Machine Vision and Applications (2018) 29:329–343
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00138-017-0886-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
Example-based 3D inpainting of point clouds using metric tensor
and Christoffel symbols
Shankar Setty1 · Uma Mudenagudi1
Received: 12 November 2016 / Revised: 4 September 2017 / Accepted: 6 October 2017 / Published online: 1 December 2017
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017
Abstract In this paper, we address the problem of 3D
inpainting using example-based methods for point cloud
data. 3D inpainting is a process of filling holes or missing
regions in the reconstructed 3D models. Typically inpainting
methods addressed in the literature fill missing regions due
to occlusions or inaccurate scanning of 3D models. However,
we focus on scenarios involving naturally existing damaged
models which are partly broken or incomplete in artifacts
at cultural heritage sites. We propose two example-based
inpainting techniques, namely region of interest (ROI)-based
and patch-based methods, to inpaint the missing regions
of the damaged model. For both the methods, we repre-
sent the 3D model as a set of Riemannian manifolds in
Euclidean space, to capture the inherent geometry using met-
ric tensor and Christoffel symbols as geometric features and
decompose into basic shape (such as spherical, conical and
cylindrical) regions using decomposition algorithm derived
from supervised learning. In ROI-based method, instead of
using single similar example for inpainting, we select the
most relevant regions that best-fit the missing region from
the set of basic shape regions derived from n similar exam-
ples. And in patch-based method, we not only select the most
relevant regions but cluster the regions into a set of patches.
The best corresponding patches that match the missing region
to be inpainted are considered to be the most relevant best-fit
patches that cover the complete missing region. We demon-
strate the performance of proposed inpainting methods on
cultural heritage artifacts with varying complexities and
B Shankar Setty
shankar@bvb.edu
Uma Mudenagudi
uma@bvb.edu
1 B. V. B. College of Engineering and Technology, Hubli, India
sizes for both synthetically generated holes and real miss-
ing regions.
Keywords 3D inpainting · Point cloud data · Region of
interest · Patch-based · Metric tensor · Christoffel symbols
1 Introduction
In this paper, we address the problem of 3D inpainting.
Inpainting is a well-known technique which is the art of
restoring lost or deteriorated parts of images and videos
mainly focusing on removing small defects. Inpainting is a
well-researched problem in 2D image analysis, and relatively
very few researchers addressed this problem in 3D space
especially using point cloud data. Inpainting has become
a standard tool in digital photography for past decades
[4,11,28,38], but still remains an open problem in the 3D
world. With the recent advances in 3D scanning devices
(Microsoft Kinect [25]) and data processing techniques,
the 3D digitization of cultural heritage objects has gained
increasing popularity (e.g., in the cultural industry sector),
from applications ranging from acquisition and preservation
to reconstruction and 3D printing. Digital restoration and
reconstruction of historical monuments, sculptures and arti-
facts that no longer or only partially exist is one of the main
challenges in digitizing cultural heritage sites. The problem
of 3D inpainting can be interpreted as a twofold problem (see
Figure 1): one, missing information or holes due to inaccurate
scanning of 3D models at heritage sites (e.g., Stone Char-
iot at Vittala Temple, Hampi, India) and the other, scenarios
involving naturally existing large damaged regions in cultural
heritage artifacts (e.g., Stone carving of ‘Narasimha’ statue
found in the temples of Hampi, India). However, the hole
filling problem has been more comprehensively explored by
123
330
(a) (b)
Fig. 1 3D inpainting problem is twofold: (a) Holes due to inaccurate
scanning and (b) Damaged or missing region due to environment effects
or man-made. (Note: Figure depicts the point cloud representation of
artifacts such as Stone Chariot and ‘Narasimha’ statue at UNESCO
World Heritage Site Hampi temples, India.)
research community [17,23] but not so w.r.t. 3D inpainting
of broken or damaged models. In present work, we focus on
the need for inpainting of broken or damaged structures of
3D models at cultural heritage sites.
Physical artifacts found at heritage sites tend to have large
damaged or broken regions representing missing geometry.
Therefore, it is desirable to 3D inpaint these damaged regions
in a manner to produce a compelling interpretation of the
complete geometry. Completing missing data as such is an
ill-posed problem. Most of the works targeted in the liter-
ature fill in the missing regions for sufficiently small holes
[19,23,27,39], by replicating the patches from neighboring
regions surrounding the damaged region in the same 3D
model [3,19,36], by selecting a highly corresponding single
similar example or from database of similar models identify-
ing the possible model segments to fill in the damaged region
[14,26,29,33]. Therefore, the results to a greater extent from
these methods depend on the nearby regions of the missing
region and suitable for inpainting small missing regions, and
the reconstruction is not faithful for large or irregular miss-
ing regions. However, we focus on inpainting of complex,
irregular and large missing regions covering prominent geo-
metric features by considering n similar examples. While
filling large missing regions, the faithfulness to the original
model remains a problem as a single similar example [33]
may not be good in providing all the lost detail aspects for
the missing region as compared to providing the details from
n similar examples (see Figure 2).
In this paper, we propose two example-based 3D inpaint-
ing techniques, namely ROI-based and patch-based methods,
for filling varying-sized (small and large) holes and bro-
ken/damaged regions in 3D models with the help of n number
of similar examples. In both these methods, we represent the
3D point cloud data as a set of Riemannian manifolds in
123
S. Setty, U. Mudenagudi
Euclidean space using metric tensor and Christoffel symbols
as geometric features [16] to capture the inherent geometry.
In ROI-based method, the damaged region ROI is decom-
posed into basic shape (such as sphere, cone and cylinder)
regions using geometric features and from the n similar
examples the most relevant regions that best-fit the damaged
region is inpainted.
In patch-based method, the damaged region ROI is decom-
posed into basic shape regions and similar examples using
geometric features. We propose to use intersection of these
two decompositions to provide a highly compartmentalized
form of ROI in finding the example that provides most rel-
evant best-fit corresponding patches to inpaint the missing
region. The intersected example is clustered into patches,
and the best corresponding patch that matches the portion of
the damaged region to be inpainted is considered as the most
relevant best-fit. This process is iterated until the required set
of best-fit patches are obtained from n similar examples for
inpainting the complete damaged region. Based on experi-
mental analysis, we observe that ROI-based and patch-based
methods are suitable for varying-sized holes and missing or
damaged regions. However, ROI-based method yields better
results for large damaged or broken regions, while patch-
based method yields better results for small damaged regions.
Thus, ROI-based and patch-based methods overcome the
problem enumerated in taking a single best-match similar
example [33] by considering the selection of most relevant
regions that best-fit the missing region from a library of corre-
sponding regions derived from n similar examples. As shown
in Figure 2(d) part of the head, the front leg and the back leg
are the lost detail aspects in the damaged model. In the pro-
posed method, we fill each of these missing regions by select-
ing the most relevant regions that best-fit from the set of sim-
ilar examples. Therefore, we observe in Figure 2(h) that con-
sideration of n similar examples results in compelling com-
pletion. Toward this, we make the following contributions:
– We propose to fill the broken or damaged regions of the
3D model represented in point cloud data using example-
based inpainting techniques.
– We propose ROI-based and patch-based inpainting meth-
ods with decomposition algorithm using metric tensor
and Christoffel symbols as the geometric features for fill-
ing varying-sized damaged 3D models.
– We demonstrate the evaluation of the proposed
approaches on a number of challenging cases from cul-
tural heritage artifacts at Hampi, India.
In Section 2, we review the related work. In Section 3, we
explain the proposed ROI-based and patch-based inpainting
techniques. In Section 4, we present the experimental results
of the proposed method on synthetic and real-world dataset.
We provide conclusions in Section 5.
Example-based 3D inpainting of point clouds using metric tensor and Christoffel symbols
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Fig. 2 ROI-based inpainting of Narasimha statue. (a,b,c) Set of sim-
ilar examples, (d) damaged model—nearly one-third of the statue is
broken, (h) results of the proposed method is better completed as com-
pared to (e) [34] and (f) [33] methods, (g) result of the proposed method
2 Related work
In the literature, there have been several different approaches
for filling of missing regions in 3D models. Majority of the
works addressed in the literature consider filling holes on
3D models due to inaccurate scanning, sensor imperfections,
self-occlusion, reflectance, raw data preprocessing, etc. Ju
[23] and Guo et al. [17] offer a comprehensive survey on
hole filling.
Works such as [5,7,12,22,39] have focused on indirectly
repairing the model using an intermediate volumetric grid.
Davis et al. [12] filled holes by interpolating the nearby
geometry, Verdera et al. [39] and Caselles et al. [7] fill
in the holes with a system of geometric partial differential
equations, and Ju [22] presents robust patching method for
repairing arbitrary polygon models. Bischoff et al. [5] present
fully automatic technique for the restoration of polygon
meshes with a set of morphological operations. Podolak et al.
[31] present atomic volumes for patching all holes simultane-
ously for mesh completion. However, the repaired region on
the reconstructed surface may not look optimal particularly
in places of complex holes or high curved shapes. The major
drawback of these methods is the loss of geometric detail, in
places of complex holes and even in areas far from the hole.
On the other side, works such as [9,27,30,42] have
focused on methods that operate directly on the given mesh.
Liepa et al. [27] present improvement in mesh refinement
and mesh fairing in the hole triangulation algorithm. In [9],
Clarenz et al. considered finite element method to improve
the fairness and smooth boundary condition for surface
restoration. Pernot et al. [30] filled holes by minimizing the
curvature variation of a linear mechanical model coupled to
the meshes between the surrounding and inserted meshes.
Zhao et al. [42] present robust hole filling algorithm by gen-
erating new triangular mesh. In [41], Wu et al. constructed
implicit surface patch employing radial basis functions inter-
polation and the triangulated surface patch by blending with
the original mesh. In all these approaches, largely it leads into
smooth surface completion and typically suffice for small
331
(e) (f) (g) (h)
using single similar example (Note: In Figure 2(g), missing details such
as leg, hand and head are obtained from Figure 2(a), whereas in Fig-
ure 2(h) missing details such as leg, hand are obtained from Figure 2(a)
and head from Figure 2(b))
holes. Thus, filling complex or large holes over irregular
region is much more difficult.
In few of the works, researchers have considered filling
missing regions by replicating the patches from other areas
or neighboring areas of the damaged region in the same
3D model [36] [3]. Sharf et al. [36] present surface com-
pletion by examining the surface properties and iteratively
filling the hole by replicating patches from legitimate regions
of the given surface. Bendels et al. [3] proposed surface
inpainting method that examines the neighborhood of a hole,
and fills the hole with copies of local neighborhood patches
that are obtained from same 3D model. Consequently, we
find that in these approaches the surface completion heav-
ily depends on the nearby regions of the hole. Thus, not
faithful for filling varying-sized holes or irregular missing
regions.
Alternatively, researchers have tried inpainting meth-
ods by selecting highly corresponding similar patches from
other meshes [14], an entire region from other meshes or
from database of similar models by identifying the possible
model segments to fill in the damaged region [19,20,26,29].
Kraevoy et al. [26] formulated a bijective parameterization
mapping between the incomplete mesh and a template model
to fill the topological and geometric information at gaps in
the input model. Pauly et al. [29] present an example-based
shape completion method which provides context informa-
tion from geometric priors retrieved from database to fill the
missing regions. Harary et al. [19] proposed coherent sur-
face completion method in order to overcome the limitation
of context-based surface completion [36], where a comple-
tion is coherent if every local neighborhood of the completion
is similar to some local neighborhood of the exemplar. Also
Harary et al. [20] proposed a user-guided surface comple-
tion by allowing users to specify four points for each broken
feature curve on the mesh that fits for surface completion
adhering to existing features. These methods are intended for
models with sufficient exemplars and not suitable for com-
plex or large missing regions.
123
332
Fig. 3 Overview of example-based 3D inpainting
There is substantially limited literature available in 3D
inpainting of damaged regions using point cloud examples
[40] [34]. In [40], the authors consider hole filling on surfaces
reconstructed from point clouds. They identified the triangle
mesh with the hole and neighborhood, and filled the hole
in point cloud with moving least squares interpolation. But,
if the area around the hole is not smooth, then interpolation
technique does not work well. In [34], point cloud registration
between the damaged (hole) model and its similar example is
done and a framework based on tensor voting is considered
to fill in the missing regions by using neighborhood surface
geometry. As the real-world cultural heritage artifacts consist
of huge amount of irregularities and ridges surrounding the
holes or missing regions, we overcome these problems of
[40] [34] by selecting the most relevant regions for inpainting
from n similar examples.
However, the problem that we are focusing on inpainting
is w.r.t. scenarios involving naturally existing large damaged
regions in 3D point clouds, issue that is quite common in
archeological sites. One of the works in the literature which
resemble with proposed work is in [33]. Sahay et al. [33]
consider single similar example to inpaint the missing or
damaged region. They addressed the inpainting problem by
harnessing geometric prior derived from a single similar
example and online depth maps, and the hole surface is recov-
ered by adaptively propagating local surface from around the
boundary. Instead of using a single similar example, we pro-
pose to use a higher number of n similar examples. It seems
to be that the user guidance of the most relevant example
may be a key to the effectiveness of applying the method
in [33] rather than using a higher number of examples. We
propose to tackle this problem of inpainting complex and
large missing or damaged regions using n number of similar
examples.
3 Example-based 3D inpainting
Given a 3D model S ∈ R3 of a real-world object com-
prising of missing or damaged region H, we first find an
123
S. Setty, U. Mudenagudi
appropriate class of similar examples Ei , i = 1, ..., n (where
n is the number of examples) based on 3D classification
technique [15] and propose an example-based 3D inpaint-
ing framework. Overview of the proposed example-based 3D
inpainting pipeline is as shown in Figure 3 consisting of three
main phases: (i) extraction of neighborhood region (Hr oi )
surrounding the missing region of the damaged model, (ii)
extraction of geometric features and (iii) inpainting of the
damaged region by selecting most relevant best-fit regions
or patches (∇) from n similar examples using ROI-based or
patch-based methods.
3.1 Data classification
We categorize the 3D models into predefined set of classes
(such as pillars, elephants and Narasimha statues) using poly-
nomial kernel support vector machine (SVM) classifier [8].
The 3D object classification has gained increasing atten-
tion in recent years, and a variety of shape descriptors have
been proposed to address this problem (see [18] for a recent
survey). In the present case, the classification problem is par-
ticularly difficult, since we are dealing with point clouds. We
thus rely on metric tensor and Christoffel symbols for local
geometric properties [15]. The computed geometric features
of the 3D models are fed to the SVM for learning, similar to
[15]. Thus, each categorized class consists of similar exam-
ple models (E1 , E2 , ..., En ). When a damaged model is passed
as a query to the learning model for recognizing appropri-
ate class, similar example models are retrieved which are
then used by ROI-based or patch-based method for inpaint-
ing missing regions.
3.2 Data alignment
There exist large variations between point cloud data of the
damaged model S and example models (E1 , E2 , ..., En ) if there
are no constraints imposed on the orientation of the acquisi-
tion device. Also there is a possibility of encountering a large
number of outliers as the 3D models are acquired from an
uncontrolled environment. Initially the outliers are removed
Example-based 3D inpainting of point clouds using metric tensor and Christoffel symbols
using the statistical outlier filters and scaled using unit scale
matrix. Further, registration of the damaged model and simi-
lar examples is needed in order to tap the geometric features
for solving missing surface problem. This is achieved by the
transform T : E → R3 , wherein
T ∗ = arg min  T (E) − S 2 (1)
T
We consider point cloud registration technique such as
Iterative Closest Point (ICP) [32] to obtain the best possi-
ble transform T for similar examples. Post-registration, the
  
aligned examples are E 1 , E 2 , ..., E n which provide estimates
for the missing region of the damaged model S.
3.3 Geometric features—metric tensor g and Christoffel
symbols Γ
In this section, we provide an overview of the metric ten-
sor and Christoffel symbols for geometric features extraction
method [15]. Considering a 3D point cloud O(x, y, z), in
order to use metric tensor and Christoffel symbols as features
we model it as a set of unique descritized smooth Riemannian
manifolds in a Euclidean space to account for discontinuities
in the geometry.
O(x, y, z) → Ψ (Mi , gi ) (2)
where (Mi , gi ) represent the Riemannian manifolds and i ≤
n and i ∈ Z + .
The point cloud data representation of the 3D model in
Euclidean space is a sampled version of the continuous space,
and a set of Riemannian manifolds constitutes a continu-
ous space. The Riemannian manifold is a smooth construct
which alone cannot represent the inherent geometry of the 3D
model. The inherent geometry of the 3D model is captured
by modeling it as a descritized set of Riemannian manifolds
in continuous space. Thus, 3D point cloud in Euclidean space
can be represented as a unique descritized piecewise set of
Riemannian manifolds. As the mapping is unique in con-
tinuous space, there exists a unique map for any 3D point
cloud modeled as a set of Riemannian manifolds (M, g).
This property is true for samples with varied sampling rate.
As stated in [21], a Riemannian manifold (M, g) is a
real smooth differential manifold M equipped with an inner
product g p on tangent space at each point p that varies
smoothly from point to point (e.g., if X and Y are vector fields
on M, then p → g p (X(p), Y (p)) is a smooth function). The
family g p of inner products is called a Riemannian metric
tensor. The Riemannian metric tensor g is computed at every
point p locally by,
333

3 
3
ds 2 = gμν d x μ d x ν (3)
μ=1 ν=1
where ds 2 is the geodesic distance between two neighboring
points on the manifold, and d x μ and d x ν are the contravariant
tangent vectors between the neighboring points in the tangent
plane of the manifold, computed as numerical differential
line elements. The geodesic distance between neighborhood
points in the region of the 3D model is calculated as proposed
in [15], and the contravariant tangent vectors d x μ , d x ν are
computed as numerical differential line elements in the man-
ifold.
However, Riemannian metric tensor g on the smooth man-
ifold alone cannot represent the inherent geometry of the 3D
model region as the region exhibits non-smooth behavior
due to non-uniform distribution of the geometry. In order to
address this issue, Christoffel symbols Γ are used as the devi-
ations in the geometric properties. Thus, Christoffel symbols
are solved explicitly as a function of the metric tensor given
by,
1  σρ ∂ gρμ
3
σ ∂ gρν ∂ gμν
Γμν = g { ν + − } (4)
2 ∂x ∂xμ ∂xρ
ρ=1
where g σρ is the inverse of the metric tensor gσρ and ∂∂x is a
partial derivative, and Christoffel symbols have 3 sums over
different covariant derivatives.
Thus, 3D model from Equation 2 is uniquely represented
by the pair of tensors (g, Γ ) as follows,
O(x, y, z) → Ψ (Mi , gi ) → Φ(gi , Γi ) (5)
3.4 Decomposition Framework
Based on intuition and similar works [35], we know that
3D model presents geometric similarities toward the basic
shapes. Due to these similarities, the metric tensor and
Christoffel symbols for basic shapes are regarded as the basis
functions in a 3D decomposition space Λ. Given a point cloud
representation O(x, y, z) with associated geometric features
Φ(g, Γ ), we provide a decomposition framework (see Fig-
ure 4) which decomposes the 3D data into a set of basic shapes
(such as sphere, cone and cylinder). The geometric features
Φ(g, Γ ) used for the decomposition framework consists of
33 components out of which 6 components are of metric
tensor and 27 components are of Christoffel symbols.
Thus, the point cloud O(x, y, z) is represented as a feature
vector in the decomposition space Λ using the basis functions
ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 as,
O(x, y, z) → Φ(gi , Γi ) → Λ(ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 ) (6)
123
334
Fig. 4 Framework for decomposition of a 3D model into basic shapes (spherical, conical and cylindrical components)
where ξ1 , ξ2 and ξ3 are the pair of tensors (g, Γ ) (Equa-
tion 5) for spherical, conical and cylindrical components,
respectively.
We build two dictionaries, namely ROI library and patch
library, to hold the basic shape regions such as spherical,
conical and cylindrical components.
ROI library: The ROIs obtained from the similar exam-
ples are decomposed into basic shape regions using decom-
position framework. Thus, from each example ROI Eir oi ∈

Ei |i = 1, ..., n, the ROI library stores basic shape regions as,
ξ
Ei j ∈ Eir oi (7)
where i = 1, ..., n are similar examples and j = 1, ..., 3
(ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 ) are basis functions (Equation 6).
Patch library: In case of patch-based method, the simi-
lar examples are decomposed into basic shape regions using

decomposition framework. Thus, from each example Ei ∈
E|i = 1, ..., n, the patch library stores basic shape regions
as,
ξ 
Ei j ∈ Ei (8)
where i = 1, ..., n are similar examples and j = 1, ..., 3
(ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 ) are basis functions (Equation 6).
3.5 Neighborhood extraction H r oi of damaged region
Given a 3D damaged model, the first step of the proposed
pipeline is extraction of neighborhoods surrounding the dam-
aged region (see Figure 3). The missing or damaged region
H is selected using boundary detection algorithm [27] by
123
S. Setty, U. Mudenagudi
extracting the boundary points (Hbound ) surrounding the
missing region. We extract the neighborhood regions sur-
rounding the Hbound using the nearest neighbor (k-NN)
algorithm. The selection of k value depends on the size of
the missing or damaged region. For each point h i ∈ Hbound ,
we compute kh nearest neighboring points in order to extract
the neighborhood surface region (Hr oi ) also known as ROI
of missing region H from the damaged 3D model.
3.6 Feature extraction
The second step of the proposed pipeline is extraction of
geometric features. As shown in Figure 3, once the ROI of
the damaged 3D model is obtained Hr oi (as described in
Section 3.5), the geometric features such as metric tensor
and Christoffel symbols are extracted (as described in Sec-
tion 3.3).
3.7 Inpainting techniques
The final step of the proposed pipeline is example-based 3D
inpainting to inpaint the missing region (see Figure 3). In
this section, we provide the details of the proposed example-
based inpainting techniques, namely ROI-based and patch-
based methods.
3.7.1 ROI-based inpainting
In ROI-based method (see Figure 5), ROI of the missing
region (Hr oi ) is decomposed into spherical, conical and
cylindrical components using decomposition framework as
specified in Equation 6 (Hξ j ). We then search for the most
Example-based 3D inpainting of point clouds using metric tensor and Christoffel symbols 335

Fig. 5 An example of the ROI-based inpanting process

Algorithm 1 ROI-based inpainting are found from the ROI library to fill the complete miss-
Require: ROI selected examples (E1r oi , E2r oi ,
..., Enr oi ) ing region. The most relevant regions (∇’s) that best-fit the
Require: ROI of the damaged model = Hr oi∈S damaged region are merged and superimposed on Hr oi for
Ensure: Set of most relevant ∇ best-fit regions inpainting the missing region. Algorithm 1 demonstrates the
1: Compute geometric features, Metric Tensor (Eq. 3) and Christoffel
Symbols (Eq. 4) for each ROI examples Eir oi ∈ Ei |i = 1, ..., n, and working of retrieving most relevant best-fit regions (∇’s)
ROI of the damaged model Hr oi in ROI-based inpainting method. A detailed example of the
ξ
2: Create ROI library (Eq. 7) from n ROI examples E r oi ; Ei j ∈ Eir oi ROI-based inpainting process is depicted in Figure 5. Con-
|i = 1, ..., n& j = 1, ..., 3 (ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 ) sidering Figure 5, we determine the most relevant region to
3: Apply decomposition framework (Eq. 6) on ROI of the damaged fit the spherical component of the missing region is derived
model Hr oi ; Hξ j ∈ Hr oi | j = 1, ..., 3 (ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 )
4: /* Procedure to determine the most relevant best-fit regions (∇’s) from example E1r oi , similarly the most relevant regions to
*/ fit the conical and cylindrical components of the damaged
5: for j = 1 to 3 do model are derived from examples E2r oi and E3r oi .
6: for i = 1 to n do
ξ
R M Si = RMS(Ei j ,Hξ j )
j
7:
8: end for
9: end for 3.7.2 Patch-based inpainting method
10: for j = 1 to 3 do
j j
11: R M Smin =R M S1
ξ
In patch-based method (see Figure 6), ROI of the missing
12: Most_Relevant_Region(∇ j ) = E1 j region (Hr oi ) is decomposed into twofold, namely basic
13: for i = 2 to n do
14:
j j
if R M Si < R M Smin then shape regions and similar examples. The former decompo-
15:
j
R M Smin = R M Si
j sition into spherical, conical and cylindrical components is
16: ∇ j = En
ξ
j based on decomposition framework as specified in Equa-
17: end if tion 6 (Hξ j ), and the later decomposition is carried out
18: end for using supervised learning model which is built from sim-
19: end for ilar examples. The training data comprise of n classes of
20: return ∇   
similar examples (E 1 , E 2 , ..., E n ) which are fed to SVM
framework for building learning model using metric tensor
and Christoffel symbols as geometric features. The learn-
relevant basic shape region from the ROI library that best-fit ing model classifies the missing region into predefined set

