1 / 28

Interactive Rendering using the Render Cache

Interactive Rendering using the Render Cache Bruce Walter, George Drettakis iMAGIS*-GRAVIR/IMAG-INRIA Steven Parker University of Utah *iMAGIS is a joint project of CNRS/INRIA/INPG and UJF Motivation Goal: Interactive rendering Ray tracing Path tracing Motivation High-quality renderers

adamdaniel
Download Presentation

Interactive Rendering using the Render Cache

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Interactive Rendering using the Render Cache Bruce Walter, George Drettakis iMAGIS*-GRAVIR/IMAG-INRIA Steven Parker University of Utah *iMAGIS is a joint project of CNRS/INRIA/INPG and UJF

  2. Motivation • Goal: Interactive rendering Ray tracing Path tracing

  3. Motivation • High-quality renderers • Pixel based • Ray tracing, path tracing, etc. • Wide range of lighting effects • Reflection, refraction, global illumination, etc. • Too slow for interactive use • Many seconds per image • Often used only for final images • Alternate renderers used for interactive editing

  4. Motivation • Interactive rendering • Rapid feedback is paramount • High accuracy is less important • Fast consistent framerate • Eg, > 5 fps • Could use faster renderer • Eg, hardware accelerated scan conversion • Use same renderer • Need to bridge framerate gap

  5. image renderer user application Visual Feedback Loop • Standard visual feedback loop • Entirely synchronous • Framerate is limited by the renderer

  6. image renderer display user application Visual Feedback Loop • Modified visual feedback loop Asynchronous interface

  7. Goals • Independent display process • Works with many (pixel-based) renders • Exploit frame to frame coherence • Reproject pixels from previous frames • Fast consistent framerate • Use simple, fast methods • Concentrate rendering effort • Prioritize pixel’s need for recomputation

  8. Video

  9. Previous Work • Approximate or progressive approaches • Progressive radiosity or ray tracing • Frameless rendering • Reprojection or warping • Image based rendering (IBR) • Ray tracing acceleration

  10. Previous Work • Parallel processing • Multiprocessors or distributed clusters • Intelligent display processes • Post-rendering warp • Holodeck system

  11. Algorithm Overview Displayprocess renderer project Render cache depthcull image interpolate renderer sampling

  12. Image Estimation • Projection • Project cached points onto current image • Camera transform provided by application • Z-buffer • In case multiple points map to a pixel

  13. Image Estimation • Problem: visual artifacts Original view New view

  14. Image Estimation • Depth cull heuristic • Problem: occluded points may be visible • Z-buffering only works within a pixel • Find pixels with locally inconsistent depths • Likely to be from different occluding surfaces Raw projection After depth cull

  15. Image Estimation • Interpolation / smoothing • Problem: small gaps in point data • Interpolate pixel colors • Compute locally-weighted average colors • Currently uses 3x3 neighborhoods Raw projection After depth cull After interpolation

  16. Image Estimation • Results after each stage Projection Depth cull Interpolation

  17. Image Estimation • Problem: visual artifacts • Simple filter can remove many artifacts • Need new points from renderer • Previously invisible areas • Color changes due to non-diffuse shading • Eg,specular highlights • Changes due to user editing • Changes in lighting, geometry, materials

  18. Sampling • Generate priority image • Based on pixel’s need for re-rendering • Priority given to pixels with older points • Render cache stores an age with each point • Empty pixels priority based on local density • Highest priority given to regions without points

  19. Sampling • Choose pixels for rendering • Sampling must be sparse • Relatively few pixels are rendered per frame • Chosen using error-diffusion dither • Concentrates pixels in high priority regions • Maintains good spatial distribution • Requested pixels sent to renderer(s) • Results returned at some later frame

  20. Sampling Displayed image Priority image Requested pixels

  21. Optimizations • Further prioritizing sampling • Identify points that are likely to be outdated • Color change heuristic • Renderer supplied hints • Prematurely age these points • Forces sooner resampling of these points

  22. Optimizations • Moving objects • Application can supply object transforms • Applied to points in the render cache • Improves tracking of moving objects • Points also aged to encourage resampling

  23. Video

  24. Results • Timing: 70.5 ms or 14 fps • 256x256 image, display process only • 195 Mhz R10K processor

  25. Conclusions • Greatly improved interactivity • Eg, ray tracing, path tracing • Efficient reuse of rendered pixels • Using reprojection and simple filters • Prioritized sparse sampling • Efficently uses limited rendering budget • Independent automatic display process • Can be used with many different renderers

  26. Future Work • Larger images • Cost scales linearly with # of pixels • Higher render ratios • Currently work well out to about 1:64 • Anti-aliasing

  27. The End

  28. Overview • Cache rendered results • Stored as colored points in 3D • Estimate current image • Project points onto current image plane • Filter to reduce artifacts • Prioritize future rendering • Identify problem pixels • Sparse sampling for limited render budget

More Related