Matching illumination of solid objects

The appearance of objects is determined by their surface reflectance and roughness and by the light field. Conversely, human observers might derive properties of the light field from the appearance of objects. The inverse problem has no unique solution, so perceptual interactions between reflectance, roughness, and light field are to be expected. In two separate experiments, we tested whether observers are able to match the illumination of spheres under collimated illumination only (matching of illumination direction) and under more or less diffuse illumination (matching of illumination direction and directedness of the beam). We found that observers are quite able to match collimated illumination directions of two rendered Lambertian spheres. Matching of the collimated beam directions of a Lambertian sphere and that of a real object with arbitrary reflectance and roughness properties resulted in similar results for the azimuthal angle, but in higher variance for the polar angle. Translucent objects and a tennis ball were found to be systematic outliers. If the directedness of the beam was also varied, the direction settings showed larger variance for more diffuse illumination. The directedness settings showed an overall quite large variance and, interestingly, interacted with the polar angle settings. We discuss possible photometrical mechanisms behind these effects.

[1]  J. Gibson.  The perception of the visual world , 1951 .

[2]  D. Spencer,et al.  The photic field , 1981 .

[3]  David Marr,et al.  VISION A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information , 2009 .

[4]  Ted Seth Jacobs,et al.  Light for the Artist , 1988 .

[5]  E. Adelson,et al.  The Plenoptic Function and the Elements of Early Vision , 1991 .

[6]  Michael S. Landy,et al.  Computational models of visual processing , 1991 .

[7]  M. Baxandall.  Shadows and Enlightenment , 1995 .

[8]  Edward H. Adelson,et al.  The perception of shading and reflectance , 1996 .

[9]  D. Knill,et al.  The perception of cast shadows , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  Shree K. Nayar,et al.  Reflectance and texture of real-world surfaces , 1999, TOGS.

[11]  J. Koenderink,et al.  Illumination direction from texture shading. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[12]  Jan J. Koenderink,et al.  The secret of velvety skin , 2003, Machine Vision and Applications.

[13]  Roland W Fleming,et al.  Real-world illumination and the perception of surface reflectance properties. , 2003, Journal of vision.

[14]  J. Koenderink,et al.  Light Direction from Shad(ow)ed Random Gaussian Surfaces , 2004, Perception.

[15]  David J. Kriegman,et al.  The Bas-Relief Ambiguity , 2004, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[16]  Reza Rajimehr,et al.  Subliminal attentional modulation in crowding condition , 2004 .

[17]  Ron O Dror,et al.  Statistical characterization of real-world illumination. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[18]  Consistent errors in human judgments of material and light-source direction , 2004 .

[19]  Jan J. Koenderink,et al.  Surface illuminance flow , 2004 .

[20]  J. Koenderink,et al.  Bidirectional Texture Contrast Function , 2002, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[21]  Sylvia C. Pont,et al.  A comparison of material and illumination discrimination performance for real rough, real smooth and computer generated smooth spheres , 2005, APGV '05.