Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

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
Tweet

More Decks by Jorge C. S. Cardoso

Other Decks in Research

Transcript

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  3. “Mosaico -
    Conímbriga e
    Sicó” Project

    View full-size slide

  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.

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  8. Augmented
    Reality Mobile
    Application An AR application that provides
    in-place, contextual information
    about the roman mosaics

    View full-size slide

  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.

    View full-size slide

  10. Types of Augmented Reality
    Location-based Structured markers
    “Instant tracking” Natural image features

    View full-size slide

  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?

    View full-size slide

  12. AR Framework
    Testing

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  14. AR Framework Evaluation
    ● Real-world evaluation with roman mosaics at Conímbriga
    ● Targets with different characteristics were captured

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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”

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  19. AR Framework Evaluation Results - Recognition Delay
    ● CraftAR is faster
    than PixLive
    ○ Almost 0.5
    seconds faster
    ● PixLive requires less
    visible target area

    View full-size slide

  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

    View full-size slide

  21. 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

    View full-size slide