The document discusses representations of visual appearance in computer graphics and their relationships to methods for fabricating and displaying material appearance. It presents a taxonomy that extends previous work, arranging representations based on how they model interactions between viewers, materials, and illumination. Simpler representations that reduce material properties allow for full interactivity during display, while more complex representations maintaining full material properties restrict interactivity between viewers and lights.

3. ART
DesignEngineering
Science
Education?
Learning?

4. Art
Science
Design
Engineering

21. 21

25. 25

49. Ivan Sutherland
demonstrating the Sketchpad
system on the console of the
TX-2 at MIT(1963)

50. 50

120. 1(b)
)
R
),,( zyx
),( φθ
),( ts
),( vu
(a) (b)
),( RRR φθ=D
v
u
),( RRR vu=C
),,( zyx
),( RRR φθ=D
v
u
),( RRR vu=C
),( LLL φθ=D
),( LLL vu=C
v
u
),,( zyx
(c) (d)
M. Hullin et al. / State of the Art in Computational Fabrication and Display of Material Appearance
Figure 3: A taxonomy of visual appearance representations, extended from [Fuchs 2008], [Lensch 2003], and [Rusinkiewicz and
Marschner 2000]: methods for fabrication of material appearance and its interactive display are tightly related to methods for
describing material appearance in computer graphics contexts, and follow the same patterns. Simplifying the material types to
reduce the parameter space (blue) maintains full interactivity with viewer and light, while restricting the interactions between
viewer, material, and illumination maintains a full material gamut (yellow). For reference, illumination-invariant representations
are in white.
dimensions. Color adds an additional dimension if treated
as a separable effect in individual color channels, as is the
case with current fabrication techniques. Adding control over
light field [Levoy and Hanrahan 1996] to a 4D outgoing light
field). BSSRDF and reflectance field differ only in that the
BSSRDF is defined relative to a scene surface, while the