The field of the present invention pertains to computer implemented graphics. More particularly, the present invention relates to a system and method for rendering subdivision surfaces in a three dimensional graphics environment.
Three dimensional (3D) computer graphics have also become a key technology for communicating ideas, data, and trends in most areas of commerce, science, and education. The objects in a 3-D computer generated image are typically described by data models. These models store descriptions of “primitives” (usually mathematically described polygons and polyhedra) that define the shape of the object, the object attributes, and the connectivity and positioning data describing how the objects fit together.
Many applications require models that enable the generation of smooth surfaces and smooth curves. To realistically generate a real-world image, the surfaces of objects, both the curved and flat surfaces, in the image need to be realistically modeled. The most common representations for 3D surfaces are “polygon meshes.” A polygon mesh is a set of connected, polygonally bounded, planar surfaces. Open boxes, cabinets, and building exteriors can be easily and naturally represented by polygon meshes. Polygon meshes, however, are less easily used to represent objects with curved surfaces.
With a curved surface, a polygon mesh provides a modeled approximation of the true contour of the surface. Although the representation is only approximate, the “errors” of the approximation can be made arbitrarily small by using more and more polygons to create an increasingly accurate piece wise linear approximation. Generally, increasing the number of polygons in a given curved surface representation leads to a less “blocky,” or geometrically aliased, representation of the real surface.
Computer graphics engineers rely upon a technique known as surface subdivision to provide a method of increasing the number of polygons comprising a polygon mesh. The use of subdivision surfaces however causes a number of problems. Subdividing a polygon mesh representation of an object causes an exponential increase in the number of polygons within the representation. This correspondingly causes a proportional increase in the resource requirements and performance demands placed upon the graphics computer system.
There are several published prior art methods for tessellating subdivision surfaces. Such methods include:
“Recursively generated B-spline surfaces on arbitrary topological surfaces” by E. Catmull and J. Clark (Computer-Aided Design, 10(6) pp. 350-355, November 1978);
“Exact Evaluation of Catmull-Clark Subdivision Surfaces at Arbitrary Parameter Values” by Jos Stam (Computer Graphics, 32 pp. 395-404, July 1998);
“Rapid Evaluation of Catmull-Clark Subdivision Surfaces” by Jeffery Bolz and Peter Shroder (Web 3D′02, Feb. 24-28, 2002, Tempe, Ariz., USA);
“Subdivision Surfaces in Character Animation”, by Tony DeRose, Michael Kass, Tien Truong (Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 85-94, July 1998);
“Efficient, fair interpolation using Catmull-Clark surfaces” by Mark Halstead, Michael Kass, Tony DeRose (Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 35-44, September 1993);
“A Subdivision Algorithm for Smoothing Down Irregularly Shaped Polyhedrons” by Doo, D. (Proceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Techniques in Computer Aided Design, pp. 157-165, 1978, Bologna, Italy, IEEE Computer Society); and
“Behaviour of Recursive Division Surfaces Near Extraordinary Points” by Doo, D. and Sabin, M. (Computer Aided Design, 10 pp. 356-360, September 1978).
Although the above prior art subdivision algorithms address, to some degree, problems with respect to the resource requirements of subdivision surfaces and problems with respect to the accurate representation of arbitrary topologies, they are each still inefficient in terms of the computational resources required for their execution, in both processor cycles and memory storage space. For example, prior art subdivision algorithms based on Catmull-Clark and Doo-Sabin provided a compact, easy-to-model representation of curved surfaces of arbitrary topology, however, rendering algorithms based on their subdivision rules are very inefficient in terms of memory space and computational time.
Surfaces based on Bezier patches have been widely used by some prior art algorithms due to the fact that Bezier patches are computationally less demanding to render. Bezier surface patches are defined by an array of control points (e.g., typically 4×4) in 3-D space that parametrically define the surface of the patch. Although the array of control points allows individual points on the surface to be computed quickly, objects having complex curves require many separate patches to model correctly, with each of these patches having their respective array of control points. This makes surfaces based on Bezier patches difficult to model with directly, since their representation is very space inefficient and they cannot be used to smoothly render arbitrary topologies.
One prior art scheme for dealing with the above resource requirement and accurate modeling problems involves the adaptation of the subdivision process to more effectively handle problematic areas of a model. This scheme is generally referred to as adaptive tessellation, where certain surfaces having curves and/or complex topology is subdivided to greater degree than the flatter surfaces of the model (e.g., areas which can be accurately represented with fewer numbers of polygons). While certain prior art applications support adaptive tessellation (e.g., PRman® from Pixar Corp.), such applications are not integrated with the graphics industry's major 3-D modeling/animation packages. Additionally, such prior art applications do not support interactive adaptive tessellation, where, for example, a graphics engineer can iteratively process a model to obtain the optimal degree of subdivision.
Another problem with prior art adaptive tessellation applications (e.g., PRman, etc.) is that they generally cannot guarantee “watertight” tessellation. As known by those skilled in the art, a typical prior art adaptive tessellation application can subdivide certain surfaces of a model in such manner as to create small gaps between adjacent polygons. This could have an extremely adverse impact on the quality of the final rendered model. To ensure a watertight tessellation (e.g., no gaps or cracks between the polygons), prior art adaptive tessellation applications must be followed by a time-consuming post-processing step involving the use of a specialized crack-avoidance algorithm. This algorithm is configured to examine an earlier subdivided model for any gaps and “glue” the problematic polygons together if necessary.
Thus, what is required is a solution for efficiently implementing surface subdivision in a polygon mesh. The required solution should be able to accurately subdivide a curved surface having an arbitrary topology using a minimum amount of memory. The required solution should support interactive processing in order to obtain a desired degree of subdivision. What is further required is system for efficiently computing a subdivision surface with respect to computational hardware requirements. The present invention provides a solution for the above requirements.
Embodiments of the present invention provide a method and system for performing adaptive tessellation on a subdivision surface. In one embodiment, the present invention comprises a computer implemented method for performing adaptive tessellation on a subdivision surface. The computer implemented method includes the step of accessing a model of a surface for subdivision processing. The model is converted to an intermediate form to facilitate more efficient handling and processing. The intermediate form of the model is then tessellated. Depending upon the requirements of a particular application, the intermediate form of the model can be tessellated into a plurality of quadrilateral polygons, or alternatively, the intermediate form of the model can be tessellated into a plurality of the triangle polygons.
In one embodiment, the model is converted to the intermediate form, wherein the intermediate form is a Bezier patch form configured to facilitate subdivision processing. In another embodiment, the intermediate form is a B-spline patch form. The model can be converted to the intermediate form from, for example, a Catmull-Clark form or from a Doo-Sabin form.
The present invention is illustrated by way of example, and not by way of limitation, in the Figures of the accompanying drawings and in which like reference numerals refer to similar elements and in which:
Reference will now be made in detail to the preferred embodiments of the present invention, examples of which are illustrated in the accompanying drawings. While the invention will be described in conjunction with the preferred embodiments, it will be understood that they are not intended to limit the invention to these embodiments. On the contrary, the invention is intended to cover alternatives, modifications and equivalents, which may be included within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims. Furthermore, in the following detailed description of embodiments of the present invention, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. However, it will be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that the present invention may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known methods, procedures, components, and circuits have not been described in detail as not to unnecessarily obscure aspects of the embodiments of the present invention.
Embodiments of the present invention provide a method and system for performing adaptive tessellation of a subdivision surface. Embodiments of the present invention provide a solution that efficiently implements surface subdivision in a 3-D object model. Embodiments of the present invention are able to accurately subdivide a curved surface having an arbitrary topology using a minimum amount of memory. Additionally, embodiments of the present invention are able to efficiently compute a subdivision surface without imposing extreme computational hardware requirements on a computer system platform. Embodiments of the present invention and their benefits are further described below.
Notation and Nomenclature
Some portions of the detailed descriptions which follow are presented in terms of procedures, steps, logic blocks, processing, and other symbolic representations of operations on data bits within a computer memory. These descriptions and representations are the means used by those skilled in the data processing arts to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. A procedure, computer executed step, logic block, process, etc., is here, and generally, conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of steps or instructions leading to a desired result. The steps are those requiring physical manipulations of physical quantities. Usually, though not necessarily, these quantities take the form of electrical or magnetic signals capable of being stored, transferred, combined, compared, and otherwise manipulated in a computer system. It has proven convenient at times, principally for reasons of common usage, to refer to these signals as bits, values, elements, symbols, characters, terms, numbers, or the like.
It should be borne in mind, however, that all of these and similar terms are to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and are merely convenient labels applied to these quantities. Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the following discussions, it is appreciated that throughout the present invention, discussions utilizing terms such as “tessellating” or “accessing” or “processing” or “subdividing” or “rendering” or the like, refer to the action and processes of a computer system (e.g., computer system 100 of
Computer System Platform
With reference now to
In general, computer system 100 comprises at least one CPU 101 coupled to a system memory 115 and a graphics processor unit (GPU) 110 via one or more busses as shown. The GPU 110 is coupled to a display 112. As shown in
The process 200 embodiment functions in part by performing tessellation until a given input model (e.g., defined by a plurality of parametric surface patches) has been subdivided into a polygon representation having a desired degree of flatness. The input for process 200 is a stream of the parametric surfaces, or parametric patches, that comprise the model. With each patch input, process 200 subdivides the patch input, increasing the number of polygons within the model, to generate a more accurate representation of the modeled surface. As known by those skilled in the art, a given parametric patch, or surface, is mathematically defined by a set of control points. A typical model of an object can comprise hundreds of patches, or more. In the present embodiment, to facilitate processing, the patches are stripped off of the model and are passed in-order (e.g., streamed) to process 200 on a per patch basis. Received patches are converted to an intermediate form to facilitate subdivision processing. In accordance with embodiments of the present invention, the intermediate form can be a Bezier patch form or a B-spline patch form. The received patch input, its control points, and its extraordinary point data (if any) are then stored in a patch buffer or in stack storage until needed.
As known by those skilled in the art, tessellation generally refers to the arrangement of polygons within a checkered, or mosaic, pattern to represent objects having curved or other types of arbitrary topology. More specifically, in the field of computer graphics, tessellation refers to increasing the number of polygons within a given model to more accurately approximate a given surface, usually a curved surface.
The surfaces in a 3-D computer generated image are typically described by data models (e.g., mathematically described polygons and polyhedra) that define the shape of the surface, the object attributes, and the connectivity and positioning data describing how different surfaces fit together. The component polygons and polyhedra of a surface connect at common edges defined in terms of common vertices. The polygons are textured, Z-buffered, and shaded/illustrated onto an array of pixels, creating a realistic 3D image.
More particularly, in order to take advantage of the capabilities of a typical 3-D graphics pipeline, the process 200 embodiment needs to tessellate the patch input into triangle polygons. This is because typical 3-D graphics pipelines are set up to process triangle polygons. However, depending upon the particular requirements of a given application, quadrilateral polygons can also be generated.
Referring still to process 200 of
In step 202, each polygon of the patch input 210 is tested to determine its degree of flatness. As known by those skilled in the art, flatness refers to the degree to which a faceted, polygon based, representation accurately resembles the subdivision limit surface. In the present embodiment, the degree of flatness is determined by a test computation (e.g., flatness test) performed in step 202. If the patch input passes the flatness test, process 200 proceeds to step 204. Otherwise process 200 proceeds to step 203.
The subdivision limit surface is parametrically defined by the control points of the patch. The vertices of the polygon representation of the patch are computed points on the subdivision limit surface. The flatness test generally measures the difference between polygons connecting the vertices and the subdivision limit surface. As the polygon representation of the patch becomes more piecewise accurate (e.g., increasing number of polygons) the difference between the polygons connecting the vertices and the subdivision limit surface becomes increasingly smaller. A flatness test in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention is further described below in
In step 203, if any edges of a patch do not pass the flatness test, that patch is split into two or four daughter patches. Process 200 of the present embodiment determines the placement of the vertices and edges of the daughter patches. In so doing, the process 200 algorithm utilizes information from the parent patch to determine the values of the daughter patches. If the parent patch has any extraordinary points at its corners, the algorithm also uses the extraordinary point information (e.g., in the extraordinary point buffer) in its determination.
Referring still to step 203 of
In the present embodiment, extraordinary point data for each patch is retained in a buffer for use in calculating the manner of, and the placement of, the daughter polygons in 3-D space. As known by those skilled in the art, extraordinary points result from subdividing surfaces having arbitrary topology. In one embodiment, one to four extraordinary point buffers are used to hold the extraordinary point vertices and the vertices of its adjacent faces. Before a patch with extraordinary points is subdivided, the data in each of the appropriate extraordinary point buffers is modified using standard subdivision rules. The old extra-ordinary point vertex and its neighbors are replaced with their new versions. When the patch is subdivided, the four new control points at the corner of the patch are calculated using the data from the appropriate extraordinary point buffer if that corner corresponds to an extraordinary point. If not, the new control points are calculated using standard patch splitting math. For B-spline patches the control points are copied from the extraordinary point buffer. For Bezier patches the control points are calculated using the same technique that was used to create the original Bezier patch.
Process 200 places the resulting daughter polygons back into stack storage at step 201 (e.g., after the polygon has been subdivided in step 203). This allows the daughter polygons to be tested in step 202 for flatness and the split again if necessary in step 203. In this manner, non flat polygons are continually split until they pass the flatness test in step 202. Hence, the tessellated surfaces operated on by process 200 approach the surface's smooth limit with repeated subdivisions. Once all four sides of a patch are flat, the daughter polygon(s) are output as shown (e.g., two triangles or a single quadrilateral) in step 204.
Thus, the process 200 embodiment of the present invention implements adaptive tessellation, wherein polygons of a patch input are continually split until they have the necessary degree of flatness. Additionally, the process 200 embodiment is adaptive in that a given model, as opposed to being tessellated ahead-of-time, is tessellated just-in-time, for example, tessellated just as a rendering process is preparing to render the curved surface. Depending upon the specific requirements of a given application, the degree of required flatness can be adjusted. For example, to produce a smoother representation, a high degree of flatness can be required, where daughter polygons are recursively tessellated, leading to a correspondingly large number of polygons in the resulting representation. To conserve computer resources (e.g., memory and CPU cycles), a lesser degree flatness can be required which leads to a resulting representation having a fewer number polygons and requiring less computer resources to compute and handle. Additionally, the adaptive tessellation is implemented in an interactive manner with respect to a user. For example, a graphic designer can interactively adjust the flatness threshold depending upon the rendered result of the model. If the rendered result is not as expected, the graphic designer can interactively lower the flatness threshold, thereby implementing a greater degree of recursive tessellation in the areas having particularly problematic topography. This increases the accuracy of the tessellation until the desired result is obtained. Another example would be a case where a real-time application in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention adjusts the flatness threshold for each frame to maintain a consistent frame rate as the amount of geometry being rendered changes.
Other types of subdivision surfaces in addition to Catmull-Clark and Doo-Sabin can be used with embodiments of the present invention. Examples include, different “loop” type surfaces and/or “modified butterfly” type surfaces. These types of subdivision surfaces share a common attribute in that they are triangle based schemes as opposed to quadrilateral based schemes.
In the present embodiment, flatness is measured with respect to a distance at the midpoint of an edge 412 and the midpoint of the limit curve 410. The limit curve 410 is the curve that is mathematically defined by the control points. The vertices, which in this case correspond to control point 401 and control point 404, are points on the limit curve 410. The distance between the midpoint of the limit curve and the midpoint of the edge 412 is shown in
It should be noted that patch 500 can be converted to a B-spline patch intermediate form as an alternative to a Bezier patch intermediate form. Depending upon the specific requirements of a given application, the Bezier patch form can be more efficient to work with due to the fact that calculating points on the surface and tangents to the surface is more computationally efficient than the B-spline patch form. It should be noted, however, that there are some circumstances where the B-spline patch form provides certain advantages. For example, some graphics rendering applications require neighboring normals of a patch to have the exact same value, such as where volume data must be created for stencil volume shadows. In order for the shadows to render correctly, the normals of the tessellated surface need to be exactly the same. Another example would be displacement mapping, where exact normals are required in order to implement displacement mapping of the subdivision surface. If the normals are not exact, watertight tessellation can be compromised since the normals are scaled by the displacement and then added to output vertices.
It can be very difficult to guarantee that adjacent Bezier patch normals are calculated exactly the same because the floating point math used in the calculations has limited accuracy and the tangents used to calculate the normal are calculated using different control points. With B-spline patches the tangents of a patch are calculated using the same control points, therefore, as long as the calculation order is carefully observed, the resulting normals will be exactly the same. In contrast, to obtain normals that are exactly the same for a Bezier patch, an extra mechanism needs to be provided to share the normals. Such a mechanism can be designed to execute efficiently, however, it may prove difficult to implement in hardware.
In the present embodiment, as depicted in
It should be noted that Catmull-Clark and Doo-Sabin subdivision surfaces as used by embodiments of the present invention are a compact, easy-to-model representation of curved surfaces of arbitrary topology. Embodiments of the present invention convert each face, for Catmull-Clark, or vertex, for Doo-Sabin, of the subdivision surface control mesh to a modified Bezier patch then tessellates the patch to quads. This avoids the problems with prior art subdivision methods with respect to occurred subdivision methods being very inefficient in terms of space and time. This also avoids the problems with respect to other subdivision methods, wherein surfaces based on Bezier patches can be very efficient to render, but difficult to model with directly, are very space inefficient to represent, and cannot be used to smoothly render arbitrary topologies. Embodiments of the present invention are fully capable of rendering surfaces having arbitrary topologies.
In one embodiment of the present invention, subdivision surfaces are tessellated using DeCalstlejau subdivision. The DeCalstlejau algorithm is efficient in both space and time, keeping the model in the compact subdivision surface form but using the patch form for fast tessellation. The DeCalstlejau algorithm used by embodiments of the present invention can be modified if necessary to handle the extraordinary points that are the result of arbitrary topology.
As known by those skilled in the art, problems can occur when adjacent patches are tessellated to different levels. For example, if an edge is measured to be flat, it can be rendered with two vertices only. This can lead to gaps between adjacent edges, as shown by the gap 710 between edges 701 and 705 and 707. Embodiments of the present invention solve this problem by adding a triangle to the mesh for each edge measured to be flat if the patch is split. The vertex that is not on the flat edge is moved as far away from the edge as possible to avoid shading artifacts and overlapping geometry. The triangle is emitted after the daughter patches have been tessellated so the tessellation depth can be used to make sure that the vertex is placed close enough to the edge to avoid overlapping any of the daughter patches' polygons.
Thus, embodiments of the present invention provide a method and system for performing adaptive tessellation on a subdivision surface. Embodiments of the present invention provide a solution that efficiently implements surface subdivision in a polygon mesh. Embodiments of the present invention are able to accurately subdivide a curved surface having an arbitrary topology using a minimum amount of memory. Additionally, embodiments of the present invention are able to efficiently compute a subdivision surface without imposing extreme computational hardware requirements on a computer system platform.
The foregoing descriptions of specific embodiments of the present invention have been presented for purposes of illustration and description. They are not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed, and obviously many modifications and variations are possible in light of the above teaching. The embodiments were chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention and its practical application, to thereby enable others skilled in the art to best utilize the invention and various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated. It is intended that the scope of the invention be defined by the claims appended hereto and their equivalents.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3904818 | Kovac | Sep 1975 | A |
4253120 | Levine | Feb 1981 | A |
4646251 | Hayes et al. | Feb 1987 | A |
4685071 | Lee | Aug 1987 | A |
4739495 | Levine | Apr 1988 | A |
4771470 | Geiser et al. | Sep 1988 | A |
4920428 | Lin et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
4987496 | Greivenkamp, Jr. | Jan 1991 | A |
5175430 | Enke et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5261029 | Abi-Ezzi et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5305994 | Matsui et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5387983 | Sugiura et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5475430 | Hamada et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5513016 | Inoue | Apr 1996 | A |
5608824 | Shimizu et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5652621 | Adams, Jr. et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5793433 | Kim et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5878174 | Stewart et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5903273 | Mochizuki et al. | May 1999 | A |
5905530 | Yokota et al. | May 1999 | A |
5995109 | Goel et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6016474 | Kim et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6078331 | Pulli et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6111988 | Horowitz et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6118547 | Tanioka | Sep 2000 | A |
6141740 | Mahalingaiah et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6151457 | Kawamoto | Nov 2000 | A |
6175430 | Ito | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6252611 | Kondo | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6256038 | Krishnamurthy | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6281931 | Tsao et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6289103 | Sako et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6314493 | Luick | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6319682 | Hochman | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6323934 | Enomoto | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6392216 | Peng-Tan | May 2002 | B1 |
6396397 | Bos et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6438664 | McGrath et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6486971 | Kawamoto | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6504952 | Takemura et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6584202 | Montag et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6594388 | Gindele et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6683643 | Takayama et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6707452 | Veach | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6724932 | Ito | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6737625 | Baharav et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6760080 | Moddel et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6785814 | Usami et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6806452 | Bos et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6839062 | Aronson et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6856441 | Zhang et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6891543 | Wyatt | May 2005 | B2 |
6900836 | Hamilton, Jr. | May 2005 | B2 |
6950099 | Stollnitz et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
7009639 | Une et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7015909 | Morgan III et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7023479 | Hiramatsu et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7088388 | MacLean et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7092018 | Watanabe | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7106368 | Daiku et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7133041 | Kaufman et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7133072 | Harada | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7146041 | Takahashi | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7221779 | Kawakami et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7227586 | Finlayson et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7245319 | Enomoto | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7305148 | Spampinato et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7343040 | Chanas et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7486844 | Chang et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7502505 | Malvar et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7580070 | Yanof et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7627193 | Alon et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7671910 | Lee | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7728880 | Hung et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7750956 | Wloka | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7912279 | Hsu et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
8049789 | Innocent | Nov 2011 | B2 |
20010001234 | Addy et al. | May 2001 | A1 |
20010012113 | Yoshizawa et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010012127 | Fukuda et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010015821 | Namizuka et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010019429 | Oteki et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010021278 | Fukuda et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010033410 | Helsel et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010050778 | Fukuda et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20010054126 | Fukuda et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020012131 | Oteki et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020015111 | Harada | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020018244 | Namizuka et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020027670 | Takahashi et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020033887 | Hieda et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020041383 | Lewis, Jr. et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020044778 | Suzuki | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020054374 | Inoue et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020063802 | Gullichsen et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020105579 | Levine et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020126210 | Shinohara et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020146136 | Carter, Jr. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020149683 | Post | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020158971 | Daiku et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020167202 | Pfalzgraf | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020167602 | Nguyen | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020191694 | Ohyama et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020196470 | Kawamoto et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030035100 | Dimsdale et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030067461 | Fletcher et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030122825 | Kawamoto | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030142222 | Hordley | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030146975 | Joung et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030169353 | Keshet et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030169918 | Sogawa | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030197701 | Teodosiadis et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030222995 | Kaplinsky et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030223007 | Takane | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040001061 | Stollnitz et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040001234 | Curry et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040032516 | Kakarala | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040066970 | Matsugu | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040100588 | Hartson et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040101313 | Akiyama | May 2004 | A1 |
20040109069 | Kaplinsky et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040189875 | Zhai et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040218071 | Chauville et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040247196 | Chanas et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050007378 | Grove | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050007477 | Ahiska | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050030395 | Hattori | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050046704 | Kinoshita | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050099418 | Cabral et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050185058 | Sablak | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050238225 | Jo et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050243181 | Castello et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050248671 | Schweng | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050261849 | Kochi et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050286097 | Hung et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060050158 | Irie | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060061658 | Faulkner et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060087509 | Ebert et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060133697 | Uvarov et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060176375 | Hwang et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060197664 | Zhang et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060274171 | Wang | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060290794 | Bergman et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060293089 | Herberger et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070091188 | Chen et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070147706 | Sasaki et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070171288 | Inoue et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070236770 | Doherty et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070247532 | Sasaki | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070285530 | Kim et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080030587 | Helbing | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080062164 | Bassi et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080101690 | Hsu et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080143844 | Innocent | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20090010539 | Guarnera et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090116750 | Lee et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090160957 | Deng et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090257677 | Cabral et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100266201 | Cabral et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1275870 | Dec 2000 | CN |
0392565 | Oct 1990 | EP |
1378790 | Jul 2004 | EP |
1447977 | Aug 2004 | EP |
1550980 | Jul 2005 | EP |
2045026 | Oct 1990 | GB |
2363018 | Dec 2001 | GB |
61187467 | Aug 1986 | JP |
62-151978 | Jul 1987 | JP |
07-015631 | Jan 1995 | JP |
8036640 | Feb 1996 | JP |
08-079622 | Mar 1996 | JP |
2001-052194 | Feb 2001 | JP |
2002-207242 | Jul 2002 | JP |
2003-085542 | Mar 2003 | JP |
2004-221838 | Aug 2004 | JP |
2005094048 | Apr 2005 | JP |
2005-182785 | Jul 2005 | JP |
2005520442 | Jul 2005 | JP |
2006025005 | Jan 2006 | JP |
2006086822 | Mar 2006 | JP |
2006-094494 | Apr 2006 | JP |
2006121612 | May 2006 | JP |
2006134157 | May 2006 | JP |
2007019959 | Jan 2007 | JP |
2007-148500 | Jun 2007 | JP |
2007-233833 | Sep 2007 | JP |
2007282158 | Oct 2007 | JP |
2008-085388 | Apr 2008 | JP |
2008-277926 | Nov 2008 | JP |
2009021962 | Jan 2009 | JP |
1020040043156 | May 2004 | KR |
1020060068497 | Jun 2006 | KR |
1020070004202 | Jan 2007 | KR |
03043308 | May 2003 | WO |
2004063989 | Jul 2004 | WO |
2007056459 | May 2007 | WO |
2007093864 | Aug 2007 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Loop, C., DeRose, T., Generalized B-Spline Surfaces of Arbitrary Topology, Aug. 1990, SIGRAPH 90, pp. 347-356. |
Davis, J., Marschner, S., Garr, M., Levoy, M., Filling Holes in Complex Surfaces Using Volumetric Diffusion, Dec. 2001, Stanford Univeristy, pp. 1-9. |
Takeuchi, S., Kanai, T., Suzuki, H., Shimada, K., Kimura, F., Subdivision Surface Fitting with QEM-based Mesh Simplification and Reconstruction of Approximated B-spline Surfaces, 2000, Eighth Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications, pp. 202-212. |
Krus, M., Bourdot, P., Osorio, A., Guisnel, F., Thibault, G., Adaptive tessellation of connected primitives for interactive walkthroughs in complex industrial virtual environments, Jun. 1999, Proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop, pp. 1-10. |
Kumar, S., Manocha, D., Interactive Display of Large Scale Trimmed NURBS Models, 1994, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Technical Report, pp. 1-36. |
E. Catmull, J. Clark; “Recursively Generated B-Spline Surfaces on Arbitrary Topological Meshes”; Nov. 1978; Computer Aided Design; vol. 10; pp. 350-355. |
J. Stam; “Exact Evaluation of Catmull-Clark Subdivision Surfaces at Arbitrary Parameter Values”; Jul. 1998; Computer Graphics; vol. 32; pp. 395-404. |
J. Bolz, P. Schroder; “Rapid Evaluation of Catmull-Clark Subdivision Surfaces”; Web 3D '02. |
DeRose, M. Kass, T. Truong; “Subdivision Surfaces in Character Animation”; Jul 1998; Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Proc; pp. 85-94. |
M. Halstead, M. Kass, T. DeRose; “Efficient, Fair Interpolation Using Catmull-Clark Surfaces”; Sep. 1993; Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Proc; pp. 35-44. |
D.W. H. Doo; “A Subdivision Algorithm for Smoothing Down Irregular Shaped Polyhedrons”; 1978; Interactive Techniques in Computer Aided Design; pp. 157-165. |
D. Doo, M. Sabin; “Behaviour of Recursive Division Surfaces Near Extraordinary Points”; Sep. 1978; Computer Aided Design; vol. 10; pp. 356-360. |
“A Pipelined Architecture for Real-Time Correction of Barrel Distortion in Wide-Angle Camera Images”, Hau, T. Ngo, Student Member, IEEE and Vijayan K. Asari, Senior Member IEEE, IEEE transaction on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology: vol. 15 No. 3 Mar. 2005 pp. 436-444. |
“Calibration and removal of lateral chromatic abberation in images,” Mallon, et al., Science Direct, Copyright 2006, 11 pages. |
“Method of Color Interpolation in a Single Color Camera Using Green Channel Separation,” Weerasighe, et al., Visual Information Processing Lab, Motorola Austrailian Research Center, pp. IV-3233-IV3236, 2002. |
http://slashdot.org/article/07/09/06/1431217.html |
http://englishrussia.com/?p=1377. |
Kuno et al., “New Interpolation Method Using Discriminated Color Correlation for Digital Still Cameras,” IEEE transac. On Consumer Electronics, vol. 45, No. 1, Feb. 1999, pp. 259-267. |
Donald D. Spencer, “Illustrated Computer Graphics Dictionary”, 1993, Camelot Publishing Company, p. 272. |
Duca et ;al., “A Relational Debugging Engine for Graphics Pipeline, International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques”, ACM SIGGRAPH Jul. 2005, pp. 453-463. |
gDEBugger, graphicRemedy, http://www.gremedy.com Aug.8, 2006, pp. 1-18. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer—filter; “Bayer Filter”; Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; pp. 1-4 Nov. 2005. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color—l filter—array; “Color Filter Array”; Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; pp. 1-5 Nov. 2005. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color—space; “Color Space”; Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; pp. 1-4 Sep. 2001. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color—translation; “Color Management”; Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; pp. 1-4 Feb. 2003. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing; “Demosaicing”; Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; pp. 1-5 Nov. 2005. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half—tone; “Halftone”; Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; pp. 1-5 Jul. 2002. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L*a*b*; “Lab Color Space”; Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; pp. 1-4 Nov. 2003. |
Keith R. Slavin; Application As Filed entitled “Efficient Method for Reducing Noise and Blur in a Composite Still Image From a Rolling Shutter Camera”; U.S. Appl. No. 12/069,669; Filed Feb. 11, 2008. |
Ko at al., “Fast Digital Image Stabilizer Based on Gray-Code Bit-Plane Matching”, IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 598-603, Aug. 1999. |
Ko,et al., “Digital Image Stabilizing Algorithms Basd on Bit-Plane Matching”, IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 617-622, Aug. 1988. |
Morimoto et al., “Fast Electronic Digital Image Stabilization for Off-Road Navigation”, Computer Vision Laboratory, Center for Automated Research University of Maryland. Real-Time Imaging, vol. 2, pp. 285-296, 1996. |
Paik et al , “An Adaptive Motion Decision system for Digital Image Stabilizer Based on Edge Pattern Matching” IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 607-616, Aug. 1992. |
Parhami. Computer Arithmetic, Oxford University Press, Jun. 2000, pp. 413-418. |
S. Erturk, “Digital Image Stabilization with Sub-Image Phase Correlation Based Global Motion Estimation”, IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 1320-1325, Nov. 2003. |
S. Erturk; “Real-Time Digital Image Stabilization Using Kalman Filters”, http://www.ideallibrary.com. Real-Time Imaging 8, pp. 317-328, 2002. |
Uomori et al., “Automatic Image Stabilizing System by Full-Digital Signal Processing” vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 510-519, Aug. 1990. |
Uomori et al., “Electronic Image Stabiliztion System for Video Cameras and VCRS” J. Soc. Motion Pict. Telev. Eng., vol. 101, pp. 66-75, 1992. |
Weerasinghe of al.; “Method of Color Interpolation in a Single Sensor Color Camera Using Green Channel Separation”; Visual Information Proessing lab, Motorola Australian Research Center; IV 32333-IV3236 May 2002. |