with

Parallelogram
Prediction
Compressing
Polygon Mesh Geometry



































Martin Isenburg
UNC
Chapel Hill
Pierre Alliez
INRIA
Sophia-Antipolis
Take this home:

Non-triangular faces in
the mesh can be exploited for
more efficient
predictive compression
of vertex positions.

Non-triangular faces tend to
be planar and convex.
Overview
Background
Previous Work
Linear Prediction Schemes
within versus across
Example Run
Can we do better ?
Conclusion
Background
Polygon Meshes
connectivity



geometry
vertex
1
( x, y, z )
vertex
2
( x, y, z )
vertex
3
( x, y, z )

vertex
v
face
1
1 2 3 4
face
2
3 4 3
face
3
5 2 1 3

face
f

~ 4v 32 bits
3v * 32 bits
size: 79296 bytes
29736
5647
12
log
2
(v)
2832 vertices
Geometry Compression [Deering, 95]
Fast Rendering
Progressive Transmission
Maximum Compression
Geometry Compression [Deering, 95]
Mesh Compression
Maximum Compression
Geometry Compression [Deering, 95]
Fast Rendering
Progressive Transmission
Maximum Compression
Connectivity
Geometry
Geometry Compression [Deering, 95]
Mesh Compression
Maximum Compression
Geometry
Geometry Compression [Deering, 95]
Fast Rendering
Progressive Transmission
Maximum Compression
Connectivity
Geometry
Triangle Meshes
Polygon Meshes
Geometry Compression [Deering, 95]
Mesh Compression
Polygon Meshes
Maximum Compression
Geometry
Triangle Mesh Compression
Connectivity Coder
stores the connectivity as sequence
of vertex degrees
Triangle Mesh Compression
[Touma & Gotsman, Graphics Interface 98]
Geometry Coder
stores the geometry as sequence of
vectors; each corrects the prediction
of a vertex position
Not Triangles Polygons!
Face Fixer [Isenburg & Snoeyink, 00]
Connectivity Coder
Generalization of TG coder
Compressing Polygon Connectivity with
Degree Duality Prediction, [Isenburg, 02]
Near-optimal connectivity coding of
Polygon meshes, [Khodakovsky, Alliez,
Desbrun & Schroeder, 02]
this paper [Isenburg & Alliez, 02]
Geometry Coder