(∇) part of the missing region by computing the least square of n similar examples (HE1..n ). We then intersect these two
distance. Iterate until the required set of best-fit matches decomposition’s given as,

123
336
Fig. 6 An example of the patch-based inpainting process

H∩ ← Hξ j ∩ HEi | i ∈ [1, ..., n], j ∈ [1, ..., 3] (9)
in determining the similar examples for each of the basic
shape regions which provides most relevant best-fit corre-
sponding patch to inpaint the missing region.
Considering, for example, Figure 6, the spherical com-
ponent of the missing region intersects with example E1
since the least square distance has a minimum cover w.r.t.
example E1 as compared to all other similar examples,
in which case the best corresponding region for inpaint-
ing spherical component of the missing region comes from
example E1 . Similarly conical and cylindrical components
of the missing regions intersect with examples E2 and E3 ,
respectively.
Algorithm 2 demonstrates the working of retrieving most
relevant best-fit patches (∇’s) in patch-based inpainting
method. A detailed example of the patch-based inpainting
process is depicted in Figure 6.
For each of the basic shape region w.r.t. intersected exam-
ple (as shown in Figure 6 for spherical component) which
is obtained from patch library, various clusters are created
(C1.. p ) using k-means clustering algorithm. The clusters are
matched to the intersected missing regions H∩ (as depicted
in Equation 9) of the damaged model using Euclidean dis-
tance D1.. p , and the cluster with least square distance cover is
selected as the best corresponding cluster to fill the missing
region. Since the selected cluster may be larger in size and
may not have an exact fit to the missing region, it is further
123
S. Setty, U. Mudenagudi
split into various sub-clusters known as patches P1..q using
k-means clustering algorithm. The patches P1..q are matched
to the intersected missing regions (H∩ ) using Euclidean dis-
tance d1..q . If the order of difference in Euclidean distance is
nearly zero among different patches, the root mean square
(RMS) is computed and the patch with least square dis-
tance cover is selected as the best corresponding patch to
inpaint the missing region. Based on experimental analy-
sis, the k value in k-means clustering algorithm is set to 5
for initial clusters and 10 for sub-clusters to attain better
results.
The selected best corresponding patch when imposed on
the missing region Hr oi may overlap with certain areas of the
damaged model. This is avoided by identifying a point (p)
nearest to the centroid of the missing region and generating
a best corresponding patch by increasing the patch around
the point (p) up to a magnitude of twice the number of inter-
section points of H∩ from the examples. This method gives
the final corresponding patch (∇) that best-fit to inpaint the
missing region Hr oi . If the generated patch is smaller than the
damaged region, further iterations are required to get the final
set of most relevant corresponding patches (∇’s) that best-
fit. Similar patch-based inpainting is carried out for other
basic shape regions iteratively until the required set of best
corresponding patches are obtained to cover the complete
missing region. These best corresponding patches are merged
and superimposed on the damaged region for inpainting the
missing region Hr oi .
Example-based 3D inpainting of point clouds using metric tensor and Christoffel symbols 337

Algorithm 2 Patch-based inpainting applying least square subdivision surface (LS3) algorithm
Require: Similar examples (E1 , E2 , ..., En ) [6]. The LS3 approach offers higher visual quality on the
Require: ROI of the damaged model = Hr oi ∈ S surface, especially in the vicinity of extraordinary vertices
Ensure: Set of most relevant best-fit ∇ corresponding patches
using Loop’s weighting scheme [2].
1: Compute the geometric features, Metric Tensor (Eq. 3) and Christof-
fel Symbols (Eq. 4) for each examples Ei |i = 1, ..., n and ROI of
the damaged model Hr oi
ξ 
2: Create a patch library (Eg. 8) from n examples Ei ; Ei j ∈ Ei |i = 4 Results and discussion
1, ..., n& j = 1, ..., 3 (ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 )
3: Apply twofold decomposition on ROI of the damaged model Hr oi
 We test the effectiveness of the proposed example-based
to obtain interested regions, H∩ ← Hξ j ∩ HEi | i ∈ [1, ..., n], j ∈
[1, ..., 3] (Eq. 9) inpainting techniques on synthetic and real datasets. In Sec-
4: /* Procedure to determine the most relevant best-fit patches tion 4.1, we present the qualitative analysis and in Section 4.2
(∇’s) */ the quantitative analysis. The real 3D models considered
5: for j = 1 to 3 do in the presented work are artifacts of Hampi, India, which
6: for i = 1 to n do
7: if |H∩ | = N U L L then is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. In cultural heritage
8: Create clusters (C1.. p ) in E ξ j ∈ Ei sites, most often we observe that the artifacts such as pil-
9: for k = 1 to p do lars, sculptures and monuments are modeled to be similar
10: Dk = Euclidean_Distance(H∩ ,Ck ) at various locations. For experimentation, the similar exam-
11: end for
12: Dmin = min(D1 ...D p ) ples considered are from in and around the Hampi temples.
13: Selected Cluster (C) = Cmin | Cmin =  Dmin We observe that the proposed inpainting methods perform
14: Create Patches (P1..q ) | Pq ∈ C effectively for n = 2 or 3 examples. However, the pro-
15: for m = 1 to q do posed inpainting methods are generic and would works
16: dm = RMS(H∩ ,Pm )
17: end for for n ≥ 1 examples provided relevant correspondence
18: dmin1 = min(d1 , ..., dq ) region is obtained from every example to fill the missing
19: dmin2 = min({d1 , ..., dq } − {dmin1 }) region of the damaged model. Based on experimental anal-
20: if dmin1 ≈ dmin2 then ysis, the SVM kernel in decomposition framework is set to
21: dmin = min(dmin1 , dmin2 )
22: else polynomial kernel instead of linear kernel to attain better
23: dmin = dmin1 decomposition for inpainting. Since the geometric features
24: end if are not linearly separable, we have used polynomial kernel
25: Selected Patch P=Pmin | Pmin = dmin SVM in the decomposition framework. The example-based
26: c ⇒ Centroid | c ∈ H
27: p = nearest point in P from c methods are implemented using Point Cloud Library and
28: Most_Relevant_Corr esponding_Patch(∇i j ) = MATLAB.
Increased patch around the point p; |∇i j | = 2 ∗ |H∩ |
29: end if 4.1 Qualitative evaluation
30: end for
31: end for
32: return ∇ In Figures 2, 7 - 12, we demonstrate the experimental results
of the proposed methods on several challenging cases w.r.t.
synthetic and real datasets, which have irregular, complex
3.8 Non-rigid alignment and surface reconstruction and varying-sized missing regions in the damaged models.
In Figure 7(e), a rectangular synthetic small hole is cre-
The superimposition of the inpainted region might result into ated on the cheek of the human face collected from the
noisy or distorted inpainting. Rigid-body transformations are Sumner dataset [37]. ROI-based inpainting is adopted in
restricted and cannot adequately handle non-rigid warping. filling the missing cheek region by selecting the most rel-
For the stiff inpainted region overlapped on damaged model, evant basic shape regions that best-fit from the 3 similar
we implement optimal non-rigid alignment [1] to find an opti- examples (Figure 7(a)- 7(c)) as shown in Figure 7(f)- 7(g).
mal deformation by incrementally deforming the inpainted Figure 7(f) provides point cloud representative result where
region toward the damaged model for robust completion. green-colored region indicates most relevant best-fit region
Finally, the inpainted 3D model is surface reconstructed on blue-colored damaged model, and Figure 7(g) shows the
using Poisson surface reconstruction algorithm. For surface result after Poisson surface reconstruction. Also patch-based
reconstruction, if the obtained point cloud is dense, random inpainting results are shown in Figure 7(h)- 7(i). On the same
samples of the points are taken to generate set of points with human face model as shown in Figure 7(j), we created an
appropriate distribution using Poisson disk distribution algo- irregular and complex hole by eliminating portions of the
rithm [10]. Poisson surface reconstruction algorithm [24] is cheek, the nose and the lip which results in significant loss
used to build the surface. The surface details are captured by of information. Most relevant basic shape regions that best-

