skip to main content
article

Real-time multidepth stream compression

Published:01 May 2005Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The goal of tele-immersion has long been to enable people at remote locations to share a sense of presence. A tele-immersion system acquires the 3D representation of a collaborator's environment remotely and sends it over the network where it is rendered in the user's environment. Acquisition, reconstruction, transmission, and rendering all have to be done in real-time to create a sense of presence. With added commodity hardware resources, parallelism can increase the acquisition volume and reconstruction data quality while maintaining real-time performance. However, this is not as easy for rendering since all of the data need to be combined into a single display.In this article, we present an algorithm to compress data from such 3D environments in real-time to solve this imbalance. We present a compression algorithm which scales comparably to the acquisition and reconstruction, reduces network transmission bandwidth, and reduces the rendering requirement for real-time performance. This is achieved by exploiting the coherence in the 3D environment data and removing them in real-time. We have tested the algorithm using a static office data set as well as a dynamic scene, the results of which are presented in the article.

References

  1. Advanced Network and Services, Inc. http://www.advanced.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, H. H., Tanguaya, D., Sobel, I., Gelb, D., Goss, M. E., Culbertson, W. B., and Malzbender, T. 2002. The Coliseum immersive teleconferencing system. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Immersive Telepresence 2002 (Juan Les Pins, France).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang, C.-F., Bishop, G., and Lastra, A. 1999. LDI tree: A hierarchical representation for image-based rendering. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Los Angeles, CA. 291--298. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, W.-C., Towles, H., Nyland, L., Welch, G., and Fuchs, H. 2000. Toward a compelling sensation of telepresence: Demonstrating a portal to a distant (static) office. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE Visualization Conference (Salt Lake City, Utah). 327--333. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cruz-Neira, C., Sandin, D. J., and DeFanti, T. A. 1993. Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: The design and implementation of the cave. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (Anaheim, Calif.). ACM, New York, 135--142. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Gross, M., W&uurl;rmlin, S., Naef, M., Lamboray, E., Spagno, C., Kunz, A., Koller-Meier, E., Svoboda, T., Van Gool, L., Lang, S., Strehlke, K., Moere, A. V., and Staadt, O. 2003. Blue-c: A spatially immersive display and 3D video portal for telepresence. ACM Transactions on Graphics, Special issue (Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH2003) 22, 3 (July), 819--827. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Grossman, J. and Dally, W. J. 1998. Point sample rendering. In Proceedings of the 9th Eurographics Workshop on Rendering Techniques (Vienna, Austria). Springer-Verlag, New York, 181--192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jain, A. K., Murty, M. N., and Flynn, P. J. 1999. Data clustering: a review. ACM Comput. Surv. 31, 3 (Sept.), 264--323. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kauff, P. and Schreer, O. 2002. An immersive 3D video-conferencing system using shared virtual team user environments. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Collaborative Virtual Environments (Bonn, Germany). ACM, New York, 105--112. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Kelshikar, N., Zabulis, X., Mulligan, J., Daniilidis, K., Sawant, V., Sinha, S., Sparks, T., Larsen, S., Towles, H., Mayer-Patel, K., Fuchs, H., Urbanic, J., Benninger, K., Reddy, R., and Huntoon, G. 2003. Real-time terascale implementation of tele-immersion. In Proceedings of the the Terascale Performance Analysis Workshop at International Conference on Computational Science (Melbourne, Australia). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kum, S.-U., Mayer-Patel, K., and Fuchs, H. 2003. Real-time compression for dynamic 3D environments. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Berkeley, Calif.). ACM, New York, 185--194. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Matusik, W., Buehler, C., Raskar, R., Gortler, S. J., and McMillan, L. 2000. Image-based visual hulls. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (New Orleans, La.). ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 369--374. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. McMillan, L. and Bishop, G. 1995. Plenoptic modeling: An image-based rendering system. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (Los Angeles, Calif.). ACM, New York, 39--46. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Molnar, S., Eyles, J., and Poulton, J. 1992. PixelFlow: High-speed rendering using image composition. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (Chicago, Ill.). ACM, New York, 231--240. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Office of the Future Project. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~ootf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Pe ña, J. M., Lozano, J. A., and Larra naga, P. 1999. An empirical comparison of four initialization methods for the k-means algorithm. Patt. Reco. Lett. 20, 10 (Oct.), 1027--1040. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center. http://www.psc.edu.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Pollefeys, M., Van Gool, L., Vergauwen, M., Verbiest, F., Cornelis, K., Tops, J., and Koch, R. 2004. Visual modeling with a hand-held camera. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 59, 3, 207--232. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Rusinkiewicz, S. and Levoy, M. 2000. QSplat: A multiresolution point rendering system for large meshes. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (New Orleans, La.) ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 343--352. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Shade, J., Gortler, S., He, L., and Szeliski, R. 1998. Layered depth images. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (Orlando, Fla.). ACM, New York, 231--242. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Stoll, G., Eldridge, M., Patterson, D., Webb, A., Berman, S., Levy, R., Caywood, C., Taveira, M., Hunt, S., and Hanrahan, P. 2001. Lightning-2: A high performance display subsystem for PC clusters. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (Los Angeles, Calif.). ACM, New York, 141--148. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Towles, H., Chen, W.-C., Yang, R., Kum, S.-U., Fuchs, H., Kelshikar, N., Mulligan, J., Daniilidis, K., Holden, L., Zeleznik, B., Sadagic, A., and Lanier, J. 2002. 3D tele-immersion over internet2. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Immersive Telepresence 2002 (Juan Les Pins, France).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. University of Pennsylvania GRASP Lab. http://www.grasp.upenn.edu.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. W&uurl;rmlin, S., Lamboray, E., and Gross, M. 2004. 3D video fragments: Dynamic point samples for real-time free-viewpoint video. Computers & Graphics, Special Issue on Coding, Compression and Streaming Techniques for 3D and Multimedia Data 28, 1 (Feb.), 3--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Real-time multidepth stream compression

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader