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.
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
Contents 1. “Mosaico - Conímbriga e Sicó” project a. Digital Tools for Exploring Roman Mosaic 2. Prototype AR Application 3. AR Framework Testing 4. Conclusions
“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.
“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
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
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. ○
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?
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
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
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”
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
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
AR Framework Evaluation Results - Recognition Delay ● CraftAR is faster than PixLive ○ Almost 0.5 seconds faster ● PixLive requires less visible target area
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
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
jorgecardoso
tomoyanonymous
sgnm
____rina____
inoichan
kyoun
danielkatz
mertcooking
gpeyre
reisato12345
sorami
icttitech
joisino
zakiwarfel
roundedbygravity
pedronauck
rmw
chrisshort
kneath
iamctodd
palkan
holman
tenderlove
jrom
sstephenson