Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/1201775.882303acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessiggraphConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Evaluating the visual fidelity of physically based animations

Published: 01 July 2003 Publication History

Abstract

For many systems that produce physically based animations, plausibility rather than accuracy is acceptable. We consider the problem of evaluating the visual quality of animations in which physical parameters have been distorted or degraded, either unavoidably due to real-time frame-rate requirements, or intentionally for aesthetic reasons. To date, no generic means of evaluating or predicting the fidelity, either physical or visual, of the dynamic events occurring in an animation exists. As a first step towards providing such a metric, we present a set of psychophysical experiments that established some thresholds for human sensitivity to dynamic anomalies, including angular, momentum and spatio-temporal distortions applied to simple animations depicting the elastic collision of two rigid objects. In addition to finding significant acceptance thresholds for these distortions under varying conditions, we identified some interesting biases that indicate non-symmetric responses to these distortions (e.g., expansion of the angle between post-collision trajectories was preferred to contraction and increases in velocity were preferred to decreases). Based on these results, we derived a set of probability functions that can be used to evaluate the visual fidelity of a physically based simulation. To illustrate how our results could be used, two simple case studies of simulation levels of detail and constrained dynamics are presented.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (osullivan_evaluating.mp4)

References

[1]
BARRAZA, J. F., AND GRZYWACZ, N. M. 2002. Measurement of angular velocity in the perception of rotation. Vision Research 42, 2457--2462.
[2]
BARZEL, R., AND BARR, A. H. 1988. A modelling system based on dynamic constraints. In Computer Graphics (Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 88), ACM, 179--188.
[3]
BARZEL, R., HUGHES, J. F., AND WOOD, D. N. 1996. Plausible motion simulation for computer graphics animation. In Computer Animation and Simulation 96, 184--197.
[4]
BROGAN, D. C., AND HODGINS, J. K. 2002. Simulation level of detail for multiagent control. In Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, 199--206.
[5]
CARLSON, D., AND HODGINS, J. 1997. Simulation levels of detail for real-time animation. In Proceedings Graphics Interface, 1--8.
[6]
CARLTON, E. H., AND SHEPARD, R. N. 1990. Psychologically simple motions as geodesic paths: I. asymmetric objects. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 34, 127--188.
[7]
CHENNEY, S., AND FORSYTH, D. 1997. View-dependent culling of dynamic systems in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, 55--58.
[8]
CHENNEY, S., AND FORSYTH, D. 2000. Sampling plausible solutions to multi-body constraint problems. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2000, ACM Press / ACM SIGGRAPH, 219--228.
[9]
CHENNEY, S., ARIKAN, O., AND FORSYTH, D. 2001. Proxy simulations for efficient dynamics. In Proceedings of Eurographics 2001, Short Presentations.
[10]
CLEMENT, J. 1982. Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics 50, 1, 66--71.
[11]
CORNSWEET, T. 1962. The staircase method in psychophysics. American Journal of Psychology 75, 485--491.
[12]
DALY, S. 1993. The visible differences predictor: an algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity. In Digital images and human vision, 179--206.
[13]
DINGLIANA, J., AND O'SULLIVAN, C. 2000. Graceful degradation of collision handling in physically based animation. Computer Graphics Forum (Eurographics 2000 Proceedings) 19, 3, 239--247.
[14]
EHMANN, S. A., AND LIN, M. C. 2001. Accurate and fast proximity queries between polyhedra using convex surface decomposition. Computer Graphics Forum (Eurographics 2001 Proceedings) 20, 3, C500--C510.
[15]
FUNKHOUSER, T., AND SÉQUIN, C. 1993. Adaptive display algorithm for interactive frame rates during visualization of complex virtual environments. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 1993, ACM Press / ACM SIGGRAPH, 247--254.
[16]
GILDEN, D., AND PROFFITT, D. 1989. Understanding collision dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 15, 2, 372--383.
[17]
GOTTSCHALK, S., LIN, M., AND MANOCHA, D. 1996. Obb-tree: A hierarchical structure for rapid interference detection. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 1996, ACM Press / ACM SIGGRAPH, 171--180.
[18]
GRAZIANO, M. S. A., ANDERSON, R. A., AND SNOWDEN, R. J. 1994. Tuning of mst neurons to spiral motions. J. Neuroscience 14, 1, 54--67.
[19]
GROSS, D. 1999. Report from the fidelity implementation study group. In Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop Papers.
[20]
HODGINS, J., O'BRIEN, J., AND TUMBLIN, J. 1998. Perception of human motion with different geomentric models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 4, 4, 307--316.
[21]
HUBBARD, P. 1995. Collision detection for interactive graphics applications. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 1, 3, 218--230.
[22]
KAISER, M. K., AND PROFFITT, D. R. 1987. Observers' sensitivity to dynamic anomalies in collisions. Perception and Psychophysics 42, 3, 275--280.
[23]
KLOSOWSKI, J., HELD, M., MITCHELL, J., SOWIZRAL, H., AND ZIKAN, K. 1998. Efficient collision detection using bounding volume hierarchies of k-dops. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 4, 1, 21--36.
[24]
LEVITT, H. 1971. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49, 467--477.
[25]
LONGRIDGE, T., BRKI-COHEN, J., GO, T. H., AND KENDRA, A. J. 2001. Simulator fidelity considerations for training and evaluation of today's airline pilots. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, The Ohio State University Press.
[26]
LUEBKE, D., AND HALLEN, B. 2001. Perceptually driven simplification for interactive rendering. In Rendering Techniques, Springer-Verlag, London, S. Gortler and K. Myszkowski, Eds., 223--234.
[27]
MICHOTTE, A. 1963. The Perception of Causality. Basic Books, New York.
[28]
MIRTICH, B. 2000. Timewarp rigid body simulation. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2000, ACM Press / ACM SIGGRAPH, 193--200.
[29]
MYSZKOWSKI, K., TAWARA, T., AKAMINE, H., AND SEIDEL, H.-P. 2001. Perception-guided global illumination solution for animation rendering. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2001, ACM Press / ACM SIGGRAPH, 221--230.
[30]
O'BRIEN, D., FISHER, S., AND LIN, M. C. 2001. Automatic simplification of particle system dynamics. In Proceedings of Computer Animation, 2001.
[31]
O'SULLIVAN,C., AND DINGLIANA, J. 2001. Collisions and perception. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 20, 3, 151--168.
[32]
POPOVIC, J., SEITZ, S. M., ERDMANN, M., POPOVIC, Z., AND WITKIN, A. 2000. Interactive manipulation of rigid body simulations. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2000, ACM Press / ACM SIGGRAPH, 209--217.
[33]
PROFFITT, D., AND GILDEN, D. 1989. Understanding natural dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 15, 2, 384--393.
[34]
RAMASUBRAMANIAN, M., PATTANAIK, S. N., AND GREENBERG, D. P. 1999. A perceptually based physical error metric for realistic image synthesis. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 1999, ACM Press / ACM SIGGRAPH, 73--82.
[35]
ROZA, M., VOOGD, J., JENSE, H., ANDVAN GOOL, P. 1999. Fidelity requirements specification: A process oriented view. In Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop.
[36]
ROZA, M., VAN GOOL, P., AND VOOGD, J. 2000. Fidelity considerations for civil aviation distributed simulations. In Proc. AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference.
[37]
WANG, Z., BOVIK, A., AND LU, L. 2002. Why is image quality assessment so difficult? In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, & Signal Processing, vol. 4, 3313--3316.
[38]
WATSON, B., FRIEDMAN, A., AND MCGAFFEY, A. 2001. Measuring and predicting visual fidelity. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2001, ACM Press / ACM SIGGRAPH, 213--220.
[39]
YEE, H., PATTANAIK, S., AND GREENBERG, D. P. 2001. Spatiotemporal sensitivity and visual attention for efficient rendering of dynamic environments. ACM Transactions on Graphics 19, 2, 39--65.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)ViCMA: Visual Control of Multibody AnimationsSIGGRAPH Asia 2023 Conference Papers10.1145/3610548.3618223(1-11)Online publication date: 10-Dec-2023
  • (2020)Improving Reliability of Virtual Collision ResponsesProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3313831.3376819(1-12)Online publication date: 21-Apr-2020
  • (2017)Bounce mapsACM Transactions on Graphics10.1145/3072959.307363436:4(1-12)Online publication date: 20-Jul-2017
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating the visual fidelity of physically based animations

