We’ve pretty much taken the skeletal/hierarchical representation of human motion as a given. For this reading, I want you to look at alternatives. These aren’t the only alternatives, but they are interesting ones.
There are two systems that I’d like you to read about. Choose either #1 or #2 and #3. (1 and 2 are about the same system).
- Multon, F., Kulpa, R. & Bideau, B. MKM: a global framework for animating humans in virtual reality applications. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ., 2008, Vol. 17(1), pp. 17-28 – Abstract Pdf BibTeX
(this is a systems paper, giving an overview of everything together) - Kulpa, R., Multon, F. & Arnaldi, B. Morphology-independent representation of motions for interactive human-like animation. Computer Graphics Forum, Eurographics 2005 special issue, 2005, Vol. 24(3), pp. 343-352 – Abstract Pdf BibTeX
(this is the paper with the representation details and retargeting method) - Edmond S.L. Ho, Taku Komura, and Chiew-Lan Tai. Spatial Relationship Preserving Character Motion Adaptation. SIGGRAPH 2010 (ACM Trans Graph 29(4)). (project page w/PDF and video). Although, if you’re on campus, it might be best to get the ACM Digital Library version (here).
In the Moodle Forum Question, please answer:
Each representation (normal skeleton, MKM’s "cartesian" representaion, and Ho et al’s) has different good an bad points. The new representations are particularly suited to some tasks and not others.
For each of the 2 representations, give an idea of something it may be better for (than the traditional representation) and something it may be worse for. Be sure to say why.
Please do this before class on Monday, March 11th.
