When learning to program simple 2D games, each object would have a sprite sheet with little pictures of how a player would look in every frame/animation. 3D models don't seem to work this way or we would need one image for every possible view of the object!
For example, a rotating cube would need a lot images depicting how it would look on every single side. So my question is, how are 3D model "images" represented and rendered by the engine when viewed from arbitrary perspectives?
Multiple methods
There is a number of methods for rendering and storing 3D graphics and models. There are even different methods for rendering 2D graphics! In addition to 2D bitmaps, you also have SVG. SVG uses numbers to define points in an image. These points make shapes. The points can also define curves. This allows you to make images without the need for pixels. The result can be smaller file sizes, in addition to the ability to transform the image (scale and rotate) without causing distortion. Most 3D graphics use a similar technique, except in 3D. What these methods have in common, however, is that they all ultimately render the data to a 2D grid of pixels.
Projection
The most common method for rendering 3D models is projection. All of the shapes to be rendered are broken down into triangles before rendering. Why triangles? Because triangles are guaranteed to be coplanar. That saves a lot of work for the renderer since it doesn't have to worry about "coloring outside of the lines". One drawback to this is that most 3D graphics projection technologies don't support perfect spheres or other round surfaces. You have to use approximations and other tricks to make round surfaces (although there are some renderers which support round surfaces). The next step is to convert or project all of the 3D points into 2D points on the screen (as seen below).
From there, you essentially "color in" the triangles to make everything look solid. While this is pretty fast, another downside is that you can't really have things like reflections and refractions. Anytime you see a refractive or reflective surface in a game, they are only using trickery to make it look like a reflective or refractive material. The same goes for lighting and shading.
Here is an example of special coloring being used to make a sphere approximation look smooth. Notice that you can still see straight lines around the smoothed version:
Ray tracing
You also can render polygons using ray tracing. With this method, you basically trace the paths that the light takes to reach the camera. This allows you to make realistic reflections and refractions. However, I won't go into detail since it is too slow to realistically use in games currently. It is mainly used for 3D animations (like what Pixar makes). Simple scenes with low quality settings can be ray traced pretty quickly. But with complicated, realistic scenes, rendering can take several hours for a single frame (as is the case with Pixar movies). However, it does produce ultra realistic images:
Ray casting
Ray casting is not to be confused with the above-mentioned ray tracing. Ray casting does not trace the light paths. That means that you only have flat surfaces; not reflective. It also does not produce realistic light. However, this can be done relatively quickly, since in most cases you don't even need to cast a ray for every pixel. This is the method that was used for early games such as Doom and Wolfenstein 3D. In early games, ray casting was used for the maps, and the characters and other items were rendered using 2D sprites that were always facing the camera. The sprites were drawn from a few different angles to make them look 3D. Here is an image of Wolfenstein 3D:
Castle Wolfenstein with JavaScript and HTML5 Canvas: Image by Martin Kliehm
Storing the data
3D data can be stored using multiple methods. It is not necessarily dependent on the rendering method that is used. The stored data doesn't mean anything by itself, so you have to render it using one of the methods that have already been mentioned.
Polygons
This is similar to SVG. It is also the most common method for storing model data. You define the geometry using 3D points. These points can have other properties, such as texture data (in the form of UV mapping), color data, and whatever else you might want.
The data can be stored using a number of file formats. A common file format that is used is COLLADA, which is an XML file that stores the 3D data. There are a lot of other formats though. Fundamentally, however, all file formats are still storing the 3D data.
Here is an example of a polygon model:
Voxels
This method is pretty simple. You can think of voxel models like bitmaps, except they are a bunch of bitmaps layered together to make 3D bitmaps. So you have a 3D grid of pixels. One way of rendering voxels is converting the voxel points to 3D cubes. Note that voxels do not have to be rendered as cubes, however. Like pixels, they are only points that may have color data which can be interpreted in different ways. I won't go into much detail since this isn't too common and you generally render the voxels with polygon methods (like when you render them as cubes. Here is an example of a voxel model:
Image by Wikipedia user Vossman
In the 2D world with sprite sheets, you are drawing one of the sprites depending on the state of the actor (visual representation of your object). In the 3D world you are rendering a model for your actor that is a series of polygons with a texture mapped to it. There are standardized model files (I am mostly familiar with Autodesk 3DS Max), in which the model and the assigned textures can be packaged together (a .3DS or .MAX file), providing everything your graphics library needs to render the object and its textures.
