Min, P., Kazhdan, M., and Funkhouser, T. 2004. The princeton shape benchmark. In Proceedings of the Shape Modeling International Conference.
    41. Silverman, B. and Jones, M. 1989. E. Fix and JL Hodges (1951): An important contribution to nonparametric discriminant analysis and density estimation: Commentary on Fix and Hodges (1951). Int. Statis. Rev. Int. Statis. 57, 3, 233–238.
    42. Sokolov, D. and Plemenos, D. 2005. Viewpoint quality and scene understanding. In Proceedings of the Eurographics Symposium Conference on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (VAST). 67–73.
    43. Stoev, S. and Strasser, W. 2002. A case study on automatic camera placement and motion for visualizing historical data. In Proceedings of the Conference on Visualization.
    44. Vázquez, P. and Sbert, M. 2002. Automatic keyframe selection for high-quality image-based walkthrough animation using viewpoint entropy. In Proceedings of the International Conference in Central Europe on Computer Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vision (WSCG’02).
    45. Vázquez, P.-P., Feixas, M., Sbert, M., and Heidrich, W. 2001. Viewpoint selection using viewpoint entropy. In Proceedings of the Vision Modeling and Visualization Conference (VMV’01). 273–280.
    46. Vieira, T., Bordignon, A., Peixoto, A., Tavares, G., Lopes, H., Velho, L., and Lewiner, T. 2009. Learning good views through intelligent galleries. Comput. Graph. Forum. 28, 2, 717–726.
    47. Weinshall, D. and Werman, M. 1997. On view likelihood and stability. IEEE Trans. Patt. Anal. Mach. Intell. 19, 2, 97–108.
    48. Yamauchi, H., Saleem, W., Yoshizawa, S., Karni, Z., Belyaev, A., and Seidel, H.-P. 2006. Towards stable and salient multi-view representation of 3d shapes. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Shape Modeling and Applications. 265–270.
    49. Zhai, S. 1998. User performance in relation to 3d input device design. SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 32, 4, 50–54.
    50. Zusne, L. 1970. Visual Perception of Form. Academic Press.

ACM Digital Library Publication:

Overview Page: