research-article

geoTangle: Interactive Design of Geodesic Tangle Patterns on Surfaces

Authors:
Giacomo Nazzaro

Sapienza University of Rome

Sapienza University of Rome
View Profile

,
Enrico Puppo

University of Genoa

University of Genoa
View Profile

,
Fabio Pellacini

Sapienza University of Rome

Sapienza University of Rome

0000-0003-4861-9809
View Profile

Authors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Graphics Volume 41 Issue 2Article No.: 12pp 1–17https://doi.org/10.1145/3487909

Published:29 November 2021Publication History

ACM Transactions on Graphics

Abstract

Tangles are complex patterns, which are often used to decorate the surface of real-world artisanal objects. They consist of arrangements of simple shapes organized into nested hierarchies, obtained by recursively splitting regions to add progressively finer details. In this article, we show that 3D digital shapes can be decorated with tangles by working interactively in the intrinsic metric of the surface. Our tangles are generated by the recursive application of only four operators, which are derived from tracing the isolines or the integral curves of geodesics fields generated from selected seeds on the surface. Based on this formulation, we present an interactive application that lets designers model complex recursive patterns directly on the object surface without relying on parametrization. We reach interactive speed on meshes of a few million triangles by relying on an efficient approximate graph-based geodesic solver.

Supplemental Material

Available for Download

zip

nazzaro.zip (40 MB)

Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, geoTangle: Interactive Design of Geodesic Tangle Patterns on Surfaces

