The Visual Computer

, Volume 8, Issue 5–6, pp 292–302

Cutaways and ghosting: satisfying visibility constraints in dynamic 3D illustrations

  • Steven K. Feiner
  • Dorée Duncan Seligmann
Article

Abstract

For an illustration to fulfill the purposes for which it is designed, it is often important that certain objects depicted not be blocked by others. We describe an automated approach to the problem of generating illustrations that satisfy a set of visibility constraints for a given viewing specification. We introduce a family of algorithms that automatically identify potentially obscuring objects, and render them using cutaway and ghosting effects modeled after those used by illustrators. These algorithms exploit modernz-buffer-based 3D graphics hardware to make possible dynamic illustrations that maintain a set of visibility constraints as a user interactively updates the viewing specification.

Key words

Knowledge-based graphics Automated picture generation z-buffer Illustration Visibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Appel A, Rohlf F, Stein A (1979) The haloed line effect for hidden line elimination. Proc ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 13(2):151–157Google Scholar
  2. Chin N, Feiner S (1989) Near real-time shadow generation using BSP trees. Proc ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 23(3):99–106Google Scholar
  3. Chin N, Feiner S (1992) Fast object-precision shadow generation for area light sources using BSP trees. Proc Symp Interactive 3D Graphics. Special Issue on 1992 Symp on Interactive 3D, Comput Graph, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  4. Crow F (1977) Shadow algorithms for computer graphics. Proc ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 11(3):242–248Google Scholar
  5. Culbert C (1991) CLIPS reference manual (Version 5.0). NASA Johnson Space Center, Information Systems Directorate, Software Technology Branch, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  6. Dooley D, Cohen M (1990a) Automatic illustration of 3D geometric models: lines. Proc Symp Interactive 3D Graphics. Comput Graphics 24(2):77–82Google Scholar
  7. Dooley D, Cohen M (1990b) Automatic illustration of 3D geometric models: surfaces. Proc Visualization, pp 307–314Google Scholar
  8. Feiner S, McKeown K (1990) Coordinating text and graphics in explanation generation. Proc AAAI, pp 442–449Google Scholar
  9. Feiner S, McKeown K (1991) Automating the generation of coordinated multimedia explanations. IEEE Comput 24(10):33–41Google Scholar
  10. Kamada T, Kawai S (1987) An enhanced treatment of hidden lines. ACM Trans Graph 6(4):308–323Google Scholar
  11. Kamada T, Kawai S (1988) Advanced graphics for visualization of shielding relations. Comput Vision, Graph, Image Process 43(3):294–312Google Scholar
  12. Karp P, Feiner S (1990) Issues in the automated generation of animated presentations. Proc Graph Interface, pp 39–48Google Scholar
  13. Martin J (1989) High tech illustration. North Light Books, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  14. Naylor B (1990) SCULPT: an interactive solid modeling tool. Proc Graph Interface, pp 138–148Google Scholar
  15. Seligmann D, Feiner S (1989) Specifying composite illustrations with communicative goals. Proc ACM SIGGRAPH Symp on User Interface Software and Technology, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  16. Seligmann D, Feiner S (1991) Automated generation of intentbased 3D illustrations. Proc ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graphics 25(4):123–132Google Scholar
  17. Saito T, Takahashi T (1990) Comprehensible rendering of 3-D shapes. Proc ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 24(4):197–206Google Scholar
  18. Thomas TA (1968) Technical illustration (2nd ed). McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Thibault W, Naylor B (1987) Set operations on polyhedra using binary space partitioning trees. Proc ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 21(4):153–162Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven K. Feiner
    • 1
  • Dorée Duncan Seligmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations