skip to main content
research-article

Interpolatory point set surfaces—convexity and Hermite data

Published:13 May 2009Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Point set surfaces define a (typically) manifold surface from a set of scattered points. The definition involves weighted centroids and a gradient field. The data points are interpolated if singular weight functions are used to define the centroids. While this way of deriving an interpolatory scheme appears natural, we show that it has two deficiencies: Convexity of the input is not preserved and the extension to Hermite data is numerically unstable. We present a generalization of the standard scheme that we call Hermite point set surface. It allows interpolating, given normal constraints in a stable way. It also yields an intuitive parameter for shape control and preserves convexity in most situations. The analysis of derivatives also leads to a more natural way to define normals, in case they are not supplied with the point data. We conclude by comparing to similar surface definitions.

References

  1. Adamson, A. and Alexa, M. 2004. Approximating bounded, non-orientable surfaces from points. In Proceedings of the Shape Modeling International Conference, F. Giannini and A. Pasko, Eds. IEEE Computer Society, 243--252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Adamson, A. and Alexa, M. 2005. Point-Sampled cell complexes. ACM Trans. Comput. Graph. 25, 3, 671--680. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Alexa, M. and Adamson, A. 2004. On normals and projection operators for surfaces defined by point sets. In Proceedings of the Eurographics Symposium on Point-based Graphics, M. Alexa, et al., Eds. Eurographics, 149--156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Alexa, M., Behr, J., Cohen-Or, D., Fleishman, S., Levin, D., and Silva, C. T. 2003. Computing and rendering point set surfaces. IEEE Trans. Comput. Graph. and Visualization 9, 1, 3--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Amenta, N. and Kil, Y. 2004a. The domain of a point set surface. In Proceedings of the Eurographics/IEEE Symposium on Point-Based Graphics. Eurographics, 139--148. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Amenta, N. and Kil, Y. J. 2004b. Defining point set surfaces. ACM Trans. Graph. 23, 3, 264--270. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Boissonnat, J.-D. and Cazals, F. 2000. Smooth shape reconstruction via natural neighbor interpolation of distance functions. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry (SCG-00). ACM Press, New York, 223--232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Bremer, P.-T. and Hart, J. C. 2005. A sampling theorem for mls surfaces. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Point-Based Graphics. Eurographics, 47--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Dey, T. K., Goswami, S., and Sun, J. 2005. Extremal surface based projections converge and reconstruct with isotopy. Tech. rep. OSU-CISRC-05-TR25, Stanford University. http://www.stanford.edu/~sunjian.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Dey, T. K. and Sun, J. 2005. An adaptive MLS surface for reconstruction with guarantees. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Geometry Processing. Eurographics, 43--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Kobbelt, L. and Botsch, M. 2004. A survey of point-based techniques in computer graphics. Comput. Graph. 28, 6, 801--814. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Kolluri, R. 2005. Provably good moving least squares. In Proceedings of the ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. SIAM, 1008--1018. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Levin, D. 1998. The approximation power of moving least-squares. Math. Comput. 67, 224, 1517--1531. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Levin, D. 2003. Mesh-Independent surface interpolation. In Geometric Modeling for Data Visualization. Springer, 37--49.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Pauly, M., Kaiser, R., Kobbelt, L., and Gross, M. 2003. Shape modeling with point-sampled geometry. ACM Trans. Graph. 22, 3, 641--650. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Shen, C., O'Brien, J. F., and Shewchuk, J. R. 2004. Interpolating and approximating implicit surfaces from polygon soup. ACM Trans. Graph. 23, 3, 896--904. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Wald, I. and Seidel, H.-P. 2005. Interactive ray tracing of point based models. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Point-Based Graphics. Eurographics, 9--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Wendland, H. 1995. Piecewise polynomial, positive definite and compactly supported radial functions of minimal degree. Adv. Comput. Math. 4, 4, 389--396.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Zwicker, M., Pauly, M., Knoll, O., and Gross, M. 2002. Pointshop 3d: An interactive system for point-based surface editing. ACM Trans. Graph. 21, 3, 322--329. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Interpolatory point set surfaces—convexity and Hermite data

        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 28, Issue 2
          April 2009
          129 pages
          ISSN:0730-0301
          EISSN:1557-7368
          DOI:10.1145/1516522
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2009 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: 13 May 2009
          • Accepted: 1 February 2009
          • Revised: 1 November 2007
          • Received: 1 October 2006
          Published in tog Volume 28, Issue 2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader