ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Interpolatory point set surfaces—convexity and Hermite data
Full text PdfPdf (9.87 MB)
Source
ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) archive
Volume 28 ,  Issue 2  (April 2009) table of contents
Article No. 20  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISSN:0730-0301
Authors
Marc Alexa  TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Anders Adamson
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 44,   Downloads (12 Months): 379,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1516522.1516531
What is a DOI?

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

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
2
 
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.
 
4
 
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.
6
7
 
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.
 
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.
 
10
 
11
Kobbelt, L. and Botsch, M. 2004. A survey of point-based techniques in computer graphics. Comput. Graph. 28, 6, 801--814.
 
12
 
13
 
14
Levin, D. 2003. Mesh-Independent surface interpolation. In Geometric Modeling for Data Visualization. Springer, 37--49.
15
16
 
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.
 
18
Wendland, H. 1995. Piecewise polynomial, positive definite and compactly supported radial functions of minimal degree. Adv. Comput. Math. 4, 4, 389--396.
19

Collaborative Colleagues:
Marc Alexa: colleagues
Anders Adamson: colleagues