REFERENCES

Adikusuma Y. Y., Fang Z., and He Y.. 2020. Fast construction of discrete geodesic graphs. ACM Trans. Graph, 39, 2 (2020), 1–14. Google ScholarDigital Library
Adobe. 2020. Substance Designer. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.substance3d.com.Google Scholar
Autodesk. 2020. Mudbox. (2020). Retrieved from https://autodesk.com/mudbox.Google Scholar
Bertsekas D. P.. 1998. Network Optimization: Continuous and Discrete Models. Athena Scientific, Belmont, MA.Google Scholar
Bose P., Maheshwari A., Shu C., and Wuhrer S.. 2011. A survey of geodesic paths on 3D surfaces. Comput. Geom. Theory Appl. 44, 9 (2011), 486–498. Google ScholarDigital Library
Bronstein A. M., Bronstein M. M., and Kimmel R.. 2009. Numerical Geometry of Non-Rigid Shapes. Springer, New York. Google ScholarDigital Library
Campen M., Heistermann M., and Kobbelt L.. 2013. Practical anisotropic geodesy. Comput. Graph. Forum 32, 13 (2013), 63–71. Google ScholarDigital Library
Campen M. and Kobbelt L.. 2011. Walking on broken mesh: Defect-tolerant geodesic distances and parameterizations. Comput. Graph. Forum 30, 2 (2011), 623–632.Google ScholarCross Ref
Campen M., Shen H., Zhou J., and Zorin D.. 2020. Seamless parametrization with arbitrary cones for arbitrary genus. ACM Trans. Graph. 39, 1 (2020), 2:1–2:19. Google ScholarDigital Library
Carra E., Santoni C., and Pellacini F.. 2019. Grammar-based procedural animations for motion graphics. Comput. Graph. 78 (2019), 97–107.Google ScholarCross Ref
Chen J. and Han Yi. 1990. Shortest paths on a polyhedron. In 6th Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry.Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 360–369. Google ScholarDigital Library
Chen W., Zhang X., Xin S., Xia Y., Lefebvre S., and Wang W.. 2016. Synthesis of filigrees for digital fabrication. ACM Trans. Graph. 35, 4 (2016), 1–13. Google ScholarDigital Library
Crane K., Livesu M., Puppo E., and Qin Y.. 2020. A Survey of Algorithms for Geodesic Paths and Distances. arxiv:cs.GR/2007.10430.Google Scholar
Crane K., Weischedel C., and Wardetzky M.. 2013. Geodesics in heat: A new approach to computing distance based on heat flow. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 5 (2013), 152:1–152:11. Google ScholarDigital Library
Denning J. D., Kerr W. B., and Pellacini F.. 2011. MeshFlow: Interactive visualization of mesh construction sequences. ACM Trans. Graph. 30, 4 (2011), 66:1–66:8. Google ScholarDigital Library
Denning J. D., Tibaldo V., and Pellacini F.. 2015. 3DFlow: Continuous summarization of mesh editing workflows. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 4 (2015), 140:1–140:9. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ebert D., Musgrave K., Peachey D., Perlin K., and Worley S.. 2002. Texturing and Modeling: A Procedural Approach (3rd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA. Google ScholarDigital Library
Eldar Y., Lindenbaum M., Porat M., and Zeevi Y. Y.. 1997. The farthest point strategy for progressive image sampling. Trans. Image Process. 6, 9 (1997), 1305–1315. Google ScholarDigital Library
Graichen M., Izraelevitz J., and Scott M. L.. 2016. An unbounded nonblocking double-ended queue. In 45th International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP). 217–226.Google ScholarCross Ref
Herholz Philipp and Alexa Marc. 2018. Factor once: Reusing Cholesky factorizations on sub-meshes. ACM Trans. Graph. 37 (2018), 230:1–230:9. Google ScholarDigital Library
Herholz P., Davis T. A., and Alexa M.. 2017a. Localized solutions of sparse linear systems for geometry processing. ACM Trans. Graph. 36, 6 (2017), 183:1–183:8. Google ScholarDigital Library
Herholz P., Haase F., and Alexa M.. 2017b. Diffusion diagrams: Voronoi cells and centroids from diffusion. Comput. Graph. Forum 36, 2 (2017), 163–175. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jacobson A.. 2021. gptoolbox. Retrieved from https://mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/49692-gptoolbox.Google Scholar
Jiang C., Tang C., Vaxman A., Wonka P., and Pottmann H.. 2015. Polyhedral patterns. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 6 (2015), 1–12. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kimmel R. and Sethian J. A.. 1998. Computing geodesic paths on manifolds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 89, 15 (1998), 8431–8435.Google ScholarCross Ref
Lanthier M., Maheshwari A., and Sack J.-R.. 1997. Approximating weighted shortest paths on polyhedral surfaces. In ACM Symposium on Computational Geometry. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 274–283. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lanthier M., Maheshwari A., and Sack J.-R.. 2001. Approximating shortest paths on weighted polyhedral surfaces. Algorithmica 30, 4 (2001), 527–562.Google ScholarDigital Library
Levi Z.. 2021. Direct seamless parametrization. ACM Trans. Graph. 40, 1 (2021), 6:1–6:14. Google ScholarDigital Library
Li M., Kaufman D. M., Kim V. G., Solomon J., and Sheffer A.. 2018. OptCuts: Joint optimization of surface cuts and parameterization. ACM Trans. Graph. 37, 6 (2018), 247:1–247:13. Google ScholarDigital Library
Li Y., Bao F., Zhang E., Kobayashi Y., and Wonka P.. 2011. Geometry synthesis on surfaces using field-guided shape grammars. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comp. Graph. 17, 2 (2011), 231–243. Google ScholarDigital Library
Liu L., Zhang L., Xu Y., Gotsman C., and Gortler S. J.. 2008. A local/global approach to mesh parameterization. Comput. Graph. Forum 27, 6 (2008), 1495–1504. Google ScholarDigital Library
Loi H., Hurtut T., Vergne R., and Thollot J.. 2017. Programmable 2D arrangements for element texture design. ACM Trans. Graph. 36, 3 (2017), 27:1–27:17. Google ScholarDigital Library
