spatially immersive visualization systems (an update)
DESCRIPTION
Spatially Immersive Visualization Systems (an update). Prof. Frederic I. Parke Visualization Sciences Texas A&M University. Project History. ~1990 Air Force project @ NYIT ~1998 current concept (w/Ergun) 2000 CRIC funding (~$5k) 2002 TITF funding ($165k) 2005 NSF MRI funding ($500k). - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 1
Spatially Immersive Visualization Systems
(an update)
Prof. Frederic I. ParkeVisualization Sciences
Texas A&M University
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 2
Project History
~1990 Air Force project @ NYIT ~1998 current concept (w/Ergun) 2000 CRIC funding (~$5k) 2002 TITF funding ($165k) 2005 NSF MRI funding ($500k)
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 3
Spatially Immersive Systems
Multiple images projected on surrounding surfaces
Often use stereo images – (active) Sequential images– (passive) Dual stereo images
Provide interaction modes May use position tracking
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 4
Example -‘Cave’ Systems
up to 6 surfaces of a small room or cubical environment
typically systems use only 3 or 4 walls
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 5
Immersive Environments
Major Components
– the computational “fabric”
– the display “surfaces”
– user interaction and tracking
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 6
Visual Computing Clusters
Extended Cluster Concept Use ‘visual’ computing nodes Each computational node has a
graphics processor Each node drives a small ‘facet’ of the
total display surface
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 7
Related Prior Work
Tiled Displays/PowerWalls– Princeton– Argonne National Lab– UNC-CH
Multi-Graphics Project– Stanford
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 8
What’s the ‘Ideal’ Display Surface?
Is probably task specific One concept is a seamless surrounding
sphere with high resolution wrap around dynamic images, high update rate, and high complexity modeled environments
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 9
Display Geometries
We want better geometric approximations
to the ‘ideal’ sphere
The CAVE is a poor approximation
A number of polyhedron configurations are better
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 10
Polyhedron Display Systems
Multiple display facets Each facet driven from one (or two)
visual computing node Low cost per facet High aggregate performance High aggregate resolution
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 11
Our configuration of interesta 24 facet polyhedron
Trapezoidal Icositetrahedra
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 12
24 Facet polyhedron as approximation to a sphere
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 13
24 Facet projector placement
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 14
Simulated cross-sectional view of a
5 meter 24 facet display environment
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 15
Another possible configurationa 60 faceted polyhedra
Pentagonal Hexcontahedra
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 16
Our objectives
Useful and effective Integration into ‘workflows’ ‘Low’ cost Commodity components Reasonable performance
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 17
Challenges
Software Development/Integration Distributed Data Management Workflow Integration Display Synchronization / Stereo Display Physical Structure/Environment Suitable Projection Systems Display Calibration
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 18
Stereo Display
Passive anaglyphic – red /cyan (one proj)
polarization (two projectors)
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 19
Physical Structures
Screen frame designMinimal ‘seams’
Projector placementOptical foldingProjector mountsHeat ‘ripples’
Screen materialsOptical properties
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 20
Image Compensation
Geometric correction– off axis & projector distortion
– ‘Image stability’
– explored several approaches Intensity / color correction
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 21
The Problem
Image alignment on individual projectorsWe Want… We Get…
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 22
Basic Approach
Compute the correct image Use as texture on a poly mesh Pre-distort mesh to compensate for
geometric projection distortion
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 23
GPU based solutions
Instead of relying on OpenGL default texturing, control the warping through the GPU
Create a 2D displacement texture Access the displacement texture to get
an offset, then access the image with the UV coordinates and the offset
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 24
GPU based extensions
Color correctionEasy to hue/color shift texel values
Brightness correctionEasy to adjust the brightness of texelsIntensity falloff correction by altering
brightness based on a grayscale calibration image
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 25
Structural Prototypes
We have developed a series of structural prototypes
We learned something from each!
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 26
3/10 scale physical model using 24 identical facets
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 27
3/10 ScalePrototype
Architecture Building Atrium
~ 5’ diameter
(Mid – 2001)
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 28
¾ Scale Presentation Prototype
Completed May 2002
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 29
Half of 24 facet structural frame
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 30
Structure with projected images
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 31
Series of Development Systems
3 screen prototypes3/4 scale and full scale
5 screen prototype (full scale)
7 screen prototype (1/2 scale)(Currently in development)
Software (two generations)‘3Dengine’ and ‘Guppy3D’
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 32
Rear view of 4 screen structure section
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 33
Initial 3 facet development system in use
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 34
Alternative 3 Facet System
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 35
Operational 5 Facet System
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 36
Next – Two 7 Facet Systems
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 37
Budget for each 7 Facet System
7 x $17.75k = ~$124k plus ~ $36k for a control/interface
computer, interaction devices, networking, sound, installation, etc…
Total ~ $160k
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 38
Per Facet Budget (2005)
For each facet ~ $17.75k– 2 Visual computing nodes ~ $9k– 2 Display projectors ~ $3.5k– Screen and structure ~$3.8k– Misc. components ~$1.45k
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 39
Application Projects
Architecture ‘Ranch’ Montezuma Castle A
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 40
Architecture ‘Ranch’
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 41
Architecture ‘Ranch’ on 3 facet system
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 42
Architecture Ranch on the 5 facet system
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 43
Montezuma Castle A
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 44
Montezuma Castle A
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 45
Montezuma Castle A
5/5/2006 Visualization Sciences, Texas A&M University 46