International Journal of Computer Vision

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 131–153 | Cite as

Representing oriented piecewise C2 surfaces

  • Vishviit S. Nalwa


To reason about shape, one must first represent it. We deseribe a representation scheme for a large class of surfaces. Our primary focus is the formalism; implementation issues receive little attention. A good representation must be more than just minimally sufficient for the task; it must also be unambiguous, stable, local, and convenient. We first discuss four well-known schemes in view of these requirements, and then turn to differential geometric representations and argue that they, in general, are inadequate by themselves. Practicability and robustness require the incorporation of global geometric information. As representation on the Gaussian sphere offers considerable convenience, it is proposed that surfaces be represented by their Gaussian images, associating with each point the value of its support function, that is, the signed distance of the oriented tangent plane at its preimage from the origin. Such a representation is locally generative. Consequently, it is unambiguous; it is unique up to the orientation and position of the represented surface. It is local in directions of nonzero surface curvature. Also, it is additive; hence, although it is not stable, this problem seems circumventable. Several examples are provided.


Computer Vision Representation Scheme Computer Image Surface Curvature Good Representation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    G.J. Agin and T.O. Binford, “Computer description of curved objects,” IEEE Trans. Computers C-25 (4):439–449. 1976.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.H. Barr “Superquadrics and angle-preserving transformations,” IEEE Comput Graphics and Applications 1(1):11–23, 1981.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P.J. Besl and R.C. Jain, “Three-dimensional object recognition,” Computing Surveys 17(1):75–145, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T.O. Binford, “Visual perception by computer.” Unpublished paper presented at the IEEE Conference on Systems and Control. Miami, 1971.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T.O. Binford, “Generalized cylinder representation,” In Encylonedia of Artificial Intellience S.C. Shapiro (ed.), Wiley: New York, pp. 321–323, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Blum. “A transformation for extracting new descriptors of shape.” In Models for the Perception of Speech and Visual Form, W. Wathen-Dunn (ed.). MIT Press: Cambridge. pp. 362–380, 1967.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Blum and R.N. Nagel, “Shape description using weighted symmetric axis features,” Pattern Recognition 10:167–180, 1978.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Brady et al., “Describing surfaces,” Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing 32:1–28, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Brou, “Using the Gaussian image to find the orientation of objects,” Intern, J. Bobotics Res 3(4):89–125, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Chem. “A proof of the uniqueness of Minkowski's problem for convex surfaces,” Am. J. Math. 79:949–950, 1957.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M.P. do Carmo, Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1976.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W.J. Firey. “The determination of convex bodies from their mean radius of curvature functions,” Mathematika 14:1–13, 1967.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Gardner. “The “superellipse”: A curve that lies between the ellipse and the rectangle.” In the Mathematical Games section of Scientific American, pp. 222–232, September 1965.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Hilbert and S. Cohn-Vossen, Geometry and the Imagi nation. Chelsea: New York, 1952.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B.K.P. Horn. “Extended Gaussian images,” Proc. IEEE 72(12):1671–1686, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.J. Koenderink and A.J.van Doorn. “The internal representation of solid shape with respect to vision.” Biological Cybernetics 32:211–216, 1979.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.J. Koenderink and A.J.van Doorn, “Dynamic shape,” Biological Cybermetrics 53:383–396, 1986.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M.M. Lipschutz, Differential Geometery, McGraw-Hill: New York. 1969.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    V.S. Nalwa. “Line-drawing interpretation: A mathematical framework,” Intern. J. Comput. Vision 2:103–124, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Nevatia and T.O. Binford, “Deseription and recognition of curved objects,” Artificial Intelligence 8:77–98, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A.P. Pentland, “Perceptual organization and the representation of natural form,” Artificial Intelligence 28:293–331, 1986.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A.V. Pogorelov, Extrinsic Geometry of Convex Surfaces. American Mathematical Society: Providence, 1973.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A.A.G. Requicha, “Representations for rigid solids: Theory, methods, and systems,” Computing Surveys 12(4): 437–464, 1980.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Spivak, Calculus on Manifolds. Benjamin/Cummings: New York, 1965.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Spivak, A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry. Vol. 5. Publish or Perish: Boston, 1975.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J.J. Stoker, Differential Geometry. Wiley-Interscience: New York. 1969.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J.A. Thorpe, Elementary Topics in Differential Geometry. Springer-Verlag: New York, 1979.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A.N. Tikhonov and V.Y. Arsenin, Solutions of Ill-Posed Problems. Winston: Washington, D.C. 1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vishviit S. Nalwa
    • 1
  1. 1.AT&T Bell LaboratoriesHolmdel

Personalised recommendations