In a nutshell, you don't use images for each view of a 3D object, you have a model with a texture rendered on it, creating a dynamic view as it is rendered by the graphics library.
Related
I have a line art texture applied to an object in 3D space. The default behavior is for the object and the texture to receive perspective scaling based on the perspective model view projection matrix. Is there any established technique to keep the positioning and scaling of the 3D object, while keeping the line width constant relative to the screen? The desired effect is as though a pen (fixed screen width) were used to trace a path on the 3D object.
Would something like SDF-based font rendering help?
Or maybe some kind of projective texture mapping?
Or render the object and texture to a buffer and expand the lines using edge detection?
Unfortunately, I'm using OGL ES 2, so I can't use a geom shader or anything like that.
The solution I came up with is inspired by procedural SDF generation, like #Felipe suggested, combined with Chris Green's Improved Alpha-Tested Magnification for Vector Textures and Special Effects.
Basically I hand draw shapes into textures using pure red, green, and blue. Then I render the scene using those textures, and generate an SDF on the fly in a second render pass. The SDF generation uses Green's algorithm with a small spread to improve performance. The SDF is then passed to a final render pass that thresholds and antialiases the SDF per Green's approach, using fwidth to maintain a constant line weight regardless of the distance of the object to the camera.
Since the original question was just for the approach/concept, I'm not posting an example at the moment. But I'll see if I can put together a shadertoy sometime soon.
You could create the texture procedurally in a fragment shader and use the size of a pixel for interpolations.
See:
FabriceNeyret's blog
I'm working on a fork of Pleasant3D.
When rotating an object being displayed the object always rotates around the same point relative to to itself even if that point is not at the center of the view (e.g. because the user has panned to move the object in the view).
I would like to change this so that the view always rotates the object around the point at the center of the view as it appears to the user instead of the center of the object.
Here is the core of the current code that rotates the object around its center (slightly simplified) (from here):
glLoadIdentity();
// midPlatform is the offset to reach the "middle" of the object (or more specifically the platform on which the object sits) in the x/y dimension.
// This the point around which the view is currently rotated.
Vector3 *midPlatform = [self.currentMachine calcMidBuildPlatform];
glTranslatef((GLfloat)cameraTranslateX - midPlatform.x,
(GLfloat)cameraTranslateY - midPlatform.y,
(GLfloat)cameraOffset);
// trackBallRotation and worldRotation come from trackball.h/c which appears to be
// from an Apple OpenGL sample.
if (trackBallRotation[0] != 0.0f) {
glRotatef (trackBallRotation[0], trackBallRotation[1], trackBallRotation[2], trackBallRotation[3]);
}
// accumlated world rotation via trackball
glRotatef (worldRotation[0], worldRotation[1], worldRotation[2], worldRotation[3]);
glTranslatef(midPlatform.x, midPlatform.y, 0.);
// Now draw object...
What transformations do I need to apply in what order to get the effect I desire?
Some of what I've tried so far
As I understand it this is what the current code does:
"OpenGL performs matrices multiplications in reverse order if multiple transforms are applied to a vertex" (from here). This means that the first transformation to be applied is actually the last one in the code above. It moves the center of the view (0,0) to the center of the object.
This point is then used as the center of rotation for the next two transformations (the rotations).
Finally the midPlatform translation is done in reverse to move the center back to the original location and the XY translations (panning) done by the user is applied. Here also the "camera" is moved away from the object to the proper location (indicated by cameraOffset).
This seems straightforward enough. So what I need to change is instead of translating the center of the view to the center of the object (midPlatform) I need to translate it to the current center of the view as seen by the user, right?
Unfortunately this is where the transformations start affecting each other in interesting ways and I am running into trouble.