triceratops
galleon
cessna

tommygun
cow
teapot


14.8
18.4
12.5

12.5
20.6
16.1


Results
TG
bits per vertex
model
IA
20.0
24.1
19.1

19.6
20.4
21.0


min / max / average [%] = 9 / 41 / 23
26 %
26 %
35 %
...
36 %
-1 %
24 %


gain
Previous Work
Previous Work
Classic approaches [95 98]:
linear prediction
Geometry Compression
[Deering, 95]
Geometric Compression through topological
surgery [Taubin & Rossignac, 98]
Triangle Mesh Compression
[Touma & Gotsman, 98]
Java3D
MPEG - 4
Virtue3D
Previous Work
Classic approaches [95 98]:
linear prediction
Recent approaches [00 02]:
spectral
re-meshing
space-dividing
vector-quantization
feature discovery
angle-based
Previous Work
Classic approaches [95 98]:
linear prediction
Recent approaches [00 02]:
spectral
re-meshing
space-dividing
vector-quantization
feature discovery
angle-based
Spectral Compression
of Mesh Geometry
[Karni & Gotsman, 00]
expensive numerical
computations
Previous Work
Classic approaches [95 98]:
linear prediction
Recent approaches [00 02]:
spectral
re-meshing
space-dividing
vector-quantization
feature discovery
angle-based
Progressive Geometry
Compression
[Khodakovsky et al., 00]
modifies mesh prior
to compression
Previous Work
Classic approaches [95 98]:
linear prediction
Recent approaches [00 02]:
spectral
re-meshing
space-dividing
vector-quantization
feature discovery
angle-based
Geometric Compression
for interactive transmission
[Devillers & Gandoin, 00]
poly-soups; complex
geometric algorithms
Previous Work
Classic approaches [95 98]:
linear prediction
Recent approaches [00 02]:
spectral
re-meshing
space-dividing
vector-quantization
feature discovery
angle-based
Vertex data compression
for triangle meshes
[Lee & Ko, 00]
local coord-system +
vector-quantization
Previous Work
Classic approaches [95 98]:
linear prediction
Recent approaches [00 02]:
spectral
re-meshing
space-dividing
vector-quantization
feature discovery
angle-based
certain 3D models +
expensive matching
Compression of engineering
models by repeated feature
[Shikhare et al., 01]
discovery
Previous Work
Classic approaches [95 98]:
linear prediction
Recent approaches [00 02]:
spectral
re-meshing
space-dividing
vector-quantization
feature discovery
angle-based
Angle-Analyzer: A triangle-
quad mesh codec
[Lee, Alliez & Desbrun, 02]
dihedral + internal =
heavy trigonometry
Linear Prediction Schemes
Linear Prediction Schemes
1. quantize positions with b bits
2. traverse positions
3. linear prediction from neighbors
4. store corrective vector
(1.2045, -0.2045, 0.7045) (1008, 68, 718)
floating point integer
Linear Prediction Schemes
1. quantize positions with b bits
2. traverse positions
3. linear prediction from neighbors
4. store corrective vector
use traversal order implied by
the connectivity coder
Linear Prediction Schemes
1. quantize positions with b bits
2. traverse positions
3. linear prediction from neighbors
4. store corrective vector
(1004, 71, 723)
apply prediction rule
prediction
Linear Prediction Schemes
1. quantize positions with b bits
2. traverse positions
3. linear prediction from neighbors
4. store corrective vector
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
position distribution
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
corrector distribution
(1004, 71, 723) (1008, 68, 718)
position
(4, -3, -5)
corrector prediction
Deering, 95
Prediction: Delta-Coding























































A
processed region
unprocessed region


P
P = A
Taubin & Rossignac, 98
Prediction: Spanning Tree






















































A
B
C
D
E
processed region
unprocessed region


P
P = A + B + C + D + E +
Touma & Gotsman, 98
Prediction: Parallelogram Rule

processed region
unprocessed region
























































P
P = A B + C
A
B
C






















Parallelogram Rule






good
prediction
bad
prediction
non-convex
bad
prediction
non-planar



More good Predictions
average multiple predictions
Multi-way geometry encoding.
[Cohen-Or, Cohen & Irony, 02]
Optimized compression of triangle mesh geometry
using prediction trees. [Kronrod & Gotsman, 02]
search for best prediction
direct the traversal (prediction tree)
average gain of 11 %
average gain of 8 % (smooth) & 42 % (CAD)
Polygon Meshes ?
TG coder
triangulate
compress resulting triangle mesh
IA coder
do NOT triangulate
use polygons for better predictions
within versus across
within versus across
Non-triangular Faces
Question: Why would a mesh have
a non-triangular face?
Non-triangular Faces
Question: Why would a mesh have
a non-triangular face?
Answer: Because there was no
reason to triangulate it!
This face was convex
and planar.
use this info for good predictions
within-predictions often find existing
parallelograms ( quadrilaterals)
within versus across
within-predictions avoid creases




within-prediction






across-prediction











triceratops
galleon
cessna

tommygun
cow
teapot


20.5
26.8
19.8

19.5
20.6
22.7


Bitrates: within vs. across
within
bits per vertex
model
across
14.1
16.9
11.1

10.9
-
14.9


min / max / average [%] = 13 / 47 / 32
31 %
37 %
45 %
...
44 %
-
34 %


diff
Maximizing the number of
within-predictions
Greedy Strategy
always try to:
(A) pick a vertex whose position
can be within-predicted
otherwise:
(B) do an across-prediction, but
pick a vertex that creates (A)
for the next iteration
were lucky:
process vertices in order dictated
by our connectivity coder
Traversal Order
Compressing Polygon Connectivity with
Degree Duality Prediction [Isenburg, 02]
Valence-driven Connectivity Encoding
for 3D meshes [Alliez & Desbrun, 01]
avoid splits by adaptive traversal

splits
splits
splits
splits
splits
processed region
splits
processed region
splits
processed region
splits
processed region
splits
processed region
splits
processed region


split
Adaptive Traversal







































































Adaptive Traversal







































































Adaptive Traversal






































































% of within-predictions

triceratops
galleon
cessna

tommygun
cow
teapot


within
prediction type:
model
min / max / average [%] = 74 / 91 / 84
across
2557 257 2 1
2007 324 24 12
3091 621 22 11

