A comparison of material and illumination discrimination performance for real rough, real smooth and computer generated smooth spheres

ABSTRACT

The appearance of objects in natural scenes is determined by their reflectance, their 3D texture, their shape and by the nature of the illumination. Results of previous experiments using computer generated images of spheres with different reflectance modes and under different canonical illuminations suggested that perception of reflectance mode and illumination are basically confounded. In the present study we investigate whether the conclusions from the experiments with simplified rendered spheres can be extended to ecologically valid images. We use two sets of photographs of real spheres, the first set is taken from the Dror Database [Dror et al. 2001], with simple reflectance modes but complex natural illumination (e.g. desklamp, lab, foodcourt). The second set is taken from the Utrecht Oranges Database [Pont and Koenderink 2003], with simple canonical illumination but material consisting of both reflectance and 3D texture differences (e.g. orange, golf ball, christmas decoration).We find that, although to a lesser extent, even in images of complex objects, perception of material and illumination are basically confounded. Overall, illumination and material are confounded most when we present rendered spheres that differ only in reflectance mode under simple canonical illumination conditions. Interestingly, adding complex natural illumination containing higher order angular frequencies helps to disambiguate this confound in material judgments, but not in illumination judgments. Most helpful was the addition of 3D texture.

REFERENCES

• 1: E. H. Adelson , A. P. Pentland, The perception of shading and reflectance, Perception as Bayesian inference, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1996
• 2: Adelson, E. H. 2001. On seeing stuff: The perception of materials by humans and machines. In B. E. Rogowitz and T. N. Pappas (Eds.) "Proceedings of the SPIE Vol 4299. Human Vision and Electgronic Imagagin VI" (Pp 1--12).
• 3: Peter N. Belhumeur , David J. Kriegman , Alan L. Yuille, The Bas-Relief Ambiguity, International Journal of Computer Vision, v.35 n.1, p.33-44, Nov. 1999 [doi>10.1023/A:1008154927611]
• 4: Brainard, D. H. 1997. The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision 10, 433--436.
• 5: Kristin J. Dana , Bram van Ginneken , Shree K. Nayar , Jan J. Koenderink, Reflectance and texture of real-world surfaces, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.18 n.1, p.1-34, Jan. 1999 [doi>10.1145/300776.300778]
• 6: Dror, R. O., and Willsky, A. 2004. Statistical characterization of real-world illumination. Journal of Vision 4, 821--837.
• 7: Dror, R. O., Adelson, E. H., and Willsky, A. S. 2001. Estimating surface reflectance properties from images under unknown illumination. In Proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Human Vision and Electronic Imaging, San Jose, CA.
• 8: Fleming, R. W., Dror, R. O., and Adelson, E. H. 2003. Real-world illumination and the perception of surface reflectance properties. Journal of Vision 3, 347--368.
• 9: Gershun, A. 1939. The light field. transl. by p. moon and g. timoshenko. J.Math.Phys. 18(51).
• 10: Bruce Gooch , Amy Gooch, Non-Photorealistic Rendering, A. K. Peters, Ltd., Natick, MA, 2001
• 11: Jan Koenderink , Sylvia Pont, The secret of velvety skin, Machine Vision and Applications, v.14 n.4, p.260-268, September 2003 [doi>10.1007/s00138-002-0089-7]
• 12: Koenderink, J. J., and van Doorn, A. J. 1996. Illuminance texture due to surface mesostructure. JOSA A 13(3), 452--463.
• 13: Lambert, J. H. 1760. Photometria Sive de Mensure de Gradibus Luminis, Colorum et Umbræ.
• 14: Barbara J. Meier, Painterly rendering for animation, Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.477-484, August 1996 [doi>10.1145/237170.237288]
• 15: Oren, M., and Nayar, S. K. 1995. Visual appearance of matte surfaces. Science 267, 1153--1156.
• 16: Pelli, D. G. 1997. The videotoolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision 10, 437--442.
• 17: Pont, S. C., and Koenderink, J. J. 2002. Brdf of specular surfaces with hemispherical pits. JOSA A 19(2), 2456--2466.
• 18: Pont, S. C., and Koenderink, J. J. 2003. The utrecht oranges set. Technical report and database.
• 19: Sylvia C. Pont , Jan J. Koenderink, Reflectance from locally glossy thoroughly pitted surfaces, Computer Vision and Image Understanding, v.98 n.2, p.211-222, May 2005 [doi>10.1016/j.cviu.2004.10.004]
• 20: Pont, S. C., and Te Pas, S. F. 2005. Material-illumination ambiguities and the perception of solid objects. submitted to Perception.
• 21: Torrance, K. E., Sparrow, E. M., and Birkebak, R. C. 1966. Polarization, directional distribution, and off-specular peak phenomena in light reflected from roughened surfaces. JOSA A 56(7), 916--925.
• 22: van Ginneken, B., Stavridi, M., and Koenderink, J. J. 1998. Diffuse and specular reflection from rough surfaces. Applied Optics 37(1), 130--139.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  J. Computer Applications
  J.4 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.3 COMPUTER GRAPHICS
      I.3.7 Three-Dimensional Graphics and Realism
          Subjects: Color, shading, shadowing, and texture

  J. Computer Applications
  J.2 PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING

Keywords:
BRDF, illumination, light field, material, texture