breaking the frame
DESCRIPTION
Breaking the Frame. David Luebke University of Virginia. Frameless Rendering. Technique: [Bishop et al. 1994 Implementation & Video [Parker et al. 1999] Codec: huffYUV [ dll ] [ inf ]. Overview: What We’re Doing. Spatio-temporally adaptive frameless sampling - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Breaking the Frame
David LuebkeUniversity of Virginia
Graphics Hardware 2005: Evolution or Revolution?
Frameless Rendering
Technique: [Bishop et al. 1994Implementation & Video [Parker et al. 1999]Codec: huffYUV [dll] [inf]
Graphics Hardware 2005: Evolution or Revolution?
Overview: What We’re Doing
• Spatio-temporally adaptive frameless sampling– Prioritize sampling towards regions of greater change
• Spatial change: edges• Temporal change: motion
• Reconstruction of resulting samples – A “deep buffer” stores samples in time & space– Reconstruct image at front edge of time: apply filter kernel
with varying width in space and time
Graphics Hardware 2005: Evolution or Revolution?
• Static scenes/regions– Old samples useful, use them to sharpen/antialias – Temporal width should dominate
• Dynamic scenes/regions– New samples useful, old samples stale– Emphasize new samples even if image is less sharp– Spatial width should dominate
Temporally Adaptive Reconstruction
“Traditional” frameless
Adaptive frameless
Adaptive Frameless Rendering [Dayal et al., EGSR05]
Video Preview
Graphics Hardware 2005: Evolution or Revolution?
Summary
• Better than traditional frameless rendering • Better than traditional framed rendering!
– Frameless = ungridded temporal sampling lower latency
– Samples when and where needed better images at low sampling rates
– Antialiases static regions by incorporating old samples lower error even than 10x sampling rate
• Still in simulation
Discussion: Asynchronous Graphics
• What if reconstruction was part of display?– Imagine display as systolic array of pixels– Input: stream of samples, not sequence of images
• Enables asynchronous parallel graphics– Parallel graphics frameworks share common constraint: must
ultimately combine all results into a single frame– Breaking the frame also breaks underlying assumption and
constraint in parallel graphics!• See SIGGRAPH Panel “The Ultimate Display”
– Punchline: Refreshing every pixel every time = Bad Idea
The End
Acknowledgements:OpenRT Interactive Raytracing ProjectBART ray tracing benchmarkStanford 3D Scanning RepositoryNational Science Foundation awards 0092973, 0093172, and 0112937
Graphics Hardware 2005: Evolution or Revolution?
Sampler Reconstructor
Controller
DeepBuffer
RayTracer
AdaptiveFilter Bank
DeepBuffer
samplessamples
varia
tion,
gra
dien
ts imag
elo
catio
ns
sample
s
tiling, view,gradients
Sampler Reconstructor
Controller
DeepBuffer
RayTracer
AdaptiveFilter Bank
DeepBuffer
samplessamples
varia
tion,
gra
dien
ts imag
elo
catio
ns
sample
s
tiling, view,gradients
System overview
static scenedynamic scene
Temporally Adaptive Reconstruction
static scenedynamic scene
Comparison: Traditional Frameless
Graphics Hardware 2005: Evolution or Revolution?
Discussion: Coherence
• What about coherence?– Frameless rendering implicitly gives up spatial
coherence, which is big win for fast ray tracers• Partially ameliorate with tiled structure, gradient rays• Might need to organize “random” samples around memory
– But we gain temporal coherence!• Fewer samples: needn’t resample everywhere every frame• Can we design a parallel architecture around this
temporal coherence?
Graphics Hardware 2005: Evolution or Revolution?
Comparison: Render Cache
• Probably most closely related approach– Sampling based on (framed) priority image
• Biased toward old & undersampled regions– Killing off old samples also biases towards age– Semantic “hints” age some samples quicker (e.g. specular surfaces)– Temporal response by aging samples if new one detects variance
• Error diffusion dither to place samples within image
– Image-space reconstruction via (non-adaptive) filtering• 7x7 “prefilter” followed by 3x3 Gaussian • Depth culling helps with occlusions
– See [Walter et al 1999]
Graphics Hardware 2005: Evolution or Revolution?
Evaluation: Mostly DynamicInteractive Animation 400k samples/sec
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800Frame#
RM
S e
rro
r
400k Full Res
400k 60Hz
traditional frameless
Full Res 60Hz
adaptive no reprojections
adaptive
Graphics Hardware 2005: Evolution or Revolution?
Evaluation: Mostly Static
Toycar Animation 400k samples/sec
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 50 100 150 200
#Frames
RM
S e
rro
r