Shape-from-Shading for Highlighted Surfaces

  • Hossein Ragheb
  • Edwin R. Hancock
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2396)

Abstract

One of the problems that hinders the application of conventional methods for shape-from-shading to the analysis of shiny objects is the presence of local highlights. The first of these are specularities which appear at locations on the viewed object where the local surface normal is the bisector of the light source and viewing directions. Highlights also occur at the occluding limb of the object where roughness results in backscattering from microfacets which protrude above the surface. In this paper, we consider how to subtract both types of highlight from shiny surfaces in order to improve the quality of surface normal information recoverable using shape-from-shading.

Keywords

Surface Normal Roughness Parameter Photometric Stereo Specular Surface Posterior Mean 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    P. Beckmann and A. Spizzochino, The Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves from Rough Surfaces, Pergamon, New York, 1963.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Blake and H. Bulthoff, “Shape from Specularities: computation and psy-chophysics,” Phil Trans R. Soc. Lond. B, Vol. 331, pp. 237–252, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Dana, S. Nayar, B. Van Ginneken, J. Koenderink, “Reflectance and Texture of Real-World Surfaces,” CVPR, pp. 151–157, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Healey and T. Binford “Local shape from specularity” ICCV, pp. 151–160, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. K. P. Horn and M. J. Brooks, “The Variational Approach to Shape from Shading,” CVGIP, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 174–208, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. C. J. Kuo and K. M. Lee, “Shape from Shading With a Generalized Reflectance Map Model,” CVIU, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 143–160, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Lin and S. W. Lee, “Estimation of Diffuse and Specular Appearance,” ICCV, pp. 855–860, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Magda, D. Kriegman, T. Zickler and P. Belhumeur, “Beyond Lambert: Reconstructing Surfaces with Arbitrary BRDFs,” ICCV, Vol. 2, pp. 391–399, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. K. Nayar, K. Ikeuchi and T. Kanade, “Surface Reflection: Physical and Geometrical Perspectives,” PAMI, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 611–634, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. K. Nayar, X. Fang and T. Boult, “Removal of specularities using color and polarization,” CVPR, pp. 583–590, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Oren and S. K. Nayar, “Generalization of the Lambertian Model and Implications for Machine Vision,” IJCV, vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 227–251, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Ragheb, and E. R. Hancock, “Separating Lambertian and Specular Reflectance Components using Iterated Conditional Modes,” BMVC, pp. 541–552, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. D. Tagare and R. J. P. deFigueiredo, “A Theory of Photometric Stereo for a Class of Diffuse Non-Lambertian Surfaces,” PAMI, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 133–151, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Torrance and E. Sparrow, “Theory for Off-Specular Reflection from Roughened Surfaces,” JOSA, Vol. 57, pp. 1105–1114, 1967.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. B. Wolff, “On The Relative Brightness of Specular and Diffuse Reflection,” CVPR, pp. 369–376, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. L. Worthington and E. R. Hancock, “New Constraints on Data-closeness and Needle-map consistency for SFS,” PAMI, Vol. 21, No. 11, pp. 1250–1267, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hossein Ragheb
    • 1
  • Edwin R. Hancock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkUK

Personalised recommendations