RTI standard suggestion

[Testae]

Hello everybody,

 

as RTI is more and more used in various fields, I felt that it would be of great use if users would somehow standardize the way they are displaying their images created by means of RTI. Here is a suggestion. I introduced and used this standard for my master's thesis on the RTI of transparent materials (see https://www.dropbox.com/s/8rjl3tmq1jfswtz/Dittus_RTI-transparenter-Materialien.pdf?dl=0 pp. 66/67) and it is to my knowledge also used in the conservation course of the State Academy of Arts and Design Stuttgart since when publishing RTI images. But of course this is just a suggestion and up to any discussion. However I think it helps especially for two reasons: first of all an image becomes recognizable as RTI-generated as opposed to being a 'traditional' photograph at first glance. And additionally it provides all important information on where the digital light is coming from and what filters were used. 

So here are the key points:

 

- Insert green ‘light controller‘ (screenshot from the viewer)

 

 

- Insert scale

 

 

- Mention the rendering mode and, where the mode is available for both algorithms, the computing algorithm in the caption

 

 

- Mention light coordinates as shown in the viewer in the caption

 

 

- If the image needs to be rotated, insert the light controller prior to rotating and mention the rotation angle in the caption.

 

Here is one example caption for the attached image:

 

 

Plastic foil with kinks and dust; SE mode (HSH), X -0,37 Y -,014.

 

I would love to learn what you think of the idea!

 

Best,

 

Alex

 

[Taylor]

This strikes me as a good idea, and not that difficult to implement.  A wish list of features for future versions of the RTIViewer might include the ability to automatically annotate snapshots with a scale bar and the light-direction track-ball from the viewer.

 

It's an interesting Master's thesis, considering the application of RTI to transparent or semi-transparent objects that don't fit the Lambertian, non-transmissive model assumptions that the RTI algorithms are designed for.  I've had some qualitative success capturing RTIs of translucent and specular objects, but they produce artifacts and the resulting normal directions are quantitatively questionable.  I don't suppose the thesis is available in English translation?

[cdschroer]

 I like the idea of sharing the settings.  The best way to do it is going to vary depending on the audience for the image.

 

I think there are some good ideas here, but I also realize that we use this kind of information in a lot of different ways, and putting this in the caption isn't always appropriate.  I think it does make sense to always have information about the settings available, and that's why RTIViewer produces an xml file with this data for every snapshot.

 

At CHI, we use snapshots for lots of things, including print marketing materials, on web pages, and for technical and academic papers.  In the last case, is I think where this suggestion makes the most sense.  It really doesn't make sense for a postcard that has information about a training class (for example).

 

Just my $.02. 

 

Carla