I tried changing the code to this:
glLoadIdentity();
glTranslatef(0,
0,
(GLfloat)cameraOffset);
if (trackBallRotation[0] != 0.0f) {
glRotatef (trackBallRotation[0], trackBallRotation[1], trackBallRotation[2], trackBallRotation[3]);
}
// accumlated world rotation via trackball
glRotatef (worldRotation[0], worldRotation[1], worldRotation[2], worldRotation[3]);
glTranslatef(cameraTranslateX, cameraTranslateY, 0.);
In other words, I translate the center of the view to the previous center, rotate around that, and then apply the camera offset to move the camera away to the proper position. This makes the rotation behave exactly the way I want it to, but it introduces a new issue. Now any panning done by the user is relative to the object. For example if the object is rotated so that the camera is looking along the X axis end-on, if the user pans left to right the object appears to be moving closer/further from the user instead of left or right.
I think I can understand why the is (XY camera translations being applied before rotation), and I think what I need to do is figure out a way to cancel out the translation from before the rotation after the rotation (to avoid the weird panning effect) and then to do another translation which translates relative to the viewer (eye coordinate space) instead of the object (object coordinate space) but I'm not sure exactly how to do this.
I found what I think are some clues in the OpenGL FAQ(http://www.opengl.org/resources/faq/technical/transformations.htm), for example:
9.070 How do I transform my objects around a fixed coordinate system rather than the object's local coordinate system?
If you rotate an object around its Y-axis, you'll find that the X- and Z-axes rotate with the object. A subsequent rotation around one of these axes rotates around the newly transformed axis and not the original axis. It's often desirable to perform transformations in a fixed coordinate system rather than the object’s local coordinate system.
The root cause of the problem is that OpenGL matrix operations postmultiply onto the matrix stack, thus causing transformations to occur in object space. To affect screen space transformations, you need to premultiply. OpenGL doesn't provide a mode switch for the order of matrix multiplication, so you need to premultiply by hand. An application might implement this by retrieving the current matrix after each frame. The application multiplies new transformations for the next frame on top of an identity matrix and multiplies the accumulated current transformations (from the last frame) onto those transformations using glMultMatrix().
You need to be aware that retrieving the ModelView matrix once per frame might have a detrimental impact on your application’s performance. However, you need to benchmark this operation, because the performance will vary from one implementation to the next.
And
9.120 How do I find the coordinates of a vertex transformed only by the ModelView matrix?
It's often useful to obtain the eye coordinate space value of a vertex (i.e., the object space vertex transformed by the ModelView matrix). You can obtain this by retrieving the current ModelView matrix and performing simple vector / matrix multiplication.
But I'm not sure how to apply these in my situation.
You need to transform/translate "center of view" point into origin, rotate, then invert that translation, back to the object's transform. This is known as a basis change in linear algebra.
This is way easier to work with if you have a proper 3d-math library (I'm assuming you do have one), and that also helps to to stay far from the deprecated fixed-pipeline APIs. (more on that later).
Here's how I'd do it:
Find the transform for the center of view point in world coordinates (figure it out, then draw it to make sure it's correct, with x,y,z axis too, since the axii are supposed to be correct w.r.t. the view). If you use the center-of-view point and the rotation (usually the inverse of the camera's rotation), this will be a transform from world origin to the view center. Store this in a 4x4 matrix transform.
Apply the inverse of the above transform, so that it becomes the origin. glMultMatrixfv(center_of_view_tf.inverse());
Rotate about this point however you want (glRotate())
Transform everything back to world space (glMultMatrixfv(center_of_view_tf);)
Apply object's own world transform (glTranslate/glRotate or glMultMatrix) and draw it.
About the fixed function pipeline
Back in the old days, there were separate transistors for transforming a vertex (or it's texture coordinates), computing where light was in relation to it applying lights (up to 8) and texturing fragments in many different ways. Simply, glEnable(), enabled fixed blocks of silicon to do some computation in the hardware graphics pipeline. As performance grew, die sized shrunk and people demanded more features, the amount of dedicated silicon grew too, and much of it wasn't used.
Eventually, it got so advanced that you could program it in rather obscene ways (register combiners anyone). And then, it became feasible to actually upload a small assembler program for all vertex-level transforms. Then, it made to sense to keep a lot of silicon there that just did one thing (especially as you could've used those transistors to make the programmable stuff faster), so everything became programmable. If "fixed function" rendering was called for, the driver just converted the state (X lights, texture projections, etc) to shader code and uploaded that as a vertex shader.
So, currently, where even the fragment processing is programmable, there is just a lot of fixed-function options that is used by tons and tons of OpenGL applications, but the silicon on the GPU just runs shaders (and lots of it, in parallell).
...
To make OpenGL more efficient, and the drivers less bulky, and the hardware simpler and useable on mobile/console devices and to take full advantage of the programmable hardware that OpenGL runs on these days, many functions in the API are now marked deprecated. They are not available on OpenGL ES 2.0 and beyond (mobile) and you won't be getting the best performance out of them even on desktop systems (where they will still be in the driver for ages to come, serving equally ancient code bases originating back to the dawn of accelerated 3d graphics)
The fixed-functionness mostly concerns how transforms/lighting/texturing etc. are done by "default" in OpenGL (i.e. glEnable(GL_LIGHTING)), instead of you specifying these ops in your custom shaders.
In the new, programmable, OpenGL, transform matrices are just uniforms in the shader. Any rotate/translate/mult/inverse (like the above) should be done by client code (your code) before being uploaded to OpenGL. (Using only glLoadMatrix is one way to start thinking about it, but instead of using gl_ModelViewProjectionMatrix and the ilk in your shader, use your own uniforms.)
It's a bit of a bother, since you have to implement quite a bit of what was done by the GL driver before, but if you have your own object list/graph with transforms and a transform somewhere etc, it's not that much work. (OTOH, if you have a lot of glTranslate/glRotate in your code, it might be...). As I said, a good 3d-math library is indispensable here.
-..
So, to change the above code to "programmable pipeline" style, you'd just do all these matrix multiplications in your own code (instead of the GL driver doing it, still on the CPU) and then send the resulting matrix to opengl as a uniform before you activate the shaders and draw your object from VBOs.
(Note that modern cards do not have fixed-function code, just a lot of code in the driver to compile fixed-function rendering state to a shader that does the job. No wonder "classic" GL drivers are huge...)
...
Some info about this process is available at Tom's Hardware Guide and probably Google too.
I was checking out this cool app called Morfo. According to their product description -
Use Morfo to quickly turn a photo of your friend's face into a
talking, dancing, crazy 3D character! Once captured, you can make your
friend say anything you want in a silly voice, rock out, wear makeup,
sport a pair of huge green cat eyes, suddenly gain 300lbs, and more.
So if you take a normal 2D image of steve jobs & feed it to this app it converts it into a 3D model of that image & the user can interact with it.
My questions are as following -
How are they doing this?
How is this possible in iPad?
Isn't it computationally intensive to render and convert 2D image into 3D?
Any pointers, links to websites or libraries in objectiveC which do this is very much appreciated.
UPDATE: this demo of this product here shows how morfo, uses a template mechanism to do the conversion. i.e. after a 2D image is fed, one needs to set the boundaries of the face, where the eyes are located, size & length of lips. then it goes off to convert it into a 3D model. How is this part done? What frameworks or libraries they might be using?
This is a broad question but i can point you in the right direction of how 3D Rendering works, trust me this is a huge subject with decades of work behind it and to much to put here. Not sure how up to speed you are on 3D Rendering techniques so i will give you a basic idea of texturing and point you to a good set of tutorials.
How are they doing this?
The idea is that in 3D Rendering, 3D models can be textured with a 2d image known as a texture map. You use a 2D image and wrap it around a 3d model, be that a simple primitive like a sphere of a cube or more advanced such as the classic teapot or the model of a human head e.t.c. A texture can be taken from anywhere, I have used the camera feed in the past to texture meshes with the video from the camera stream, I have used photos from the camera which s how there doing it. So this is how the face is rendered to the 3D Model.
Is this efficient?
On iOS and most mobile devices 3D rendering uses hardware acceleration utilizing OpenGLES. In regards to your question this is really fast depending on how you implement your render code.
The way it uses the mapping (scale rotate template in the video) as mentioned by anticyclope allows you to make the texture fit a model and also place the eyes which are part of there render code.
