Abstract
Many surface rendering techniques are currently available for the three-dimensional display of structure data captured by imaging devices. Comparatively fewer volume rendering techniques are also available for the same purpose. The relative performance of these two methodologies in visualization tasks has been a subject of much discussion recently. Although it is very desirable to establish, based on observer studies, objective guidelines stating the relative merits of the two methodologies even for specific situations, it is impossible to conduct meaningful observer studies that take into account the numerousness of the techniques in each methodology, and within each technique, the numerousness of the parameters and their values that control the outcome of the technique. Our aim in this article is to compare the two methodologies purely on a technical basis in an attempt to understand their common weaknesses and disparate strengths. The purpose of this article is twofold—to report a new surface rendering technique and to compare it with two volume rendering techniques reported recently in the literature. The bases of comparison are: ability to portray thin bones; clarity of portrayal of sutures, fractures, fine textures, and gyrations; smoothness of natural ridges and silhouettes; and computational time and storage requirements. We analyze the underlying algorithms to study how they behave under each of these comparative criteria. Our conclusion is that, at the current state of development, the surface method has a slight edge over the volume methods for portrayal of information of the type described above and a significant advantage considering time and storage requirements, for implementations in identical environments.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Herman GT, Liu HK: Three-dimensional display of human organs from computed tomograms. Comput Graph Imag Proc 9:1–29, 1979
Cook LT, Dwyer III SJ, Batnitzky S, et al: A three-dimensional display system for diagnostic imaging applications. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Comput Graph and Appl 3:13–19, 1983
Cline HE, Lorensen WE, Ludke S, et al: Two algorithms for the three-dimensional reconstruction of tomograms. Med Phys 15:320–327, 1987
Frieder G, Gordon D, Reynolds RA: Back-to-front display of voxel-based objects. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Comput Graph Appl 5:52–60, 1985
Drebin RA, Carpenter L, Hanrahan P: Volume rendering. Comput Graph 22:65–74, 1988
Levoy M: Display of surfaces from volume data. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Comput Graph Appl 8(3):29–37, 1988
Vannier MW, Hildebolt CF, Marsh JL, et al: Craniosynostosis: Diagnostic value of three-dimensional CT reconstructions. Radiol 173:669–673, 1989
Artzy E, Frieder G, Herman GT: The theory, design, implementation and evaluation of a three-dimensional surface detection algorithm. Comput Graph Imag Proc 15:1–24, 1981
Udupa JK, Srihari SN, Herman GT: Boundary detection in multidimensions. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Trans Patt Anal Mach Intel PAMI-4:41–50, 1982
Gordon D, Udupa JK: Fast surface tracking in three-dimensional binary images. Comput V Graph and Imag Proc 45:196–214, 1989
Raya SP, Udupa JK: Shape-based interpolation of multidimensional objects. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Trans Med Imag MI-9:32–42, 1990
Chuang KS, Udupa JK, Raya SP: High-quality rendering of discrete three-dimensional surfaces. Technical Report MIPG130, Medical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1988
Phong BT: Illumination for computer generated images. Comm Associate for Computer Machinery 18:311–317, 1975
Herman GT, Roberts D, Rabe B: The reduction of pseudo-foramina (false holes) in computer graphic presentations for craniofacial surgery. Proceedings of the 8th Ann Conf and Expo of the National Computer Graphics Association 3:81–85, 1987
Udupa JK, Odhner D: Interactive surgical planning: High-speed object rendition and manipulation without specialized hardware. Proceedings, First International Conference on Visualization in Biomedical Computing, Atlanta, GA. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 1990, pp 330–336
Bomans M, Höhne K-H, Tiede U, et al: 3-D segmentation of MR images of the head for 3-D display. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Trans Medical Imaging MI-9: 177–183, 1990
Levoy M: Efficient ray tracing of volume data. Associate for Computer Machinery Transactions on Graphics 9:245–261, 1990
Becker SC, Barrett WA: Interactive morphometrics from three-dimensional surface images. Proceedings, First International Conference on Visualization in Biomedical Computing, Atlanta, GA. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA 1990, pp 418–425
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Supported by National Institute of Health Grant CA50851.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Udupa, J.K., Hung, HM. & Chuang, KS. Surface and volume rendering in three-dimensional imaging: A comparison. J Digit Imaging 4, 159–168 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03168161
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03168161