Data Level Comparison of Surface Classification and Gradient Filters
Surface classification and shading of three dimensional scalar data sets are important enhancements for direct volume rendering (DVR). However, unlike conventional surface rendering, DVR algorithms do not have explicit geometry to shade, making it difficult to perform comparisons. Furthermore, DVR, in general, involves a complex set of parameters whose effects on a rendered image are hard to compare. Previous work uses analytical estimations of the quality of interpolation, gradient filters, and classification. Typical comparisons are done using side-by-side examination of rendered images. However, non-linear processes are involved in the rendering pipeline and thus the comparison becomes particularly difficult. In this paper, we present a data level methodology for analyzing volume surface classification and gradient filters. Users can more effectively estimate algorithmic differences by using intermediate information. Based on this methodology, we also present new data level metrics and examples of analyzing differences in surface classification and gradient calculation. Please refer to www.cse.ucsc.edu/research/avis/dvr.html for a full color version of this paper.
KeywordsGradient Vector Gradient Magnitude Salt Dome Surface Strength Direct Volume Rendering
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.R. A. Drebin, L. Carpenter, and P. Hanrahan. Volume rendering. In Proceedings of SIG-GRAPH 88, pages 65–74, August 1988.Google Scholar
- 4.Michael E. Goss. An adjustable gradient filter for volume visualization image enhancement. In Proceedings Graphics Interface, pages 67–74, 1994.Google Scholar
- 5.S. Jin, R.S. Wu, X.B. Xie, and Z. Ma. Wave equation-based decomposition and imaging for multicomponent seismic data. Journal of Seismic Exploration, 7 (2): 145–158, 1998.Google Scholar
- 6.Kwansik Kim and Alex Pang. A methodology for comparing direct volume rendering algorithms using a projection-based data level approach. In Eurographics/IEEE TVCG Symposium on Visualization, pages 87–98, Vienna, Austria, May 1999.Google Scholar
- 7.Kwansik Kim and Alex Pang. Ray-based data level comparisons of direct volume rendering algorithms. In Hans Hagen, Gregory Nielson, and Frits Post, editors, Scientific Visualization, Dagstuhl’97 Workshop Proceedings, pages 137–150, 347. IEEE Computer Society, 1999.Google Scholar
- 8.G. Kindlmann and J.W. Durkin. Semi-automatic generation of transfer functions for direct volume rendering. In IEEE Symposium on Volume Visualization, pages 79–86, 170 IEEE, 1998.Google Scholar
- 11.S. R. Marschner and R. J. Lobb. An evaluation of reconstruction filters for volume rendering. In Proceedings of Visualization, pages 100–107. IEEE, October 1994.Google Scholar
- 12.Torsten Möller, Raghu Machiraju, Klaus Müller, and Roni Yagel. A comparison of normal estimation schemes. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Visualization 1997, pages 19–26, October 1997.Google Scholar
- 14.Nivedita Sahasrabudhe, John E. West, Raghu Machiraju, and Mark Janus. Structured spatial domain image and data comparison metrics. In Proceedings of Visualization 99, pages 97–104,515, 1999.Google Scholar
- 16.Craig M. Wittenbrink, Thomas Malzbender, and Michael E. Goss. Opacity-weighted color interpolation for volume sampling. In Proceedings of the 1998 Symposium on Volume Visualization, pages 135–142, color plate page 177, October 1998. Also available as Technical Report, HPL-97–31R2, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA, Revised Apr. 1998.Google Scholar