International Journal of Computer Vision

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 137–160

Visibility, occlusion, and the aspect graph

  • Harry Plantinga
  • Charles R. Dyer
Article

Abstract

This chapter studies the ways in which the topology of the image of a polyhedron changes with changing viewpoint. We catalog the ways that the topological appearance, or aspect, can change. This enables us to find maximal regions of viewpoints of the same aspect. We use these techniques to construct the viewpoint space partition (VSP), a partition of viewpoint space into maximal regions of constant aspect, and its dual, the aspect graph. Here, we present tight bounds on the maximum size of the VSP and the aspect graph and give algorithms for their construction, first in the convex case and then in the general case. In particular, we give bounds on the maximum size of θ(n2) and θ(n6) under an orthographic projection viewing model and of θ(n3) and θ(n9) under a perspective viewing model. The algorithms make use of a new representation of the appearance of polyhedra from all viewpoints, called the aspect representation or asp. We believe that this representation is one of the significant contributions of this paper.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Avis, D., and Toussaint, G. 1981. An optimal algorithm for determining the visibility of a polygon from an edge. IEEE Trans. Comput. C 30: 910–914.Google Scholar
  2. Bowyer, K., Eggert, D., Stewman, J., and Stark, L. 1989. Developing the aspeet graph representation for use in image understanding. In Proc. Image Understanding Workshop, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 831–849, May.Google Scholar
  3. Burns, J.B., and Kitchen, L. 1987. Recognition of 2D images of 3D objects from large model bases using prediction hierarchies. In Proc. Intern. Joint Conf. Artif. Intell., pp. 736–766.Google Scholar
  4. Canny, J.F. 1984. Algorithms for model-driven mechanical parts inspection. Research Report RC 10505 (#48869), IBM Watson Research Center.Google Scholar
  5. Canny, J.F., 1987. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  6. Castore, G. 1984. Solid modeling, aspect graphs, and robot vision. In Solid Modeling by Computer, Pickett and Boyse, eds., Plenem Press, New York, pp. 277–292.Google Scholar
  7. Castore, G., and Crawford, C. 1984. From solid model to robot vision. In Proc. IEEE 1st Intern. Conf Robotics, pp. 90–92.Google Scholar
  8. Chakravarty, I., and Freeman, H. 1982. Characteristic views as a basis for three-dimensional object recognition. In Proc. SPIE (Robot Vision) 336: 37–45.Google Scholar
  9. Chazelle, B., and Guibas, L. 1985. Visibility and intersection problems in plane geometry. In Proc. ACM Symp. Computational Geom., pp. 135–146.Google Scholar
  10. Edelsbrunner, H., O'Rourke, J., and Seidel, R. 1986. Constructing arrangements of lines and hyperplanes with applications. SIAM J. Comput. 15 (2): 341–363.Google Scholar
  11. Fekete, G., and Davis, L.S. 1984. Property spheres: A new representation for 3D object recognition. In Proc. Workshop on Comput. Vision: Representation and Control, pp. 192–201.Google Scholar
  12. Gigus, Z., and Malik, J. 1988. Computing the aspect graph for line drawings of polyhedral objects. In Proc. Comput. Vision and Patt. Recog., pp. 654–661.Google Scholar
  13. Gigus, Z., Canny, J., and Seidel, R. 1988. Efficiently computing and representing aspect graphs of polyhedral objects. In Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. Comput. Vision, pp. 20–29.Google Scholar
  14. El Gindy, H. 1984. An efficient algorthm for computing the weak visibility polygon from an edge in simple polygons. Technical Report, School of Computer Science, McGill University.Google Scholar
  15. El, Gindy, H., and Avis, D. 1981. A linear algorithm for computing the visibility polygon from a point. J. Algorithms 2: 186–197.Google Scholar
  16. Goad, C.A. 1983. Special purpose automatic programming for 3-D model-based vision. In Proc. Image Understanding Workshop, pp. 94–104.Google Scholar
  17. Gualtieri, J.A., Baugher, S., and Werman, M. 1989. The visual potential: One convex polygon. Comput. Vision, Graphics, Image Process. 46 (1): 96–130.Google Scholar
  18. Guibas, L., Hershberger, J., Leven, D., Sharir, M., and Tarjan, R. 1986. Linear time algorithms for visibility and shortest path problems inside simple polygons. In Proc. 2nd ACM Symp. Computational Geom., pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  19. Hansen, C., and Henderson, T. 1988. Towards the automatic generation of recognition strategies. In Proc. Intern. Conf. Comput. Vision. pp. 275–279.Google Scholar
