Advertisement

Large Scale Spatial Augmented Reality for Design and Prototyping

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Spatial Augmented Reality allows the appearance of physical objects to be transformed using projected light. Computer controlled light projection systems have become readily available and cost effective for both commercial and personal use. This chapter explores how large Spatial Augmented Reality systems can be applied to enhanced design mock-ups. Unlike traditional appearance altering techniques such as paints and inks, computer controlled projected light can change the color of a prototype at the touch of a button allowing many different appearances to be evaluated. We present the customized physical-virtual tools we have developed such as our hand held virtual spray painting tool that allows designers to create many customized appearances using only projected light. Finally, we also discuss design parameters of building dedicated projection environments including room layout, hardware selection and interaction considerations.

Keywords

Augmented Reality Physical Object Control Panel Fiducial Marker Industrial Design 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Akaoka, E., Vertegaal, R.: DisplayObjects: prototyping functional physical interfaces on 3D styrofoam, paper or cardboard models. In: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Boston, Massachusetts (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandyopadhyay, D., Raskar, R., Fuchs, H.: Dynamic shader lamps: Painting on movable objects. In: IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 207–216 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bimber, O., Coriand, F., Kleppe, A., Bruns, E., Zollmann, S., Langlotz, T.: Superimposing pictorial artwork with projected imagery. Multimedia, IEEE 12(1), 16–26 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bimber, O., Emmerling, A.: Multifocal projection: a multiprojector technique for increasing focal depth. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on 12(4), 658–667 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bimber, O., Frohlich, B., Schmalsteig, D., Encarnacao, L.M.: The virtual showcase. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE 21(6), 48–55 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cruz-Neira, C., Sandin, D.J., DeFanti, T.A.: Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: the design and implementation of the CAVE. In: Proceedings of the 20th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pp. 135–142. ACM, Anaheim, CA (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fitzmaurice, G.W., Ishii, H., Buxton, W.A.S.: Bricks: Laying the foundations for graspable user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 442–449. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Denver, Colorado, United States (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hare, J., Gill, S., Loudon, G., Ramduny-Ellis, D., Dix, A.: Physical fidelity: Exploring the importance of physicality on Physical-Digital conceptual prototyping. In: Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT 2009, pp. 217–230 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoffman, H., Hollander, A., Schroder, K., Rousseau, S., Furness, T.: Physically touching and tasting virtual objects enhances the realism of virtual experiences. Virtual Reality 3(4), 226–234 (1998). 10.1007/BF01408703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kato, H., Billinghurst, M.: Marker tracking and HMD calibration for a Video-Based augmented reality conferencing system. In: Augmented Reality, International Workshop on, vol. 0, p. 85. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee, J.C., Dietz, P.H., Maynes-Aminzade, D., Raskar, R., Hudson, S.E.: Automatic projector calibration with embedded light sensors. In: Proceedings of the 17th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pp. 123–126. ACM, Santa Fe, NM, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marner, M.R., Thomas, B.H.: Augmented foam sculpting for capturing 3D models. In: IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces. Waltham Massachusetts, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marner, M.R., Thomas, B.H.: Tool virtualization and spatial augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Reality and Telexistence. Adelaide, South Australia (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marner, M.R., Thomas, B.H., Sandor, C.: Physical-Virtual tools for spatial augmented reality user interfaces. In: International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality. Orlando, Florida (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Wallace, K.: Engineering design: A systematic approach. Springer (1984)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pinhanez, C.: The everywhere displays projector: A device to create ubiquitous graphical interfaces. In: Ubicomp 2001: Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 315–331 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Piper, B., Ishii, H.: CADcast: a method for projecting spatially referenced procedural instructions. Tech. rep., MIT Media Lab (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Piper, B., Ratti, C., Ishii, H.: Illuminating clay: a 3-D tangible interface for landscape analysis. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves, pp. 355–362. ACM, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pugh, S.: Total Design: integrated methods for successful product engineering. Addison-Wesley (1991)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raskar, R., Beardsley, P., van Baar, J., Wang, Y., Dietz, P., Lee, J., Leigh, D., Willwacher, T.: RFIG lamps: interacting with a self-describing world via photosensing wireless tags and projectors. ACM Trans. Graph. 23(3), 406–415 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raskar, R., Low, K.: Interacting with spatially augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Computer graphics, virtual reality and visualisation, pp. 101–108. ACM, Camps Bay, Cape Town, South Africa (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raskar, R., Low, K.: Blending multiple views. In: Proceedings of the 10th Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications, p. 145. IEEE Computer Society (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raskar, R., Welch, G., Cutts, M., Lake, A., Stesin, L., Fuchs, H.: The office of the future: A unified approach to Image-Based modeling and spatially immersive displays. In: SIGGRAPH ’98 (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raskar, R., Welch, G., Low, K., Bandyopadhyay, D.: Shader lamps: Animating real objects with Image-Based illumination. In: Rendering Techniques 2001: Proceedings of the Eurographics, pp. 89–102 (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raskar, R., Ziegler, R., Willwacher, T.: Cartoon dioramas in motion. In: NPAR ’02: Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on Non-photorealistic animation and rendering, p. 7ff. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2002). InproceedingsGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rekimoto, J., Saitoh, M.: Augmented surfaces: a spatially continuous work space for hybrid computing environments. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit, pp. 378–385. ACM, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rost, R.J., Licea-Kane, B., Ginsburg, D., Kessenich, J.M., Lichtenbelt, B., Malan, H., Weiblen, M.: OpenGL Shading Language, 3 edn. Addison-Wesley Professional (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schwerdtfeger, B., Pustka, D., Hofhauser, A., Klinker, G.: Using laser projectors for augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology, pp. 134–137. ACM, Bordeaux, France (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smith, R.T., Marner, M.R., Thomas, B.: Adaptive color marker for SAR environments. In: Poster Sessions: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (to appear). Singapore (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suganuma, A., Ogata, Y., Shimada, A., Arita, D., ichiro Taniguchi, R.: Billiard instruction system for beginners with a projector-camera system. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, pp. 3–8. ACM, Yokohama, Japan (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sutherland, I.E.: The ultimate display. In: Proceedings of the IFIP Congress, pp. 506–508 (1965)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Szalavri, Z., Gervautz, M.: The personal interaction panel - a two handed interface for augmented reality. pp. 335–346. Budapest, Hungary (1997)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ullmer, B., Ishii, H.: The metaDESK: models and prototypes for tangible user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pp. 223–232. ACM, Banff, Alberta, Canada (1997)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Underkoffler, J., Ishii, H.: Urp: a luminous-tangible workbench for urban planning and design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit, pp. 386–393. ACM, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States (1999)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Verlinden, J., de Smit, A., Peeters, A., van Gelderen, M.: Development of a flexible augmented prototyping system. Journal of WSCG (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ware, C., Rose, J.: Rotating virtual objects with real handles. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 6(2), 162–180 (1999). 319102Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zaeh, M., Vogl, W.: Interactive laser-projection for programming industrial robots. In: Mixed and Augmented Reality, 2006. ISMAR 2006. IEEE/ACM International Symposium on, pp. 125–128 (2006). DOI 10.1109/ISMAR.2006.297803Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wearable Computer LaboratoryUniversity of South AustraliaMawson LakesAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options