$30 off During Our Annual Pro Sale. View Details »

Evaluation of Multi-Platform Mobile AR Frameworks for Roman Mosaic Augmentation

Evaluation of Multi-Platform Mobile AR Frameworks for Roman Mosaic Augmentation

Presentation for the paper "Evaluation of Multi-Platform Mobile AR Frameworks for Roman Mosaic Augmentation" at the 16th EUROGRAPHICS Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage (EG GCH), Vienna, Austria, 2018.

Jorge C. S. Cardoso

November 13, 2018

More Decks by Jorge C. S. Cardoso

Other Decks in Research


  1. Evaluation of Multi-Platform Mobile AR Frameworks for Roman Mosaic Augmentation

    EUROGRAPHICS Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage (2018) Vienna, Austria, November 12-15, 2018 Jorge C. S. Cardoso, André Belo CISUC/DEI, Universidade de Coimbra
  2. Contents 1. “Mosaico - Conímbriga e Sicó” project a. Digital

    Tools for Exploring Roman Mosaic 2. Prototype AR Application 3. AR Framework Testing 4. Conclusions
  3. “Mosaico - Conímbriga e Sicó” Project

  4. “Mosaico - Conímbriga e Sicó” Project • Based on the

    Roman Mosaic Heritage present in the geographical axis constituted by ◦ the Ruins of the Roman city of Conímbriga, ◦ the Roman Villa of Rabaçal, and ◦ the Monumental Complex of Santiago da Guarda.
  5. “Mosaico - Conímbriga e Sicó” Project • Promotes cultural and

    creative activities within the museums, interpretative centers and archaeological sites ◦ Integrated into the CREATOUR national project as a pilot initiative • Alternative experiences of sharing knowledge about the Roman Mosaic Heritage • Mosaic as a modern expression of creativity brought into the present and reinterpreted
  6. Digital Tools for Exploring Roman Mosaic In the context of

    the “Mosaico - Conímbriga e Sicó” project Various planned digital tools to support different activities for exploring roman mosaic
  7. Digital Tools for Exploring Roman Mosaic • Mosaic Editor ◦

    Support for mosaic workshops for non-professionals • Programming Environment (Adapted Snap! Environment) ◦ Learning computer programming by creating mosaic patterns • Interactive Sandbox ◦ Interactive experiences for kids ◦ Simulating uncovering mosaics
  8. Augmented Reality Mobile Application An AR application that provides in-place,

    contextual information about the roman mosaics
  9. Augmented Reality Mobile Application for Mosaics • Purpose ◦ Display

    technical information about the mosaics, for example, when they were uncovered, what was the latest conservation or restoration work, etc. ◦ Display image overlays of the conservation or restoration works on mosaics over time. ◦ Provide a platform for the visualization of virtual restoration of the existing mosaics. ◦ Highlight mosaics with graphical information regarding various motifs ▪ geometric patterns, animals, plants, compositions, mythological figures, etc. ◦
  10. Types of Augmented Reality Location-based Structured markers “Instant tracking” Natural

    image features
  11. Augmented Reality Mobile Application • Requirement ◦ Multi-platform application (run

    on Android, iOS, etc.) ▪ Single code base ▪ Lower development effort • What AR development frameworks are available for multi-platform mobile development? • Which AR development frameworks are most suitable for detecting real mosaics?
  12. AR Framework Testing

  13. AR Development Frameworks • We studied multi-platform AR development frameworks

    and their features ◦ With natural image feature detection • Narrowed down to 3 frameworks: CraftAR, PixLive, Wikitude
  14. AR Framework Evaluation • Real-world evaluation with roman mosaics at

    Conímbriga • Targets with different characteristics were captured
  15. AR Test Application • A simple test application was developed

    using each of the 3 AR frameworks • Test application overlaid graphical shapes over the targets ◦ Simple shapes, easy to verify alignment
  16. AR Test Application • We screen-captured in video the execution

    of the application over each of the mosaic targets • Three camera movements: ◦ Camera face down, turn up towards the target, then turn left, then right ◦ Horizontal pan left/right ◦ “Zoom in/out”
  17. AR Test Application • We screen-captured in video the execution

    of the application over each of the mosaic targets • We analysed the various videos and extracted 3 metrics ◦ Recognition delay ◦ Minimum required target area ◦ Visual alignment and stability
  18. AR Framework Evaluation Results - Overall Recognition • Not all

    targets were recognized ◦ This was expected ◦ Targets were captured from a distance ◦ Not much effort in capturing targets • Wikitude performed very poorly ◦ Unexpected ◦ Requires further study as to why
  19. AR Framework Evaluation Results - Recognition Delay • CraftAR is

    faster than PixLive ◦ Almost 0.5 seconds faster • PixLive requires less visible target area
  20. AR Framework Evaluation Results - Visual alignment and stability 1.

    Subjectively rated by the two authors a. -1: bad alignment / stability b. 0: ok alignment / stability c. 1: good alignment / stability
  21. Conclusion

  22. Conclusion • Evaluation in a real scenario setting ◦ Compared

    three frameworks: CraftAR, PixLive, Wikitude ◦ Wikitude failed, but more testing is required to dismiss it • Study allowed us to understand strong and weak points of these AR frameworks ◦ AR frameworks’ performance varies greatly depending on the type of image they are recognizing ◦ AR frameworks have different performance compromises ▪ No single one is best at every performance attribute • Virtual Heritage application developers should test different frameworks before commiting to one