skip to main content
research-article

Foveated 3D graphics

Published:01 November 2012Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We exploit the falloff of acuity in the visual periphery to accelerate graphics computation by a factor of 5-6 on a desktop HD display (1920x1080). Our method tracks the user's gaze point and renders three image layers around it at progressively higher angular size but lower sampling rate. The three layers are then magnified to display resolution and smoothly composited. We develop a general and efficient antialiasing algorithm easily retrofitted into existing graphics code to minimize "twinkling" artifacts in the lower-resolution layers. A standard psychophysical model for acuity falloff assumes that minimum detectable angular size increases linearly as a function of eccentricity. Given the slope characterizing this falloff, we automatically compute layer sizes and sampling rates. The result looks like a full-resolution image but reduces the number of pixels shaded by a factor of 10-15.

We performed a user study to validate these results. It identifies two levels of foveation quality: a more conservative one in which users reported foveated rendering quality as equivalent to or better than non-foveated when directly shown both, and a more aggressive one in which users were unable to correctly label as increasing or decreasing a short quality progression relative to a high-quality foveated reference. Based on this user study, we obtain a slope value for the model of 1.32-1.65 arc minutes per degree of eccentricity. This allows us to predict two future advantages of foveated rendering: (1) bigger savings with larger, sharper displays than exist currently (e.g. 100 times speedup at a field of view of 70° and resolution matching foveal acuity), and (2) a roughly linear (rather than quadratic or worse) increase in rendering cost with increasing display field of view, for planar displays at a constant sharpness.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Baudisch, P., DeCarlo, D., Duchowski, A. T., and Geisler, W. S. 2003. Focusing on the essential: considering attention in display design. Commun. ACM 46 (March), 60--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bergström, P. 2003. Eye-movement Controlled Image Coding. PhD thesis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng, I. 2003. Foveated 3D model simplification. In Proceedings, Signal Processing and its Applications, 241--244.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Colenbrander, A. 2001. Vision and vision loss. In Duane's Clinical Opthalmology. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, ch. 51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook, R. L., Porter, T., and Carpenter, L. 1984. Distributed ray tracing. SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 18 (January), 137--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Duchowski, A. T., and Çöltekin, A. 2007. Foveated gaze-coningent displays for periperal LOD management, 3D visualization, and stereo imaging. ACM Trans. on Multimedia, Communications and Applications 3, 4 (Dec.). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Duchowski, A. T. 2002. A breadth-first survey of eye tracking applications. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 34, 455--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Funkhouser, T., and Sequin, C. 1993. Adaptive display algorithm for interactive frame rates during visualization of complex virtual environments. In Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH '93 Proceedings), vol. 27, 247--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Geisler, W. S., and Perry, J. S. 2002. Real-time simulation of arbitrary visual fields. In Proceedings of the symposum on eye tracking research applications ETRA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Guenter, B. 1994. Motion compensated noise reduction. Tech. rep., Microsoft Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Han, C., Sun, B., Ramamoorthi, R., and Grinspun, E. 2007. Frequency domain normal map filtering. ACM Trans. Graph. 26 (July). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Horvitz, E., and Lengyel, J. 1997. Perception, attention, and resources: a decision-theoretic approach to graphics rendering. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, UAI'97, 238--249. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Levoy, M., and Whitaker, R. 1989. Gaze-directed volume rendering. Tech. rep., University of North Carolina.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Loschky, L. C., and McConkie, G. W. 2000. User performance with gaze contingent multiresolutional displays. In Proceedings of the 2000 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications, ETRA '00, 97--103. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Luebke, D., Halen, B., Newfield, D., and Watson, B. 2000. Perceptually driven simplification using gaze-directed rendering. Tech. rep., University of Virginia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Murphy, H., and Duchowski, A. T. 2001. Gaze-contingent level of detail rendering. In Eurographics 2001 (Short Presentations).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Murphy, H. A., and Duchowski, A. T. 2007. Hybrid image/model based gaze-contingent rendering. Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Myszkowski, K. 2002. Perception-based global illumination, rendering, and animation techniques. In SCCG '02: Proceedings of the 18th Spring Conference on Computer Graphics, 13--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Nehab, D., Sander, P. V., Lawrence, J. D., Tatarchuk, N., and Isidoro, J. R. 2007. Accelerating real-time shading with reverse reprojection caching. In ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Graphics Hardware, 25--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Ohshima, T., Yamamoto, H., and Tamura, H. 1996. Gaze-directed adaptive rendering for interacting with virtual space. In Proceedings of the 1996 Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium (VRAIS 96), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, VRAIS '96, 103--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Olano, M., and Baker, D. 2010. LEAN mapping. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games, ACM, New York, NY, USA, I3D '10, 181--188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. O'Sullivan, C., Dingliana, J., and Howlett, S. 2002. Gaze-contingent algorithms for interactive graphics. In The Mind's Eyes: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research, J. Hyönä, R. Radach, and H. Deubel, Eds. Elsevier Science, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ramanarayanan, G., Ferwerda, J., Walter, B., and Bala, K. 2007. Visual equivalence: towards a new standard for image fidelity. ACM Trans. Graph. 26 (July). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Reddy, M. 1998. Specification and evaluation of level of detail selection criteria. Virtual Reality 3, 2, 132--143.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Reddy, M. 2001. Perceptually optimized 3D graphics. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE 21, 5 (sep/oct), 68--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Reingold, E., Loschky, L. C., McConkie, G. W., and Stampe, D. M. 2003. Gaze-contingent multiresolution displays: an integrative review. Human Factors 45, 2, 307--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Strasburger, H., Rentschler, I., and Jüttner, M. 2011. Peripheral vision and pattern recognition: a review. Journal of Vision 11, 5, 1--82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Thibos, L. N. 1989. Image processing by the human eye. In Visual Communications and Image Processing IV, W. A. Pearlman, Ed., Proc. SPIE 1199, 1148--1153.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Virsu, V., and Romano, J. 1979. Visual resolution, contrast sensitivity, and the cortical magnification factor. Experimental Brain Research 37, 475--494.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Watson, B., Walker, N., Hodges, L. F., and Worden, A. 1997. Managing level of detail through peripheral degradation: effects on search performance with a head-mounted display. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 4 (December), 323--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Watson, B., Walker, N., and Hodges, L. F. 2004. Supra-threshold control of peripheral LOD. ACM Trans. Graph. 23 (Aug.), 750--759. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Weaver, K. A. 2007. Design and evaluation of a perceptually adaptive rendering system for immersive virtual reality environments. Master's thesis, Iowa State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Weymouth, F. W. 1958. Visual sensory units and the minimum angle of resolution. American Journal of Opthalmology 46, 102--113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Yee, H., Pattanaik, S., and Greenberg, D. P. 2001. Spatiotemporal sensitivity and visual attention for efficient rendering of dynamic environments. ACM Trans. Graph. 20 (January), 39--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Foveated 3D graphics

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image ACM Transactions on Graphics
            ACM Transactions on Graphics  Volume 31, Issue 6
            November 2012
            794 pages
            ISSN:0730-0301
            EISSN:1557-7368
            DOI:10.1145/2366145
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2012 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 1 November 2012
            Published in tog Volume 31, Issue 6

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader