Evaluating Realism in Example-based Terrain Synthesis

Abstract

We report two studies that investigate the use of subjective believability in the assessment of objective realism of terrain. The first demonstrates that there is a clear subjective feature bias that depends on the types of terrain being evaluated: Our participants found certain natural terrains to be more believable than others. This confounding factor means that any comparison experiment must not ask participants to compare terrains with different types of features. Our second experiment assesses four methods of example-based terrain synthesis, comparing them against each other and against real terrain. Our results show that, while all tested methods can produce terrain that is indistinguishable from reality, all also can produce poor terrain; that there is no one method that is consistently better than the others; and that those who have professional expertise in geology, cartography, or image analysis are better able to distinguish real terrain from synthesized terrain than the general population, but those who have professional expertise in the visual arts are not.