  20. Herbert, M., and Kanade, T. 1985. The 3-D profile method for object recognition. In Proc. Comput. Vision Patt. Recog., pp. 458–463.Google Scholar
  21. Ikeuchi, K. 1987. Generating an interpretation tree from a CA model for 3D-object recognition in bin-picking tasks. Intern. J. Comput. Vision 1 (2): 145–166.Google Scholar
  22. Ke, Y., and O'Rourke, J. 1987. Moving a ladder in three dimensions: upper and lower bounds. In Proc. 3rd Symp. Computational Geom., pp. 136–146.Google Scholar
  23. Kender, J.R., and Freudenstein, D.G. 1986. What is a ‘degenerate’ view. In Proc. IEEE Conf Robotics and Automation, pp. 589–598.Google Scholar
  24. Koenderink, J.J., and van, Doorn, A.J. 1976. The singularities of the visual mapping. Biological Cybernetics 24: 51–59.Google Scholar
  25. Koenderink, J.J., and van, Doorn, A.J. 1979. The internal representation of solid shape with respect to vision. Biological Cybernetics 32: 211–216.Google Scholar
  26. Korn, M.R., and Dyer, C.R. 1987. 3D multiview object representations for model-based object recognition. Pattern Recognition 20: 91–103.Google Scholar
  27. Lee, D.T. 1983. Visibility of a simple polygon. Comput. Vision, Graphics, and Image Process. 22: 207–221.Google Scholar
  28. McKenna, M., and Seidel, R. 1985. Finding the optimal shadows of a convex polytope. In Proc. IEEE Symp. on Computational Geom., pp. 90–99.Google Scholar
  29. Plantinga, H. 1988. The asp: A continuous, viewer-centered object representation for computer vision. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, August (avalbable as Technical Report 784).Google Scholar
  30. Plantinga, H., and Dyer, C.R. 1986. An algorithm for constructing the aspect graph. In Proc. 27th Ann. Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 123–131.Google Scholar
  31. Plantinga, H., and Dyer, C.R. 1987a. The asp: A continuous, viewercentered representation for 3D object recognition. In 1st Intern. Conf. on Comput. Vision, pp. 626–630.Google Scholar
  32. Plantinga, H., and Dyer, C.R. 1987b. The aspect representation. Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Technical Report 683.Google Scholar
  33. Plantinga, H., and Dyer, C.R. 1987c. Construction and display algorithms for the asp. Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Technical Report 735.Google Scholar
  34. Plantinga, H., Dyer, C.R., and Seales, B. 1989. Real-time hiddenline elimination for a rotating polyhedral acene using the aspect representation. Technical Report 89-3, Department of Computer Science, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  35. Rosenfeld, A. 1987. Recognizing unexpected objects: A proposed approach. Intern. J. Patt. Artif. Intell. 1 (1): 71–84.Google Scholar
  36. Schneier, M.O., Lumia, R., and Kent, E.W. 1986. Model-based strategies for high-level robot vision. Comput. Vision, Graphics, and Image Process. 33: 293–306.Google Scholar
  37. Schwartz, J., and Sharir, M. 1984. On the piano mover's problem V: The case of a rod moving in three-dimensional space amidst polyhedral obstacles. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 373: 136–146.Google Scholar
  38. Scott, R. 1984. Graphics and prediction from models. In Proc. Image Understanding Workshop, pp. 98–106.Google Scholar
  39. Seales, B., and Dyer, D.R. 1989. Technical report, University of Wisconsin-Madison, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  40. Shapiro, L.G., and Lu, H. 1988. The use of a relational pyramid representation for view classes in a CAD-to-vision system. In Proc. Intern. Conf. Patt. Recog., pp. 379–381.Google Scholar
  41. Stewman, J., and Bowyer, K. 1988. Creating the perspective projection aspect graph of polyhedral objects. In Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on Comput. Vision, pp. 494–500.Google Scholar
  42. Sutherland, I.E., Sproull, R.F., and Schumacker, R.A. 1974. A characterization of ten hidden-surface algorithms. ACM Comput. Surveys 6 (1): 1–55.Google Scholar
  43. Swain, M. 1988. Object recognition from a large database using a decision tree. In Proc. Image Understanding Workshop, pp. 690–696.Google Scholar
  44. Thorpe, C., and Shafer, S. 1983. Correspondence in line drawings of multiple views of objects. In Proc. 8th Intern. Joint Conf. on Artif. Intell., pp. 959–965.Google Scholar
  45. Watts, N. 1988. Calculating the principal views of a polyhedron. In Proc. Intern. Conf. Patt. Recog., pp. 316–322.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry Plantinga
    • 1
  • Charles R. Dyer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadison

Personalised recommendations