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGGRAPH '03: ACM SIGGRAPH 2003 Papers
    July 2003
    683 pages
    ISBN:1581137095
    DOI:10.1145/1201775
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 01 July 2003

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. animation
    2. collision handling
    3. evaluation
    4. perceptual metrics
    5. plausible simulation

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Conference

    SIGGRAPH03
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    SIGGRAPH '03 Paper Acceptance Rate 81 of 424 submissions, 19%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,822 of 8,601 submissions, 21%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 03 Sep 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)ViCMA: Visual Control of Multibody AnimationsSIGGRAPH Asia 2023 Conference Papers10.1145/3610548.3618223(1-11)Online publication date: 10-Dec-2023
    • (2020)Improving Reliability of Virtual Collision ResponsesProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3313831.3376819(1-12)Online publication date: 21-Apr-2020
    • (2017)Bounce mapsACM Transactions on Graphics10.1145/3072959.307363436:4(1-12)Online publication date: 20-Jul-2017
    • (2016)Effect of low-level visual details in perception of deformationProceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the European Association for Computer Graphics10.5555/3058909.3058959(375-383)Online publication date: 9-May-2016
    • (2016)Event Recognition—BiologicalVisual Perception from a Computer Graphics Perspective10.1201/b10927-24(447-466)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2016
    • (2016)Effect of Low‐level Visual Details in Perception of DeformationComputer Graphics Forum10.1111/cgf.1283935:2(375-383)Online publication date: 27-May-2016
    • (2015)Effect of appearance on perception of deformationProceedings of the 14th ACM SIGGRAPH / Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation10.1145/2786784.2786797(37-44)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2015
    • (2013)Believability in simplifications of large scale physically based simulationProceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception10.1145/2492494.2492504(99-106)Online publication date: 22-Aug-2013
    • (2012)User Interface Designs, Task Categories and TrainingUser Interface Design for Virtual Environments10.4018/978-1-61350-516-8.ch003(41-59)Online publication date: 2012
    • (2011)Interactive Rigid Body Dynamics Using a Projected Gauss–Seidel Subspace Minimization MethodComputer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics. Theory and Applications10.1007/978-3-642-25382-9_15(218-229)Online publication date: 2011
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media