MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107724014 · doi:10.1145/2421636.2421638

Synthesizing waves from animated height fields

2013· article· en· W2107724014 on OpenAlexaff
Michael B. Nielsen, Andreas Söderström, Robert Bridson

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimationComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)Set (abstract data type)AcousticsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer animated ocean waves for feature films are typically carefully choreographed to match the vision of the director and to support the telling of the story. The rough shape of these waves is established in the previsualization (previs) stage, where artists use a variety of modeling tools with fast feedback to obtain the desired look. This poses a challenge to the effects artists who must subsequently match the locked-down look of the previs waves with high-quality simulated or synthesized waves, adding the detail necessary for the final shot. We propose a set of automated techniques for synthesizing Fourier-based ocean waves that match a previs input, allowing artists to quickly enhance the input wave animation with additional higher-frequency detail that moves consistently with the coarse waves, tweak the wave shapes to flatten troughs and sharpen peaks if desired (as is characteristic of deep water waves), and compute a physically reasonable velocity field of the water analytically. These properties are demonstrated with several examples, including a previs scene from a visual effects production environment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207