grog February 24, 2005, 06:54 AM 

Rui Martins wrote:
Did you deform a perfectly good model, or did the initial model already have holes and other mesh problems ?
The algorithm has been tested/is used on real world data only, since it's meant as a postprocessing step for reverse engineering point clouds. The algorithms tested against include algorithms reconstructing surfaces from coplanar slices and unorganized pointclouds.
Regarding this there are, of course limitations: + the algoritm can not process handmade meshes (CAD) very well + it is bound to the sampling theorem.
The question is relevant in the sense that if you setup your own test mesh, you may not find cases that you never though about, since you will never reproduce them.
I definitely agree.
On a side note, how many different meshes did you try the algo on?
It was successfully tested on approximatly 30 meshes reconstructed from coplanar slices (ranging from a few hundred to four hundred thousand vertices) and 20 meshes reconstructed from unorganized pointclouds (few thousand to millions of vertices). All meshes contained several defects in geometry and topology, due to undersampling or limitations of the reconstruction algorithms.
Nice work overall, but I think that the corrected mesh, should also be drawn shiny, for us to be able to compare the result, since it's a lot easier to spot errors, specially in normals, when the mesh is shiny.
It seems that your method smooths somewhat the resulting mesh (Look at the lower part of legs), but this can be a consequence/illusion of the non shinny render.
You're right, i should have rendered both meshes shiny. When i have some spare time i'll put some pictures/meshes on my website. The algorithm in its current stage does not smooth the mesh, but i'm looking forward to implement a smoothing method proposed in http://kucg.korea.ac.kr/~sjkim/paper/oslo.pdf . But the vertexcoordinates will not be modified during the repair process.
Greets
