1 / 39

Virtual Rear Projection: Technology Evaluation

Introduction. Jay Summet - PhD student, Georgia Institute of TechnologyCo-Advised: Gregory Abowd (HCI / Ubicomp)

ona
Download Presentation

Virtual Rear Projection: Technology Evaluation

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. Virtual Rear Projection: Technology & Evaluation Jay Summet summetj@cc.gatech.edu

    2. Introduction Jay Summet - PhD student, Georgia Institute of Technology Co-Advised: Gregory Abowd (HCI / Ubicomp) & Jim Rehg (Computer Vision) Other work: Tracking and Projecting on handheld displays (Pervasive2005, UIST 2005), Detecting camera phones and blinding them (Ubicomp 2005)

    3. Virtual Rear Projection Using multiple redundant front projectors to emulate the experience of a rear projected surface. Introduction Motivation for VRP Initial Technology Development User Evaluation More Technology Development Future Work

    4. Rear Projection No shadows! But extra costs... Display Material Installation Space cost (77$ sq. ft.) Immobile

    5. Larger Board = Higher Cost

    6. Front Projection Inexpensive: Display Screen Installation Mobility Effective use of space. But shadows & blinding light are annoying!

    7. Shadows

    8. Blinding Light

    9. Warped Front Projection (WFP) Moves shadow away from directly in front of the user. Commercial products using WFP: NEC WT600 3M IdeaBoard

    10. WFP Measurements

    11. Passive VRP (PVRP) Overlapped projectors fill in shadows. Calibration via camera or manually. Projective transforms done on graphics card.

    12. Passive VRP Measurements

    13. Movie (part 1) Demo Movie of WFP/PVRP

    14. Benefits of Redundant Illumination

    15. Research Questions Are shadows / blinding light a problem? Very little research with interactive surfaces performed using front projection. But no real research into the effects of shadows on users of interactive surfaces. Is Passive VRP “good enough”?

    16. Projection Technologies Studied

    17. Participants 17 Participants Undergraduate students Mean age: 21.3 Std. Dev 1.77 9 males, 8 females Exclusively right handed Normal or corrected-to-normal vision

    18. Task Box Task 8 starting positions Target in Center Dependent Variables Acquire time Total Time Number of occluded boxes

    19. Results (1/3) Subjective: Users found projected light annoying Users had clear technology preferences: FP, WFP < VRP < RP

    20. Results (2/3) Quantitative: Box Acquire Time Slower: FP < WFP, VRP < RP Less Boxes Occluded FP – 178 WFP – 66 VRP – 4 RP – 0

    21. Results (3/3) Behavioral: Users adopted coping behaviors to deal with shadows in the FP and WFP conditions Not present in the VRP and RP conditions Edge of Screen – 7 Near Center – 7 Move on Occlusion – 3 Dead Reckoning - 1

    22. Movie Participant Video Figure

    23. Edge of Screen (7 participants)

    24. Near Center (7 participants) Participants would stand in the center and... ...either be short enough so that they would not occlude boxes. (3 participants) ...or they would sway their bodies to find occluded boxes. (4 participants)

    25. Move on Occlusion (3 participants) These participants would move whenever they occluded a box, and stay there until they occluded another.

    26. Findings (CHI 05) Users prefer Rear Projected and Passive Virtual Rear Projected displays over the others. RP and passive VRP eliminated coping behaviors seen in FP and WFP. Users find projected light to be annoying. Passive VRP casts light on users.

    27. Projected light is a larger problem as you add more projectors.

    28. Technology Development Shadow Elimination – CVPR '01 R. Sukthankar, T.-J. Cham, G. Sukthankar U. Kentucky – C. Jaynes, Visualization 2001

    29. Shadow Elimination Measurements

    30. Technology Development Blinding Light Suppression – CVPR '03 Tat Jen. Cham, Jim Rehg, Rahul Sukthankar,Gita Sukthankar

    31. SE + BLS Measurements

    32. Interesting, but useless

    33. Technology Development Switching – PROCAMS '03 Ramsaroop Sommani GPU Enhancements – PROCAMS '05 Matt Flagg

    34. Active Virtual Rear Projection Detects occluders, turns off pixels they are occluding, and fills in those pixels with alternate projectors

    35. Active VRP Measurements

    36. Movie (part 2) Active VRP

    37. Future Work User evaluation of Active VRP Controlled laboratory study (80 participants) Exploratory Research AeroSpace Engineering Design Lab “Home-Office” in Aware Home

    38. More information: summetj@cc.gatech.edu http://www.cc.gatech.edu/cpl/vrp http://www.cc.gatech.edu/cpl/procams

    39. Thank you! The End

    40. Table of Relative Performance

More Related