3376 678 78 39
0 2701 2 1
1016 170 2 1
last center
90 %
85 %
83 %

81 %
0 %
85 %

within
% of
Example Decoding Run
Example Decoding Run




center-prediction:
no parallelogram rule possible
predict this position as center of
the bounding box
center
Example Decoding Run


0


last
last-prediction:
no parallelogram rule possible
predict this position as the last
position
Example Decoding Run






1
0
last
last-prediction:
no parallelogram rule possible
predict this position as the last
position
Example Decoding Run






across-prediction:
parallelogram rule possible
predict across two polygons
across






1
0
2
Example Decoding Run




within-prediction:
use parallelogram rule
predict within a polygon
within






1
0
2


3
Example Decoding Run




1
0


within






4
3
2
Example Decoding Run








3
1
2


across






5
4
0
Example Decoding Run








3
1
0
2


within




6
4


5
Example Decoding Run










7
5
1
0
2


within






6
4
3
Example Decoding Run










7
6
5
1
0


4


within




7
2


3
Can we do better ?
(and keep it simple)
Keep it simple
Constraints:
single linear prediction
use connectivity traversal order

Possibilities:
floating point coefficients
use more than three vertices
better within-predictions


perfect
systematic error
deg = 4
assuming ideal ( regular) polygons
P = A B + C
P = A + B + C
= 1, = -1, = 1




deg = 6


A


B


C









deg = 8


B


C


A




C
B


A




deg = 5


A


C B
Switch within Coefficients
if (deg == 4) {
= 1.000; = -1.000; = 1.000;
} else if (deg == 5) {
= 1.024; = -0.527; = 0.503;
} else if (deg == 6) {
= 1.066; = -0.315; = 0.249;
} else

How did we pick these numbers?
Finding the Coefficients
no obvious scientific way
use Matlab
for each degree separately
sum all possible prediction errors as
function of and



optimize and for minimal error
Err = len (N A + B + C)

with 1 = + +




B
A


C




N
Switch within Coefficients
if (deg == 4) {
= 1.000; = -1.000; = 1.000;
} else if (deg == 5) {
= 1.024; = -0.527; = 0.503;
} else if (deg == 6) {
= 1.066; = -0.315; = 0.249;
} else

on average 70 % of predictions
parallelogram prediction within
a quadrilateral is optimal
assuming equal edge length


better across-predictions
33 34 35 36 38
43 44 45 46 48
adjacent
polygons
are
coplanar















































































assuming equal edge length
better across-predictions
33 34 35 36 38
43 44 45 46 48
adjacent
polygons
are not
coplanar
crease
angle:
60










































































Switch across Coefficients
if (deg == 33) {
= 0.917; = - 0.833; = 0.916;
} else if (deg == 34) {
= 0.621; = - 0.504; = 0.883;
} else if (deg == 35) {
= 0.557; = - 0.334; = 0.777;
} else

} else if (deg == 43) {
= 1.153; = - 0.354; = 0.201;
} else if (deg == 44) {
= 1.001; = - 0.648; = 0.647;
} else

Conclusion
Summary (1)
polygon information can improve
predictive geometry compression
using parallelogram rule within
rather than across polygons
average improvement of 23 %
over TG coder
has simple and straight-forward
implementation
Summary (2)
proof-of-concept
implementation
in form of a Web
java-applet

compression software will soon
be made available
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~isenburg/pmc/
Future Work
a scientific way to find numbers
for this coefficient switching
polygonification:
turn triangle meshes into polygon
meshes for better compression
Acknowledgments
funding:
ARC Tlgo grant of INRIA at
Sophia-Antipolis
logistics:
Jack Snoeyink
Olivier Devillers
Agns Clment Bessire
Jean-Daniel Boissonnat



Thank You!
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~isenburg/pmc/