So if you want to pick this up i recommend reading Jeff Lamarche Tutorial "from the ground up" as a primer:
http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/05/opengl-es-from-ground-up-table-of.html
Second to that i have read about 4 books on OpenGLES, for general design and for platforms specifics. I recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/iPhone-Programming-Developing-Graphical-Applications/dp/0596804822/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331114559&sr=8-1
In my opinion, there is how they doing it. Just my thoughts, haven't saw the application in real-life.
They have a 3D model of human's head. When you click on certain points on 2D image, they are adjusting corresponding points in 3D model, so it is represents a specific face's features like distance between eyes, lips width and so on. Next, texture from 2D image is applied to 3D model using that control points, so we have a textured 3D model of human's head. Given the fact, that our perception is able to reconstruct a 3D shape from 2D images (say, we looking at 2D photo and still imagining a 3D person), there's no need to reconstruct 3D shape accurately, texture will do the work.
There is an issue in the rendering of 3D images, called UV mapping, takes the 3D model and defines a set of edges, and this creates an image that is used to generate different textures to the model.
Now if you notice in Morfo, you define the edge of the head, eyes, mouth and nose. with this information the Morfo knows how to place it texture to the model that has defined.
the process of loading a texture on a model is not very complex and this can be done on any device that has support of some technology such as OpenGL
Isn't it computationally intensive to render and convert 2D image into 3D?
Apple is sinking billions of dollars into developing custom chipsets, and recent models have impressive performance, considering the battery life and low operating temperature (no fans).
I vaguely remember seeing something in OpenGL (not ES, which was still at v1.0 on the iPhone when I came across this, which is why I never used it) that let me specify which edges of my polygons were considered outlines vs those that made up the interior of faces. As such, this isn't the same as the outline of the entire model (which I know how to do), but rather the outline of a planar face with all its tris basically blended into one poly. For instance, in a cube made up of tri's, each face is actually two tris. I want to render the outline of the square, but not the diagonal across the face. Same thing with a hexagon. That takes four tris, but just one outline for the face.
Now yes, I know I can simply test all the edges to see if they share coplanar faces, but I could have sworn I remember seeing somewhere when you're defining the tri mesh data where you could say 'this line outlines a face whereas this one is inside a face.' That way when rendering, you could set a flag that basically says 'Give me a wireframe, but only the wires around the edges of complete faces, not around the tris that make them up.'
BTW, my target is all platforms that support OpenGL ES 2.0 but my dev platform is iOS. Again, this Im pretty sure was originally in OpenGL and may have been depreciated once shaders came on the scene, but I can't even find a reference to this feature to check if that's the case.
The only way I know now is to have one set of vertices, but two separate sets of indices... one for rendering tris, and another for rendering the wireframes of the faces. It's a real pain since I end up hand-coding a lot of this, which again, I'm 99% sure you can define when rendering the lines.
GL_QUADS, glEdgeFlag and glPolygonMode are not supported in OpenGL ES.
You could use LINES to draw the wireframe: To get hidden lines, first draw black filled triangles (with DEPTH on) and then draw the edges you are interested in with GL_LINES.
I'm in the planning stage of writing a Cocoa drawing application (for Mac, not iOS), and I'm trying to discern whether one of my features is technically possible via any of the drawing frameworks. Any help or relevant information would be greatly appreciated.
The idea is to apply a 3D transformation to an object drawn with Quartz2D. I've considered capturing the relevant portion of the canvas View (where objects are drawn) as an image and sending it to Core Animation, but that doesn't seem like the best option. Since this is a drawing application, it's less about 3D animation than it is about the transformed shape. This solution is also less than ideal because I assume that if the 2D object were a vector path rather a bitmap image, I would have to rasterize it to apply such a transformation. The ideal implementation would enable the user to dynamically rotate a flat object in 3 dimensions until she found a suitable orientation, lock in this transformation, and still be able to manually adjust the path's vector points.
Is this feasible? Would it require working directly with OpenGL? Help of any kind is most welcome.
Thank you!
Seems to me that anything you'd do with a 3D transform, you should be able to do with multiple affine transforms. See UIBezierPath's -applyTransform method.