True-3D in Cartography—Current Hard- and Softcopy Developments

Buchroithner, Manfred; Knust, Claudia

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12289-7_3

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The monoscopic pseudo 3D visualization (also called weak 3D visualization; [15]), is displayed perspectivemonoscopically on a flat media, e g. computer screen [20]. Pseudo-3D visualization offers only monocular depth cues for the identification of spatial features in the environment (e.g.…”

Section: Real 3d and Pseudo 3d Visualization And Geovisualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When the display matters: A multifaceted perspective on 3D geovisualizations

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the influence of stereoscopic (real) 3D and monoscopic (pseudo) 3D visualization on the human ability to reckon altitude information in noninteractive and interactive 3D geovisualizations. A two phased experiment was carried out to compare the performance of two groups of participants, one of them using the real 3D and the other one pseudo 3D visualization of geographical data. A homogeneous group of 61 psychology students, inexperienced in processing of geographical data, were tested with respect to their efficiency at identifying altitudes of the displayed landscape. The first phase of the experiment was designed as non-interactive, where static 3D visual displays were presented; the second phase was designed as interactive and the participants were allowed to explore the scene by adjusting the position of the virtual camera. The investigated variables included accuracy at altitude identification, time demands and the amount of the participant's motor activity performed during interaction with geovisualization. The interface was created using a Motion Capture system, Wii Remote Controller, widescreen projection and the passive Dolby 3D technology (for real 3D vision). The real 3D visual display was shown to significantly increase the accuracy of the landscape altitude identification in non-interactive tasks. As expected, in the interactive phase there were differences in accuracy flattened out between groups due to the possibility of interaction, with no other statistically significant differences in completion times or motor activity. The increased number of omitted objects in real 3D condition was further subjected to an exploratory analysis.

show abstract

Section: Real 3d and Pseudo 3d Visualization And Geovisualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…linear perspective, relative size, interposition, texture gradient or kinetic depth effect). On the other hand, real (or "strong") 3D visualization [15] uses both the binocular and monocular depth cues and provides stereoscopy [20].…”

Section: Real 3d and Pseudo 3d Visualization And Geovisualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

When the display matters: A multifaceted perspective on 3D geovisualizations

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Buchroithner and Knust [5] distinguished between two basic types of 3D visualization: Real-3D and pseudo-3D visualization. Real-3D visualizations engage both binocular and monocular depth cues into geovisualizations using the principles of stereoscopy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Real-3D visualizations engage both binocular and monocular depth cues into geovisualizations using the principles of stereoscopy. Pseudo-3D visualizations are usually displayed on planar media (e.g., computer screens or widescreen projections), and are perceived by engaging only monocular depth cues [5]. In general, pseudo-3D visualization is considered a cheaper and more disseminated type of visualization, since it has no further demands on peripheral technology to provide stereoscopy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of User Performance in Interactive and Static 3D Maps

Heřman

Juřík

Stachoň

et al. 2018

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interactive 3D visualizations of geospatial data are currently available and popular through various applications such as Google EarthTM and others. Several studies have focused on user performance with 3D maps, but static 3D maps were mostly used as stimuli. The main objective of this paper was to identify differences between interactive and static 3D maps. We also explored the role of different tasks and inter-individual differences of map users. In the experimental study, we analyzed effectiveness, efficiency, and subjective preferences, when working with static and interactive 3D maps. The study included 76 participants and used a within-subjects design. Experimental testing was performed using our own testing tool 3DmoveR 2.0, which was based on a user logging method and open web technologies. We demonstrated statistically significant differences between interactive and static 3D maps in effectiveness, efficiency, and subjective preferences. Interactivity influenced the results mainly in ‘spatial understanding’ and ‘combined’ tasks. From the identified differences, we concluded that the results of the user studies with static 3D maps as stimuli could not be transferred to interactive 3D visualizations or virtual reality.

show abstract

“…We now know that humans infer 3D shape from shading, gradients of texture, contour, binocular disparity (stereopsis), and motion [25]. Cartographers have extensively used-or experimented with [3]-all these cues except for motion, which has been mostly disregarded. Yet motion is known in perceptual psychology to be one of the most important sources of depth information.…”

Section: Insights From Perceptual Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Lightweight Relief Shearing for Enhanced Terrain Perception on Interactive Maps

Willett

Jenny

Isenberg

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceWe explore interactive relief shearing, a set of non-intrusive, direct manipulation interactions that expose depth and shape information in terrain maps using ephemeral animations. Reading and interpreting topography and relief on terrain maps is an important aspect of map use, but extracting depth information from 2D maps is notoriously difficult. Modern mapping software attempts to alleviate this limitation by presenting digital terrain using 3D views. However, 3D views introduce occlusion, complicate distance estimations, and typically require more complex interactions. In contrast, our approach reveals depth information via shearing animations on 2D maps, and can be paired with existing interactions such as pan and zoom. We examine explicit, integrated, and hybrid interactions for triggering relief shearing and present a version that uses device tilt to control depth effects. Our evaluation shows that these interactive techniques improve depth perception when compared to standard 2D and perspective views

show abstract

True-3D in Cartography—Current Hard- and Softcopy Developments

Cited by 16 publications

References 19 publications

When the display matters: A multifaceted perspective on 3D geovisualizations

When the display matters: A multifaceted perspective on 3D geovisualizations

Evaluation of User Performance in Interactive and Static 3D Maps

Lightweight Relief Shearing for Enhanced Terrain Perception on Interactive Maps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About