Longay S., Runions A., Boudon F., and Prusinkiewicz P.. 2012. TreeSketch: Interactive procedural modeling of trees on a tablet. In EG Symposium on Sketch-based Interfaces and Modeling. The Eurographics Association, 107–120. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mitchell Joseph S. B., Mount David M., and Papadimitriou Christos H.. 1987. The discrete geodesic problem. SIAM J. Comput. 16, 4 (Aug. 1987), 647–668. Google ScholarDigital Library
Orzan A., Bousseau A., Winnemöller H., Barla P., Thollot J., and Salesin D.. 2008. Diffusion curves: A vector representation for smooth-shaded images. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 3 (2008), 92:1–92:8. Google ScholarDigital Library
Paoluzzi A., Bernardini F., Cattani C., and Ferrucci V.. 1993. Dimension-independent modeling with simplicial complexes. ACM Trans. Graph. 12, 1 (1993), 56–102. Google ScholarDigital Library
Pilgway. 2019. 3D-Coat. Retrieved from https://3dcoat.com.Google Scholar
Pixologic. 2021. ZBrush. Retrieved from https://pixologic.com/zbrush/features/overview/.Google Scholar
Poranne R., Tarini M., Huber S., Panozzo D., and Sorkine-Hornung O.. 2017. Autocuts: Simultaneous distortion and cut optimization for UV mapping. ACM Trans. Graph. 36, 6 (2017), 215:1–215:11. Google ScholarDigital Library
Prada F., Kazhdan M., Chuang M., and Hoppe H.. 2018. Gradient-domain processing within a texture atlas. ACM Trans. Graph. 37, 4 (2018), 154:1–154:14. Google ScholarDigital Library
Qin Y., Han X., Yu H., Yu Y., and Zhang J.. 2016. Fast and exact discrete geodesic computation based on triangle-oriented wavefront propagation. ACM Trans. Graph. 35, 4 (2016), 125:1–125:13. Google ScholarDigital Library
Calla L. A. Romero, Perez L. J. Fuentes, and Montenegro A. A.. 2019. A minimalistic approach for fast computation of geodesic distances on triangular meshes. Comput. Graph. 84 (2019), 77–92.Google ScholarDigital Library
Santoni C., Calabrese C., Renzo F. Di, and Pellacini F.. 2016. SculptStat: Statistical analysis of digital sculpting workflows. arxiv:1601.07765Google Scholar
Santoni C. and Pellacini F.. 2016. gTangle: A grammar for the procedural generation of tangle patterns. ACM Trans. Graph. 35, 6 (2016), 182:1–182:11. Google ScholarDigital Library
Sawhney R. and Crane K.. 2017. Boundary first flattening. ACM Trans. Graph. 37, 1 (2017), 1–14. Google ScholarDigital Library
Schlick C.. 1994. Fast alternatives to Perlin’s bias and gain functions. In Graphics Gems IV, Heckbert P. S. (Ed.). Academic Press, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 401–403. Google ScholarDigital Library
Schmid J., Senn M. S., Gross M., and Sumner R. W.. 2011. Overcoat: An implicit canvas for 3D painting. ACM Trans. Graph. 30, 4 (2011), 28:1–28:10. Google ScholarDigital Library
Schwarz M. and Wonka P.. 2015. Practical grammar-based procedural modeling of architecture. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2015 Courses. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY. Google ScholarDigital Library
Sendik O. and Cohen-Or D.. 2017. Deep correlations for texture synthesis. ACM Trans. Graph. 36, 5 (2017), 161:1–161:15. Google ScholarDigital Library
Sharp N. and Crane K.. 2020. You can find geodesic paths in triangle meshes by just flipping edges. ACM Trans. Graph. 39, 6 (2020), 249:1–249:15. Google ScholarDigital Library
Shi L., Li B., Hašan M., Sunkavalli K., Boubekeur T., Mech R., and Matusik W.. 2020. MATch: Differentiable material graphs for procedural material capture. ACM Trans. Graph. 39, 6 (2020), 1–15. Google ScholarDigital Library
Tao J., Zhang J., Deng B., Fang Z., Peng Y., and He Y.. 2021. Parallel and scalable heat methods for geodesic distance computation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis Mach. Intell. 43 (2021), 579–594.Google ScholarDigital Library
Vaxman A., Campen M., Diamanti O., Bommes D., Hildebrandt K., Ben-Chen M., and Panozzo D.. 2017. Directional field synthesis, design, and processing. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2017 Courses. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY. Google ScholarDigital Library
Wang X., Fang Z., Wu J., Xin S.-Q., and He Y.. 2017. Discrete geodesic graph (DGG) for computing geodesic distances on polyhedral surfaces. Comput.-aided Geom. Des. 52, C (2017), 262–284. Google ScholarDigital Library
Wei Li-Yi, Lefebvre Sylvain, Kwatra Vivek, and Turk Greg. 2009. State of the art in example-based texture synthesis. In Eurographics State of the Art Report. The Eurographics Association, Geneve, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Weiler K.. 1985. Edge-based data structures for solid modeling in curved-surface environments. IEEE Comput. Graph. Applic. 5, 1 (1985), 21–40. Google ScholarDigital Library
Xu Pengfei, Fu Hongbo, Zheng Youyi, Singh Karan, Huang Hui, and Tai Chiew-Lan. 2018. Model-guided 3D sketching. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 25, 10 (2018), 2927–2939.Google ScholarCross Ref
Ying Xiang, Huang Caibao, Fu Xuzhou, He Ying, Yu Ruiguo, Wang Jianrong, and Yu Mei. 2019. Parallelizing discrete geodesic algorithms with perfect efficiency. Comput.-aided Des. 115 (Oct. 2019), 161–171.Google ScholarDigital Library
Ying X., Wang X., and He Y.. 2013. Saddle vertex graph (SVG): A novel solution to the discrete geodesic problem. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 6 (2013), 170:1–170:12. Google ScholarDigital Library
Zhou Y., Zhu Z., Bai X., Lischinski D., Cohen-Or D., and Huang H.. 2018. Non-stationary texture synthesis by adversarial expansion. ACM Trans. Graph. 37, 4 (2018), 49:1–49:13.Google ScholarDigital Library

Index Terms

geoTangle: Interactive Design of Geodesic Tangle Patterns on Surfaces
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Computer graphics
    1. Graphics systems and interfaces
    2. Shape modeling

Recommendations

Towards flattenable mesh surfaces

In many industries, products are constructed by assembled surface patches in @?^3, where each patch is expected to have an isometric map to a corresponding region in @?^2. The widely investigated developable surfaces in differential geometry show this ...
Read More
Computing geodesic spectra of surfaces
SPM '07: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on Solid and physical modeling

Surface classification is one of the most fundamental problems in geometric modeling. Surfaces can be classified according to their conformal structures. In general, each topological equivalent class has infinite conformally equivalent classes.

This ...
Read More
Geodesic curve computations on surfaces

A study on geodesic curves computed directly on NURBS surfaces and discrete geodesics computed on the equivalent tessellated surfaces has been presented. A new approach has been presented for the computation of discrete geodesics on tessellated ...
Read More

Comments

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Article

Published in
ACM Transactions on Graphics Volume 41, Issue 2
April 2022
197 pages
ISSN:0730-0301
EISSN:1557-7368
DOI:10.1145/3501283
Editor:
Carol O'Sullivan
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
In-Cooperation
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
- Published: 29 November 2021
- Revised: 1 September 2021
- Accepted: 1 September 2021
- Received: 1 May 2021
Published in tog Volume 41, Issue 2

Permissions
Request permissions about this article.
Request Permissions

Check for updates
Author Tags
User interfaces
geometry processing
Qualifiers
- research-article
- Refereed
Conference
Funding Sources
Other Metrics
View Article Metrics

Article Metrics
- 6
  Total Citations
  View Citations
- 839
  Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)233
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)21
Other Metrics
View Author Metrics
Cited By
View all

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Full Text

View this article in Full Text.

View Full Text

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format

geoTangle: Interactive Design of Geodesic Tangle Patterns on Surfaces

ACM Transactions on Graphics

Abstract

Supplemental Material

Available for Download

REFERENCES

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Towards flattenable mesh surfaces

Computing geodesic spectra of surfaces

Geodesic curve computations on surfaces