math & physics
aluedke at November 29th, 2005 16:51 — #1
Hey all, just found your forums here and I'm hoping someone out there can help me with a problem I've been pondering for a while now.
If I have an array of values, with the sum of all value elements equal to 1.0, is there an efficient way to calculate the array index of where x% of the total value sum is before that index, and 100% - x% of the values are after that index? Ideally I will be able to calculate this value within a shader.
The practical use of this is to find the index within a histogram where 90% of all values are below that index, and the other 10% are above. This will allow me to reduce the effects of the top 10% of pixels in some techniques. Thanks in advance for any help you can give!
john at November 29th, 2005 18:06 — #2
interesting question. is the data isn't sorted?
the most obvious way is to sum each value and check when the sum is equal to the percentage you desire. but you want a more efficient solution than that, right?
I'm not a math guru, but depending on whether the data is dynamic or static, one way i could think of is to calculate beforehand some best fit curve and perform integration on the resulting equation. you'd solve the integral for x, given the sum (which would represent the percentage). So if the data is static, you'd do the curve fitting offline. In the shader, it would be a matter of plugging in into the equation. This is probably not practical for dynamic data though.
i'll give it more thought.
aluedke at November 29th, 2005 21:25 — #3
Specifically, this is intended to drive tonemapping in a real-time application. When the scene is bright, the luminance histogram will be weighted more to the upper end, while when the scene is dark the histogram will be more at the low end. The idea behind all this is to find the point where 5% of the histogram is above and the rest is below, since this value will be more stable and affected less by fluctuations in the number of bright pixels. I'm primarily trying to find an efficient way of calculating this on the GPU, so I have correct results per-frame and don't need to stall the CPU waiting for the GPU to catch up for a read-back. Thanks for any more help you can give.
reedbeta at November 30th, 2005 00:39 — #4
One way I can think of to do this would be to write a shader that takes each 'bin' in your brightness histogram, and operates upon the rendered image to output a 1 for each pixel in that bin and a 0 for each pixel not in the bin. The resulting image could be repeatedly downsampled on the GPU until it was 1x1, using a box filter; this would give a pixel value that shows the fraction of total image pixels that fell in that bin. Do this for each bin, and read back the 1x1 pixel values; then you have your histogram and you can determine the 90% point on the CPU. It's probably possible to do the whole thing on the GPU, but would require some hackery since the GPU isn't set up to loop through pixels one-by-one (which you would need to do to find the 90% point). On the other hand, the time wasted in a pipeline stall is the same whether you're reading back a 1x1 image or a 1280x1024 one; so maybe it's worth it to do the whole thing on the GPU.
aluedke at December 1st, 2005 14:34 — #5
My best idea so far is to render the luminance surface, then using the vertex shader to read back those luminance values and accumulate each pixel into a histogram (prescaling data so resulting histogram is normalized so the sum of all values is 1.0). This histogram would get downsampled many times using an additive operation so each smaller level has the sum of the two pixels it was sampled from. Later, to find the final position in the shader, I would start at the smallest mip level and determine if the target value is to the left or right. Next level up the mip chain I do the same, each time offsetting my UV coordinate appropriately. Eventually I will get to the top level, where my UV x coordinate would then be the final position. I could then output that single value into a 1x1 texture that I can read later. None of this ever has to hit the CPU, though it does require a way to get the luminance data into the vertex shader. Thanks for the ideas.