Estimating the glossiness transfer function induced by illumination change and testing its transitivity.

The light reflected from a glossy surface depends on the reflectance properties of that surface as well as the flow of light in the scene, the light field. We asked four observers to compare the glossiness of pairs of surfaces under two different real-word light fields, and used this data to estimate a transfer function that captures how perceived glossiness is remapped in changing from one real-world light field to a second. We wished to determine the form of the transfer function and to test whether for any set of three light fields the transfer function from light field 1 to light field 2 and the transfer function from light field 2 to light field 3 could be used to predict the glossiness transfer function from light field 1 to light field 3. Observers' estimated glossiness transfer functions for three sets of light fields were best described by a linear model. The estimated transfer functions exhibited the expected transitivity pattern for three out of four observers. The failure of transitivity for one observer, while significant, was less than 12.5% of the gloss range.

[1]  G. Obein,et al.  Difference scaling of gloss: nonlinearity, binocularity, and constancy. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[2]  M. Landy,et al.  Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion , 1995, Vision Research.

[3]  G. W. Larson,et al.  Rendering with radiance - the art and science of lighting visualization , 2004, Morgan Kaufmann series in computer graphics and geometric modeling.

[4]  M. Landy,et al.  Conjoint Measurement of Gloss and Surface Texture , 2008, Psychological science.

[5]  James Gettys,et al.  X Window System : core library and standards : X version 11, releases 6 and 6.1 , 1996 .

[6]  J. Beck Surface color perception , 1972 .

[7]  Michael Pointer,et al.  Measurement of appearance , 2002, Other Conferences.

[8]  J. Beck,et al.  Highlights and the perception of glossiness , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  A. Gilchrist,et al.  An anchoring theory of lightness perception. , 1999, Psychological review.

[10]  M. Levoy,et al.  The light field , 1939 .

[11]  A. AlanGilchrist Seeing in Black and White , 2006 .

[12]  E. Adelson,et al.  Image statistics for surface reflectance perception. , 2008, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[13]  Gregory J. Ward,et al.  Measuring and modeling anisotropic reflection , 1992, SIGGRAPH.

[14]  E. Adelson,et al.  Image statistics and the perception of surface qualities , 2007, Nature.

[15]  E. Mingolla,et al.  Remote Effects of Highlights on Gloss Perception , 2005, Perception.

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

[17]  J. Wolfowitz,et al.  An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics , 1951, Nature.

[18]  Franklin A. Graybill,et al.  Introduction to the Theory of Statistics, 3rd ed. , 1974 .

[19]  Paul E. Debevec,et al.  Rendering synthetic objects into real scenes: bridging traditional and image-based graphics with global illumination and high dynamic range photography , 1998, SIGGRAPH '08.

[20]  M. Kenward,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 2007 .