Advertisement

The Visual Computer

, Volume 11, Issue 6, pp 319–338 | Cite as

Data-parallel, volumerendering algorithms

  • Roni Yagel
  • Raghu Machiraju
Original Articles

Abstract

In this presentation, we consider the image-composition scheme for parallel volume rendering in which each processor is assigned a portion of the volume. A processor renders its data by using any existing volume-rendering algorithm. We describe one such parallel algorithm that also takes advantage of vector-processing capabilities. The resulting images from all processors are then combined (composited) in visibility order to form the final image. The major advantage of this approach is that, as viewing and shading parameters change, only 2D partial images, and not 3D volume data, are communicated among processors. Through experimental results and performance analysis, we show that our parallel algorithm is amenable to extremely efficient implementations on distributed memory, multiple instruction-multiple data (MIMD), vector-processor architectures. This algorithm is also very suitable for hardware implementation based on image composition architectures. It supports various volume-rendering algorithms, and it can be extended to provide load-balanced execution.

Key words

Parallel volume rendering Data-parallel approach Combining Splatting Z-buffer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barnett M, Littlefield R, Payne DG, van de Geijn R, Global combine on mesh architectures with wormhole routing. Proceedings of the International Parallel Processing Symposium, pp 156–162Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cameron GG, Underill PE (1987) Rendering volumetric medical image data on a SIMD architecture computer. SPIE Visualization in Biomedical Computing 1808:137–142Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Corrie B, Mackerras P (1993) Data coherence in volume rendering algorithm. Proceedings of the 1993 Parallel Rendering Symposium, IEEE CS Press, San Jose, Calif., pp 23–26Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elvins TT (1992) Volume rendering on a distributed memory parallel computer. Proceedings of Visualization 92, Boston MA, IEEE CS Press, New York, pp 93–98Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levoy, M (1988) Display of surfaces from volume data. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 8:29–37Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lo VM, Rajopadhye S, Gupta G (1991) Mapping divide and conquer algorithms to parallel architectures. Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel Processing 3:128–135Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maa KL, Painter JS, Hansen CD, Krogh MF (1993) A data distributed, parallel algorithm for ray-trace volume rendering. Proceedings of the 1993 Parallel Rendering Symposium, San Jose, Calif., IEEE CS Press, New York, pp 15–22Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Machiraju R, Yagel R (1993) Efficient feed-forward volume rendering techniques for vector and parallel processors. Proceedings of SUPERCOMPUTING '93, Portland, Ore. IEEE CS Press, New York, pp 699–708Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Molnar, S, Eyles J, Poulton J (1992) Pixel low: high-speed rendering using image composition. Comput Graph 26:231–240Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Montani C, Perego R, Scopigno R (1992) Parallel volume visualization on a hypercube architecture. Proceedings of 1992 Workshop on Volume Visualization, Boston, Mass., IEEE CS Press, New York, pp 9–15Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neumann U (1983) Volume reconstruction and parallel rendering algorithms: a comparative analysis. Ph. D Thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill N.CGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nieh J, Levoy M (1992) Volume rendering on scalable shared-memory MIMD architecture. Proceedings of the 1992 Workshop on Volume Visualization, Boston Mass., IEEE CS Pess, New York, pp 17–22Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Porter T, Duff T (1984) Compositing digital images. Compu Graph 18:253–259Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schroder P, Salem JB (1991) Fast rotation of volume data on data parallel architecture. proceedings of Visualization '91, San Diego, Calif., pp 50–57Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schroder P, Krueger W (1993) Data parallel volume rendering algorithm for interactive visualization. Visal Comput 9:405–416Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Westover L (1990) Footprint evaluation for volume rendering. Compu Graphics 4:367–376Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yagel R, Cohen D, Kaufman A (1992) Normal estimation in 3D discrete space. Visual Compu 8:278–291Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yagel R (1993) Volume viewing:state of the art survey. SIGGRAPH course notes, 41:109–129Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roni Yagel
    • 1
  • Raghu Machiraju
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations