Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
36:73-104 (1991)
73
74
Goel et al.
2. GENERATION OF
THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECTS
In this section, we will describe our approach for
computer generation of 3D objects of arbitrary
shapes. As a prelude to our discussion, we first
describe the general approaches which have been
most frequently used.
Production Rules
pl: a ---~h
p2: b---~ba
This system will produce the following sequence
of symbols:
a--,h---,ha---,(ha)h---,(ha)h(ha)
---,(ba)h(ha)(ha)h ---,etc.
of lengths 1, 1,2, 3, 5, 8, . Here we have added
parentheses to show the replacement process. Note
that in each stage of generation of sequence of
symbols, the production rules are applied simultaneously [e.g., in going from ba to (ba)b, b is
replaced by ba according to the production rule
p2, while a is replaced by b according to the
production rule pl).
If a word is interpreted graphically as a sequence of commands that control the position and
76
Goel et al.
(n',I:,U') = (n,L,U)R.
(1)
f
+
&
^
\
/
rgb'
C )
A
t.
Randomly select the value of turtle movement from a normal distribution, whose
( . . . f . . . f . . . f ...f)
containing n f ' s to define surfaces of revolution.
The successive f ' s define a curve through 3D
space, and the surface of revolution is defined by
rotating this curve around its endpoints. This is
accomplished by generating a certain number of
polygons which approximate the surface of revolution. That one has to rotate the curve 180 around
its endpoints is indicated by the presence of
parentheses "(" and ")". For example (assuming
turtle's angular movement = 90 ),
78
Goel et al.
y
Figure 2. A bushy plant gen-
,q
Figure .3. Some of the geometric patterns generated by changing 0 in the L-system with axiom: P, production rules:
A ~ F[5 + A] + F, P -~ 72A (from Gnel and Rozehnal, 1991).
IT=20
0 =II0
IT= 20
-I0
ITm20
e =125
IT= 20
-30
ITm20
0 =150
IT= 20
-72
IT=20
0 =170
IT= 20
(a)
(c)
(b)
(d)
80
Goel et al.
not consider multiple scattering. In the NIR, because of small absorption, one must consider multiple scattering, but only of diffuse radiation.
In the thermal region, hardly any radiation is
transmitted, and the hemispherical reflectance p
varies from about 0.02 to 0.12 fi)r broad-lealbd
species (Salisbury and Milton, 1988), with essentiallv all the radiation diffusely reflected.
In the microwave region, where the wavelength of the incident radiation can exceed the
surface roughness of the scatterer, the specular
reflection and specular transmission (refraction)
are more significant than their diffuse counterparts. Therefore, one must investigate the multiple
scattering of directed radiation beams. It should
be noted that, in active microwave remote sensing,
the incident radiation consists of only direct beam,
and the viewer is located at the source. Therefore,
one is only interested in calculating the baekseattered radiation.
82
Goel et al.
Color
Black
Blue
Green
Cyan
Bright Bhle
Gray
Red
Magenta
Ye] h)w
White
0
0
0
0
10
12
31
31
31
3l
0
0
31
31
10
12
0
0
31
31
0
31
0
31
31
12
0
31
0
31
0
31
992
1023
10,591
12,684
31,744
31,775
32,736
32,767
(2)
x,, = ax + b,
(3a)
y,, = cy + d,
(3b)
(4)
= A,6,.
(5)
B, = E, + p,
E
.i-
t3jF, .
R, = E, + 0, E
j-I
(7)
k= I
j = 1
where N is the number of facets, Eii is the fraction of flux leaving facet j and reaching tZaeet i,
and Pi is the fraction of an incident flux reflected
by theet i (reflectance). ~i is referred to by n]any
nan]es including configuration factor, angle factor, view factor, and form factor between facets j
and i. In this equation, the term BiA i on the
left-hand side is the flux leaving iZaeet i. The first
term EiA i on the right-hand side represents the
flux emitted by iZaeet i. In the second term, the
term BjAj represents the flux leaving iZaeet j,
which when multiplied by F2i gives its fraction
reaching facet i. Summing over all the ~aeets gives
the radiation reaching i~aeet i from all other tZaeets,
(6)
Fi,~ure
7. C o n t r i b u t i o n of flux
to surface i fiom n e i g h b o r i n g
surfhees j and k, f~om the front
and back sides.
t ,tilG:
84 Goel et al.
[[
=
cos O~cos Oj d A i d A
,,
i
,
/,/
'~i
Area A i
//
,/
"J
i): i/il----t.I
II ",,
(8)
dAj
AiAj
dAiCos
0 i
. CosOj
r2
Area A j
(9)
This projected area on the surface of the hemisphere is again projected on the base of the hemisphere. This projection is equal to d f ~ i c o s O j,
which is equal to tim integrand in E(I. (8) up to a
factor of 7r and d A j . Repeating the double projection procedure for all area elements of the fimet i,
one sees that the form fitctor is equivalent to the
fraction of the circle (the base of the hemisphere)
covered hy projecting the area A i onto the henrisphere and then orthogonally down onto the
circle.
Cohen and Greenberg (1985) introduced a
so-called "hemicnhe" method [br evaluating the
integral in Eq. (8). Instead of projecting onto a
sphere, an imaginary cube is constructed around
the center of the facet j, with its normal coinciding with the positive z axis, and the hemisphere is
replaced by the upper half of the surface of the
cube (and hence the name hemicube). The
hemicube is then divided into an orthogonal grid
of pixels of any desired resolution. Even with this
approximation, the calculation of the view factors
is computer intensive.
Our method for calculating the view factors is
surprisingly quite simple and computationally
more efficient than the conventional approaches. It
86
Goel et al.
ta)
r t =
F s -[- F d ,
skyl = r a / r,,
= (1-skyl)r,,
(m)
j,J
(b)
I
xl
(c)
Figure 10. Schematics of calculations of view factors between three triangular facets (see text for details).
(11)
B2
B ~
E=
(15)
and A is an N N matrix,
1
~lFl2
. . . .
~IF1 N
A=
"
(12)
EK=(1--Lp,~,.)F,(i)#K
5,(i)~.,
K = 1 ..... 2n~,,
+
(13)
E,
(14)
(16)
and ~:i is equal to either Pi or r i depending upon
whether the flux from another surface arrives on
the surface i or on the surface i + np.
The matrix equation (14) can be solved using
one of the many standard methods for solving a
large number of linear algebraic equations. However, for radiosity equations, due to the physics of
the situation, an iterative approach is most suitable. For this purpose, let us rewrite Eq. (14) as
(17)
B=CB+E,
where C is an N X N matrix,
0
~iF12
~lilN),
(18)
C=
/;NFNI
~U FN2
"""
Bi = ~
CikB k + E i,
i = 1,...,N.
(19)
k=l
side surlhees.
~[ sunlight
,\!
"-. \ \ I / /
" " - ::.'.,\ L :.'.---"
.,.
.~...5s.'...'~....
~* ,,o~ o-.o
ooo /
|
"Oo
-..oo
....
7".
Fd (i)
88 Goel et al.
F_,.jFij ~< 1 and (Pi + ri) <~1, the matrix is diagonally dominant (the sum of the absolute values of
each row is less than the main diagonal term). For
such matrices, Gauss-Seidel method is guaranteed
to converge. In this method, the key equation
which relates the values of radiosities in (r + 1)th
iteration to those in the rth iteration is
i-I
B (,+')
i
~ Cil,.B~,+l'+
y'
~V a i k n(")~t~'k
- - Ei"
k=i+l
(e0)
Since B~ > E~, in the absence of any other intbrmation, a convenient initial guess for B~ is E~. In
our experience, with this guess, we generally
needed less than 10 iterations to satis~, the convergence criterion
IBI '+ ' ) - BI~)I ~< 10 -(s.
(21)
(BK/~r)lnK's,.la(K,,:)area(K),
(22)
(23)
The albedo of the canopy is a measure of the total
canopy reflectance in all directions. Note that the
flux in a viewing direction is equal to the radiance
in that direction, projected perpendicular to the
viewing direction, times the solid angle segment.
Therefore, albedo is given by
Albedo = ( 1 / r r ) Y~. BRF(v)(4rr/N~)cos 0,,
(24)
We now briefly describe the computer implementation of the model, currently on a SUN 4/370
workstation, equipped with a 32 MB RAM. This
computer has a nominal computational speed of 16
MIPS, 2.66 MFLOPS in double precision, and 3.6
MFLOPS in single precision. To ensure that the
model is not machine-dependent, the model is
4. S P E C I F I C R E S U L T S - - S I M U L A T E D
CORN CANOPY
90 Goel et al.
3.5a
-,ql--a~
UI
(a)
2.38 a
(b)
a
~o
c5
width (the plants t o u c h e a c h other). This configuration is designed to simulate a mature canopy
with row structure. Finally, in the configuration C,
the spacing between two plants in both the x and
y directions is 0.8 times the width of a plant, with
plants touching each other in both directions. This
canopy is meant to emulate a mature dense canopy
with no row structure.
For all configurations, we calculate three parameters to describe the canopy architecture. The
leaf area index LAI is calculated by simply summing the areas of leaf polygons and dividing the
sum by the area of soil under a plant. The second
parameter is the percentage ground cover %GC,
which is simply the ratio of the projected area of
the plant on the soil to the area of the soil. This
parameter has been used to characterize sparse
canopies (Goel and Grier, 1988); for fully grown
canopies, the percent gronnd cover approaches
100%. The values of these parameters for the three
canopy configurations are: A) LAI = 0 . 1 8 and
%GC = 26.5; B) LAI = 0.83 and %GC = 40.0; and
C) LAI = 3.11 and %GC = 85.0.
The third parameter is similar to the traditional leaf inclination angle distritmtion. It is the
facet inclination angle distribution FAD, determined by calculating the area of each of the facets
and the direction of the normal to the facet, and
then by generating a histogram of the areaweighted inclination angles of the normals (we
divide the inclination angles into 10 bins of angles,
each 9 wide around the values of 4.5 ,
13.5 , .... 85.5 ). The FAD distribution fi)r all the
three configurations is given below.
Facet angle: 4.5 13.5 22.5 31.5 40.5
49.5 58.5 67.5 76.5 85.5.
Fractions: .040 .063 .103 .068 .067
.121 .071 .130 .169 .167.
For this distribution, the mean t:aeet inclination
angle is equal to 49.8 .
For each of these configurations, we investigated radiation regime in both visible and near
in{}ared regions. The finite canopy, with soil under
it, is located in a perfectly transmitting space. The
vahles of the spectral parameters for the vegetation elements and the soil, and those that characterize the nature of the incident solar radiation are
given in Table 2. The spectral parameters correspond to those measured by Ranson et al. (1985).
Parameter
I~ca|~stem r('flcctanc("
l~('af transmittanc('
Stem transmittan('c
Soil reflectance
Skyl
Visible
Near Infrared
0.08
0.05
0.0
0.69
0.2
0.39
0.60
0.0
0.17
0.1:3
B
(~
I)
E
Total
For each of the three configurations, we considered two cases: one of a finite canopy consisting
of only nine plants, and the other one an infinite
canopy. The radiation regime of an infinite canopy
was not studied by simply duplicating the finite
canopy many times over the 2D space, thus increasing the number of polygons by the number of
duplications. Instead, we used an innovative approach, described in Appendix B.
As we noted in the preceding section, our
model requires dividing the solid angle sphere
into a finite number N, of solid angle segments. As
the number of segments increases, the accuracy of
calculations of view factors and bidirectional reflectance increases, of course, at the expense of
computer time. To determine the effect of increasing the number of segments, we studied canopy of
configuration C for 200 segments and for 400
segments. Another factor which increases the accuracy is the pixel size of the computer screen,
because it increases the area of a polygon in the
pixel space. Here, we chose 512 482 and 1024
964 as two sizes for the computer screen. We will
refer to these two choices as low resolution and
high resolution modes, respectively. We carried
out the calculation of radiation regime in the
canopy for finite and infinite canopies, for 200 and
400 segments, and fi)r the two resolution mentioned above. The maximum value of the view
zenith angle depends upon the number of segments chosen. For the cases of 200, 400, and 600
segments, the maximum view zenith angles are
equal to 83.06 , 84.96 , and 85.88 , respectively.
In Table 3 are given the results for the finite
canopy, and in Table 4 for the infinite canopy. In
each of these tables, we have given the computer
time for the five modules of the computer implementation of DIANA, described in previous subsection on Computer Implementation of the Model.
Min BRF
Max BRF
All)edo
Visible
188
14
17
79
176
474
.0426
.0613
.0567
NIR
Visible
93
175
208
2l
15
11)7
i77
268
.1209
.1769
,1345
NIR
125
173
Visible
NIR
303
34
19
130
202
166
202
528
298
688
368
.0268
.0520
.04 t I
.1380
.2406
.1759
.0187
.0468
.0322
.1855
.2837
.2273
B
C
D
E
Total
Min BRF
Max BRF
AI1)edo
Visible
;361
24
i8
106
297
NIR
11;3
298
806
411
.0401
.0615
,0565
.1211
.1877
,1341
Visible
:195
;19
I5
134
305
883
.0253
.0528
.0410
NIR
159
;318
Visible
596
60
21
176
377
N1R
252
368
477
1230
620
.1383
.2454
.1754
.0181
.0473
.0320
.1846
.2855
.2261
B
C
D
E
Total
Min BRF
Max BRF
Albedo
Visible
393
20
27
100
349
NIR
106
312
889
418
.0455
.0627
.0585
.1252
.1872
.1398
Visible
445
27
24
112
326
934
.0281
.0539
.0429
NIR
135
314
469
.1436
.2499
.1825
Visible
777
38
28
136
400
NIR
176
384
1379
560
.0191
.0479
.0331
.1901
.2902
.2337
92
Goel et al.
Table 4d.
Table 3d.
Module
A
B
C
D
E
Total
Min BRF
Max BRF
Albedo
Table 4a.
144
612
894
48
28
144
624
1505
756
.0428
.0630
.0584
.1257
.1994
.1394
185
626
1522
68
28
188
747
276
791
1738.
811
2553
1067
.0265
.0545
.0428
.1445
.2570
.1820
.0185
.0485
.//3311
.1899
.2920
.2324
Total
Min BRF
Max BRF
Albedo
Table 4b.
Module
A
Visible
543
20
22
92
365
Module
NIR
214
414
Visible
967
71
26
218
479
NIR
434
483
468
1271
628
1761
917
.1199
.2050
.1363
.0229
.0422
.0313
.1368
.3483
.2070
.0223
.0387
.0269
.2769
.4257
.3258
Total
Table 4c.
630
44
21
159
417
1042
C
D
E
Min BRF
Max BRF
Albedo
114
354
Visible
.0346
.0596
.0546
1082
37
23
139
705
NIR
166
707
1298
89
29
249
851
1986
873
.0292
.0600
.0544
.1203
.2280
.1362
391
854
1970
17(/
29
390
959
761
953
2516
1245
3518
1714
.0224
.0449
.0312
.1385
.3680
.2067
.0223
.I1397
.0268
.2769
.4491
.3244
A
B
C
D
E
1055
32
36
124
877
145
876
1430
61
40
197
1119
Total
2124
1021
Min BRF
Max BRF
Albedo
.0392
.0615
.0570
.1261
.2213
.1439
285
1128
2695
89
48
256
1385
530
1384
2847
1403
4473
1914
.0238
.0446
.0335
.1487
.3779
.2228
.0226
.0399
.0276
.2957
.4538
.3489
Module
A
B
C
11
E
Visible
2265
60
:39
189
1872
NIR
Visible
239
1881
3430
136
46
351
2620
NIR
Visible
NIR
54l
2696
6802
220
54
490
3593
962
3026
Total
4425
21211
6583
3237
1 1159
3988
Min BRF
Max BRF
Albedo
.0338
.0618
.0568
.1267
.2495
.1438
.t1237
.0472
.0334
.1514
.3913
.2225
.0225
,0401
.0276
.2957
.4752
.3474
4d, the effects of changing the number of segments and the resolution level on the BRF are
shown. From these figures, comparison of detailed
BRF calculated values, and Tables 4, we can conelude the following for the infinite canopy.
(1) The hot spot effect is present in the visible
region for configuration A, but is less pronounced as the vegetation density increases.
(2) In the NIR, one again sees the bowl shape for
the BRF surt~ace. Further, BRF is lowest when
one sees the soil (view azimuth angle = 0 ,
90 , 180 , and 270 for configuration A and
90 and 270 for configuration B). These dips
in the BRF su~aee have been seen experimentally (Ranson et al., 1985) and in other
models for canopy reflectance from inhomogeneous canopies (Goel and Grier, 1988).
(3) As for the finite canopy, increasing the number of segments for a fixed resolution level
(Table 4b vs. Table 4a and Table 4d vs. Table
4c), or increasing the resolution level for a
fixed number of segments (Table 4c vs. Table
4a and Table 4d vs. Table 4b), causes albedo
to change only slightly. Further, as to be expected, the albedo for the infinite canopy in
the visible region is lower than that for the
finite canopy, with maximum reduction for the
dense canopy configuration C, while the reverse is true for the NIR.
(4) As for the finite canopy, increasing the number of segments and the resolution level do
affect the structural features of the BRF surface but only slightly. As we change the resolution level from low to high level for the same
number of segments, the maximum change in
BRF, both in the visible region and the NIR,
is slightly higher (about 10-12%) than that for
the finite canopy, with an average change of
about 3-7%. A similar results holds good, as
one increases the number of segments from
200 to 400 for a fixed resolution level.
What can we conclude, from a practical point of
view, with respect to the number of segments and
the resolution level? If one wishes to calculate the
albedo, a choice of low resolution level and 200
segments is quite adequate. However, if one desires to calculate BRF to within 3-4% accuracy,
one should plan on using 400-600 segments and
the high resolution level.
(a)
Infrared
Visible
(b)
Infrared
(c)
(B)
(A)
Figure 13. (a) BRF of a finite canopy for the three configurations A, B, and C, fin" visible region and NIR, for 200 segments of the solid angle sphere and low resohltion level.
The Bt/F values have been normalized between 0 and 1. Nadir viewing direction is in the center of the plot, while viewing direction corresponding to the maximum view
zenith angle of 83.06 is the rim of the plot. The viewing azimuth angle increases in the clockwise direction, with azimuth angle of 0 and 270 at the locations indicated in
the figure. (b) As (a) except fi)r 400 segments and fi)r the high resolution level. The maximum view zenith angle is equal to 84.96 .
Visible
(c)
(B)
(A)
~isible
a)
7i~,ure 14.
Infrared
Visible
(c)
,\)
b)
nfrared
c)
B)
A)
ID
96 Goel et al.
(b)
Figure 16. (Continued)
canopy.
(a)
(a)
(b)
98
Gael et al.
rithm
for altering
the canopy
plants,
the plant
with
the new
one will
absorbed,
biomass
then
produced,
etc. to calculate
plants
carried
out in about
on the
SUN
model
have assumed
thesis
architectural
natural
regime
will continue.
Without
a/370
like
corn
code,
can be
workstation
is implemented.
on an hourly
where
Here,
we
of photosynbasis,
will be made
and the
on a daily
of radiosity
arose out of work
radiative
transfer. Therefore,
one
use of DIANA
in the thermal
the emissivity
computer
of the complete
will be done
basis.
(5) The concept
\vith thermal
In this
of the
of a plant
is to study radiation
region. In this region,
of radiosities
A: CALCULATION
FACTORS
radiation
of this biomass,
of the existing
season
OF VIEW
architecture
that a simulation
growth
the present
the
partitioning
we estimate
APPENDIX
of photosynthesis,
the new
any optimization
time
calculate
the amount
For
for the
architecture.
architecture
is simpler
appendix,
we
calculating
view
projections
between
As noted
describe
factors,
in
Section
dividing
number
&, of segments
tion
of these
the
there
3, the
basic
into
of identical
angle
directions,
segment.
point
project
all facets
perpendicular
and
of facets
projections
in terms
backside,
say i and
normal vector
with it. Since
the
canopies
of objects
of arbitrary
shapes
of pixels.
sides
i.
Each
of these
facets
has a
Let us con-
use
di-
common
and refraction).
If one succeeds
in such an
extension
(which will require
more computer
time), one could
scattering
from
as if
to this
find
the normal
to the facet j at the point
define a function
Z( N, I/) as fi)llo\vs:
and computer
model to investigate
\Ve
of the direction
nrcmor)~
angles.
sort polygons
at the end
their
procedure
solid
rection,
between
mutual
by the direc-
vector,
areas
for
a prespecified
is specified
of the solid
one of these
is a viewer
directional
sphere
segments
in the center
choose
using
procedure
the surfaces.
involves
Each
the
qs,
10
us
$ n i *( y - s ) 2 0 and
nj*(s
!/) =
!I. Let
- !I) 3 0,
(Al)
otherwise.
in the
microwave
region. With the activity (5) above,
one would then have a single model which
\vill work across the three spectral
regions:
The function
will be equal to 1 for those points
(s, y) on facets that face each other, and zero for
those on the opposite
sicle. \Ve make one more
observation.
Equation
(8) for the \iew factors is
only valid when there are no surf&es
between
surfaces
Ai and A,j, which fan intcrccpt
energy
objects.
version of the model, one can
(7) In the present
choose separate values for the reflectance
and
transmittance
for each of the facets. This flexibility could be used to calculate
radiation
regime (for any specific wavelength)
in stressed
or disease-damaged
leaves. Such calculation,
in principle,
can be used to detect stresses in
a plant canopy from its reflectance.
We hope
activities
to report
in future
the results
papers.
transmitted
from A., to A,. In the general
have to include
a visibility
function
I
V(s,
y) =
10
if the points
case, we
s. 11can
(A4
( l / rrAi)
[[ cos 0x cosO,,Z{
,y)V(x,y)
JJ
AiAI
dx dy ,
for vectors S which do not point into the projection), we can replace the integral over the projection Sj(x) by the integral over the unit sphere.
That is,
Iij=facosO, dxf~V,(x,S,Aj)dS,
(m)
where 0~ is the angle between the normal n i to
the facet A i and the vector (y - x), 0~j is the angle
between normal nj to the facet A j and the vector
( y - x), and r(x,y) is the length of the vector
(x - y). Let us represent the integral in Eq. (A3)
b y Ii. j. Therefore,
Fo = Ii j / rrA i .
(A4)
cos 0,,
/,,=f cos O, dx f
A i
Z(x, v)V(x, V)
r (x,y)
A .~
dy.
(AS)
Let us draw a unit sphere with the point x as the
center of the sphere. Let dS be the projection of
the area dy on the unit sphere along the direction
x - y. This projection is given by [see also Eq. (9)]
dS = cos 0 ! / d y / r
"2.
(A6)
(At)
Sflx)
Vl(x, S, A j) =
n i S ~>
O,
and n j ' S ~ 0,
0
otherwise,
(AS)
(A10)
Vl(x,S,A,)=V.z(es(x),es(Ai)),
(all)
f cosodxf,
(A9)
,i,=
f.
Ps(Ai)
ri
i=l
1 O0 Goel et al.
object of thickness equal to one pixel. Because of
this, while using formula (A13) for calculating
view factors, one gets contributions not only from
the surfaces but also from the edges. This effect is
negligible for surfaces which have large pixel areas (e.g., more than 200 pixels), but for small
surfaces this effect would lead to an overestimation of the view factor. One way to correct for this
effect is to calculate the summation in Eq. (A13)
by putting the visibility iactor V,2 equal to 1. In the
ideal case the summation should be equal to rr
times the area A~ [so that from Eq. (A4), Fij is
equal to 1]. But for small surfaces, this sum will
exceed the ideal value (and in the case of surface
of area equal to one pixel, which behaves like a
cube of unit pixel size, it will be twice the ideal
value). Therefore, the correct formula for Fij for
all cases is
E (47r/N,,) E
k=l
V2(xi, Ps(Aj))Aes
i-I
Ii) =
t"i
E
k-I
E aPs
i-I
(A14)
We now describe the computer implementation of
the above approach for calculating the view factors
into an algorithm. It uses the technique of hash
table, which enables an efficient storage and retrieval of elements of a sparse matrix such as that
for the view factors. In this method, one starts
with an array (table) which is much smaller than
the total number of elements in the matrix but
larger than the number of nonzero elements of the
matrix. The location where an element is stored in
this array is determined by using a hash function,
which scatters matrix elements evenly in the table.
If the location already has an element stored, a
sequential search is used to find an unoccupied
location in the table. The process of retrieval
works in a similar way in reverse in that the hash
function is nsed to find the approximate location of
the element to be retrieved, and if the element is
not there at the expected location, a sequential
search is used to find the actual location. Let us
now summarize the actual algorithm.
Fij
Algorithm
Test Results
Table AI. Ideal View Factors for Parallel Plates vs. Average
Calculated Values from a Multiplate Configuration (See
Text for Details)
Distance
d
Ideal
Value
I
2
3
4
.199825
.068590
.032971
.019107
.206749
.075809
.039945
.023988
.204126
.071463
.035743
.020822
230
981
1882
APPENDIX B: I N F I N I T E CANOPY
102
God et al.
REFERENCES
Prusinkiewicz, P. (1987), Applications of L-Systems to computer imagery, graph granmmrs and their applications to
computer science, in Third Int. Workshop, Lecture ,Votes
in Computer Science (H. Ehrig, M. Nagl, A. Rosenfeld and
G. Rozenberg, eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Vol. 291,
pp. 534-548.
Prusinkiewicz, P., and Hanan, J. (1989), Lindenmayer Systems, Fractals, and Plants', Springer-Verlag, New York.
Prusinkiewicz, P., and Lindemnayer, A. (1990), The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants', Springer-Verlag, New York.
104
Goel et al.