123
338 S. Setty, U. Mudenagudi

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

(k) (l) (m) (n)

Fig. 7 Example-based inpainting of a head model. (a–c) Similar exam- the test model—missing regions are parts of cheek, nose and lip. Results
ples of head’s from the Sumner dataset [37]; (d) test model (frontal of ROI-based method (f, k) on point clouds and (g, l) after Poisson sur-
view); (e) Synthetically created hole on the test model (side view)— face reconstruction and results of patch-based method (h, m) on point
missing region on the cheek; (j) synthetically created irregular hole on clouds and (i, n) after Poisson surface reconstruction

fit from similar examples are selected for better inpainting Table 1 Computation of Hausdorff distance (top) and RMS error (bot-
the missing regions using ROI-based and patch-based meth- tom) for various synthetic 3D models
ods. The inpainted results are shown in Figure 7(k) and 7(m) Figure ROI-based Patch-based [33]
before surface reconstruction and Figure 7(l) and 7(n) after
7(e) (Head 1) 0.082 0.103 NA
Poisson surface reconstruction. Thus, proposed methods suc-
1.89 1.96
cessfully reconstruct the details such as the cheek, the nose
and the lip from examples. 7(j) (Head 2) 0.109 0.117 NA
Both ROI-based and patch-based methods show no obvi- 3.23 3.28
ous difference in appearance after surface reconstruction, but 8 (Dancing Lady) 12.377 12.176 13.992
they differ in region or patch building approaches as seen 5.796 5.477 9.032
before surface reconstruction in Figure 7(f) and 7(h) or Fig-
ure 7(k) and 7(m). Also the quantitative difference in both
the methods is small which is shown in Table 1. From these
Most of the archeological sites provide numerous exam-
experimental analyses, we note that both the example-based
ples on monuments, statues and artifacts showing distorted,
methods successfully reconstruct the details for small size
broken, missing or damaged regions due to exposure to nat-
and irregular to complex holes.
ural and man-made effects of erosion over centuries and thus

123
Example-based 3D inpainting of point clouds using metric tensor and Christoffel symbols
(a) (b) (c)
(f) (g)
Fig. 8 Example-based inpainting of a Lady model in dancing pose.
(a, b) Original color examples of (c, d); (c) single similar example; (d)
test model; (e) synthetically created large hole on the test model; (f)
provide good examples for testing the performance of the
proposed methods. In this regard, we consider a few con-
cerning examples of real-world 3D models to demonstrate
the proposed methods. Since there is no ground-truth infor-
mation available, the results judged for these scenarios are
only qualitative but not quantitative.
In Figure 8, we provide a comparison of the proposed
methods results with the inpainting method [33] which uses
single similar example. Figure 8(c)- 8(d) shows the examples
of a Lady model in dancing pose. For experimental purpose,
we consider Figure 8(c) as similar example and Figure 8(d)
as the test model. Considering Figure 8(d), we generate a
large hole region similar to [33] as shown in Figure 8(e),
and inpaint the hole using ROI-based method as shown in
Figure 8(g)- 8(h) and patch-based method as shown in Fig-
ure 8(i)- 8(j) before and after surface reconstruction. The
reconstructed Lady models (Figure 8(h) and 8(j)) are visually
quite close to the original Lady model (Figure 8(d)) and rel-
atively better than [33] (Figure 8(f)). Though example-based
methods are more effective for n > 1 examples, still we see
that even with single similar example the proposed example-
based methods outperformed inpainting method of [33]. We
339
(d) (e)
(h) (i) (j)
result of [33]; results of (g, h) ROI-based method and (i, j) patch-based
method before and after surface reconstruction
observe that for large holes patch-based method (Figure 8(i))
yields better result than ROI-based method (Figure 8(g))
due to generation of more relevant detailed correspondence
patches based on intersecting points from the examples as
compared to ROI selection. The difference in error is small
of ROI-based and patch-based methods as compared to [33]
shown in Table 1.
Consider the elephant carving found in the temples of
Hampi as shown in Figure 9 and the carving of a small lion’s
head on a pillar at Hampi temple as shown in Figure 10.
Figure 9(d)- 9(e) and Figure 10(d)-10(e) present results of
ROI-based and patch-based completions of real scanned
archeological artifacts. We observe that the small broken
front right leg (Figure 9(c)) after inpainting using patch-based
method (Figure 9(e)) shows relatively better results than ROI-
based method (Figure 9(d)). However, we observe that the
complete head of a small lion reconstructed using the ROI-
based method (Figure 10(d)) shows better performance than
patch-based method (Figure 10(e)). Thus, we observe that
patch-based method provides better results for small missing
or damaged regions and ROI-based method provides better
results for large missing or damaged regions. These models
123
340
(a) (b)
Fig. 9 Example-based inpainting of elephant model. (a, b) Similar examples; (c) damaged model—part of the front right leg broken; results of
(d) ROI-based method and (e) patch-based method
(a) (b)
Fig. 10 Example-based inpainting of small lion model. (a, b) Similar examples; (c) damaged model—complete head of the small lion missing;
results of (d) ROI-based method and (e) patch-based method
are challenging and because of natural broken regions, mod-
els differ from each other, varying in size and irregular in
shape or outline. Nevertheless, example-based methods pro-
duces compelling completions, which nicely reconstructs the
shape of the missing region.
Patch-based method limitations: In extremely large-sized
missing regions, patch-based method is not pragmatic as the
intersecting regions between the ROI of the broken model’s
and that of the corresponding patch match of examples is
quite less. This causes a minimization in the size of the gener-
ated patches, requiring numerous iterations for the generation
of final inpainted model. Due to this limitation, in the fol-
lowing discussions we limit the experimental results to only
ROI-based inpainting method.
In Figures 2, 11, 12, we demonstrate the experimental
results on real 3D model artifacts at archeological site Hampi,
India, with much complex and multiple larger broken or dam-
aged regions.
Consider Narasimha statue, a presiding deity at the tem-
ples of Hampi, India, as shown in Figure 2(a)- 2(c). The
damage (Figure 2(d)) is remarkable in the sense that nearly
one-third of the statue is broken. Figure 2(e) shows an out-
come from set (Figure 2(a)- 2(c)) of examples proposed by
Sahay et al. [34], and Figure 2(f) shows result using single
(Figure 2(a)) example proposed by Sahay et al. [33]. How-
ever, we observe that in both these works proposed by Sahay
et al.( [34] [33]) overall structure of the damaged region
details such as leg, hand and head of the Narasimha statue
123
S. Setty, U. Mudenagudi
(c) (d) (e)
(c) (d) (e)
are obtained from Figure 2(a) (see results using ROI-based
method with single example in Figure 2(g) which is quite
similar to Sahay et al. [33] result as shown in Figure 2(e)),
missing out fine details specifically w.r.t. head. In contrast,
ROI-based method reconstructs the fine details, such as the
structure of the damaged region from two (Figure 2(a)- 2(b))
examples as shown in Figure 2(h). Comparing results of
the ROI-based method with the results obtained by inpaint-
ing methods of [34] (Figure 2(e)) and [33] (Figure 2(f)),
we observe that ROI-based method results (Figure 2(h)) are
qualitatively superior. Indeed ROI-based method handles the
challenging case of head which has a close match to Fig-
ure 2(b) while reconstructing the missing region.
Consider the horse at Hampi, India, as shown in Figure 11
which is extremely interesting because more than 90% is
eroded as shown in Figure 11(d). The horse model is chal-
lenging because of multiple broken parts viz. the head, the
body, the neck and the legs which are highly complex and
large regions for inpainting. However, ROI-based method
provides a completion as shown in Figure 11(e) whose results
are visually better and in a manner similar to examples. The
strength of the proposed method is in its ability to integrate
most relevant basic shape regions that best-fit from several
examples, as illustrated in Figure 11(e). Consider a broken
staircase from the heritage site as shown in Figure 12(c)
which is challenge because even with non-availability of sim-
ilar examples the proposed method shows a resultant model
(see Figure 12(e)) which is better completed.
Example-based 3D inpainting of point clouds using metric tensor and Christoffel symbols 341

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 11 ROI-based inpainting of horse model. (a–c) Similar examples; (d) damaged model—90% is eroded; and (e) result of ROI-based method

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 12 ROI-based inpainting of broken staircase model. (a, b) Non-similar examples; (c, d) damaged model—broken staircase step front view
(red rectangle) and top view (red freehand line); and (e) result of ROI-based method (note: filled region yellow color and unfilled region blue color)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Fig. 13 Example-based inpainting of side arm of staircase model. (a, b) Similar examples; (c) damaged model—entire side arm of the staircase
is missing; results using (d) [33], (e) ROI-based method and (f) patch-based method

ROI-based method limitations: When the missing region
is small and the neighboring regions surrounding the missing
region has no sufficient features, then the completion might
be improper. For a small missing region, the geometric fea-
tures might not characterize the model well and thus result in
completion that is far from the desired shape of the missing
region. In addition, having no features on the surrounding
area of the missing region might cause ROI-based method
not to match from similar examples. This is illustrated in Fig-
ure 13(e) where ROI-based method fails to re-create a small
missing region on the side arm of the staircase model, but
the proposed patch-based method succeeds as shown in Fig-
ure 13(f). We also observe that patch-based method results
are comparatively better then the results of [33] shown in Fig-
ure 13(d), which suffers from the problem of inpainting due
to single similar example. Finally, ROI-based method does
not guarantee better completion if non-similar examples are
considered for inpainting missing regions as illustrated in
Figure 12(e). Close observation reveals a small gap on the
inner side of the staircase model (unfilled region marked in
blue).
4.2 Quantitative evaluation
For quantitative analysis of inpainting methods, we compute
the Hausdorff distance1 and RMS error between the origi-
nal (unbroken) 3D model and its inpainted model as shown
in Table 1. Comparing results of the Lady model (Figure 8)
with the results generated from Sahay et al. [33], we observe
that example-based methods results are consistently better
both qualitatively and quantitatively. Due to the absence of
ground-truth information for real-world 3D models specifi-
cally for broken or damaged archeological artifact structures
(Figures 2, 9–12), a quantitative evaluation cannot be pro-
vided for these scenarios and the results can only be judged
visually.
1 Hausdorff distance [13] between two 3D models X and Y is the max-
imum function between a set of points in X to the nearest point in the
Y:
dH (X, Y ) = max{ supx∈X inf y∈Y d(x, y), sup y∈Y inf x∈X d(x, y) }

123
342
5 Conclusions
In this paper, we have addressed the problem of 3D inpainting
of broken or damaged regions in 3D models at archeological
sites which occur due to numerous forces of degrada-
tion such as natural or man-made. We have proposed two
example-based inpainting techniques, namely ROI-based
and patch-based methods, for inpainting complex, irregu-
lar and varying-sized damaged or missing regions of the 3D
models using n similar examples. The most relevant basic
shape regions that best-fit are selected from similar exam-
ples to inpaint the complete missing region. We demonstrated
that both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the pro-
posed example-based methods perform significantly better
in 3D inpainting of synthetically generated holes and real
missing regions from the captured artifacts at archeological
sites such as Hampi, India. Based on experimental analy-
sis, we observed that ROI-based and patch-based methods
are suitable for varying-sized holes and missing or dam-
aged regions. However, we observed that ROI-based method
provides better results for large damaged or broken regions,
while patch-based method provides better results for small
damaged regions.
As a future work, we plan to extend the example-based
inpainting technique by designing an adaptive decision sys-
tem, which fuses to decide the choice of ROI-based or
patch-based method based on the varying size of damaged
region in the 3D model.
Acknowledgements This research work is partly supported by the
Indian Digital Heritage project (NRDMS/11/2013/013/ Phase-III)
under the Digital Hampi initiative of the Department of Science and
Technology, Government of India.
References
1. Amberg, B., Romdhani, S., Vetter, T.: Optimal step nonrigid ICP
algorithms for surface registration. In: IEEE Conference on Com-
puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1–8 (2007)
2. Barthe, L., Kobbelt, L.: Subdivision scheme tuning around extraor-
dinary vertices. Comput. Aided Geom. Des. 21(6), 561–583 (2004)
3. Bendels, G.H., Schnabel, R., Klein, R.: Detail-preserving surface
inpainting. In: International Conference on Virtual Reality, Archae-
ology and Intelligent Cultural Heritage, pp. 41–48. Eurographics
Association (2005)
4. Bertalmio, M., Sapiro, G., Caselles, V., Ballester, C.: Image inpaint-
ing. In: SIGGRAPH, pp. 417–424. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co. (2000)
5. Bischoff, S., Pavic, D., Kobbelt, L.: Automatic restoration of poly-
gon models. ACM Trans. Graph. 24(4), 1332–1352 (2005)
6. Boy, S., Guennebaud, G., Schlick, C.: Least squares subdivision
surfaces. Comput. Graph. Forum 29(7), 2021–2028 (2010)
7. Caselles, V., Haro, G., Sapiro, G., Verdera, J.: On geometric vari-
ational models for inpainting surface holes. Comput. Vis. Image
Underst. 111(3), 351–373 (2008)
123
S. Setty, U. Mudenagudi
8. Chang, C.C., Lin, C.J.: Libsvm: A library for support vector
machines. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2(3), 27:1–27:27
(2011)
9. Clarenz, U., Diewald, U., Dziuk, G., Rumpf, M., Rusu, R.: A finite
element method for surface restoration with smooth boundary con-
ditions. Comput. Aided Geom. Des. 21(5), 427–445 (2004)
10. Corsini, M., Cignoni, P., Scopigno, R.: Efficient and flexible sam-
pling with blue noise properties of triangular meshes. IEEE Trans.
Vis. Comput. Graph. 18(6), 914–924 (2012)
11. Criminisi, A., Perez, P., Toyama, K.: Region filling and object
removal by exemplar-based image inpainting. Trans. Image Proc.
13(9), 1200–1212 (2004)
12. Davis, J., Marschner, S.R., Garr, M., Levoy, M.: Filling holes
in complex surfaces using volumetric diffusion. In: International
Symposium on 3D Data Processing Visualization and Transmis-
sion. Proceedings, pp. 428–441. IEEE (2002)
13. Distance, H.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausdorff_distance.
Accessed 10 Nov 2016
14. Gal, R., Shamir, A., Hassner, T., Pauly, M., Cohen-Or, D.: Surface
reconstruction using local shape priors. In: Eurographics Sympo-
sium on Geometry Processing (SGP), pp. 253–262. Eurographics
Association (2007)
15. Ganihar, S.A., Joshi, S., Setty, S., Mudenagudi, U.: Metric tensor
and christoffel symbols based 3D object categorization. In: Com-
puter Vision-ACCV Workshops, pp. 138–151. Springer, Berlin
(2014)
16. Ganihar, S.A., Joshi, S., Shetty, S., Mudenagudi, U.: Metric tensor
and christoffel symbols based 3D object categorization. In: ACM
SIGGRAPH Posters, pp. 38:1–38:1 (2014)
17. Guo, X., Xiao, J., Wang, Y.: A survey on algorithms of hole filling
in 3D surface reconstruction. Vis. Comput. 1–11 (2016)
18. Guo, Y., Bennamoun, M., Sohel, F., Lu, M., Wan, J., Kwok, N.M.: A
comprehensive performance evaluation of 3D local feature descrip-
tors. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 116(1), 66–89 (2016)
19. Harary, G., Tal, A., Grinspun, E.: Context-based coherent surface
completion. ACM Trans. Graph. 33(1), 5:1–5:12 (2014)
20. Harary, G., Tal, A., Grinspun, E.: Feature-preserving surface com-
pletion using four points. Comput. Graph. Forum 33(5), 45–54
(2014)
21. Jost, J.: Riemannian geometry and geometric analysis. In: Springer
Universitat Texts, 6 edn. Springer, Berlin (2011)
22. Ju, T.: Robust repair of polygonal models. ACM Trans. Graph.
23(3), 888–895 (2004)
23. Ju, T.: Fixing geometric errors on polygonal models: a survey. J.
Comput. Sci. Technol. 24(1), 19–29 (2009)
24. Kazhdan, M., Bolitho, M., Hoppe, H.: Poisson surface reconstruc-
tion. In: Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing (SGP),
pp. 61–70. Eurographics Association (2006)
25. Kinect: http://www.xbox.com/en-IN/Kinect/ (2010). Accessed 10
Nov 2016
26. Kraevoy, V., Sheffer, A.: Template-based mesh completion. In:
Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing (SGP). Euro-
graphics Association (2005)
27. Liepa, P.: Filling holes in meshes. In: Eurographics Symposium on
Geometry Processing (SGP), pp. 200–205. Eurographics Associa-
tion (2003)
28. Oliveira, M.M., Bowen, B., McKenna, R., sung Chang, Y.: Fast
digital image inpainting. In: International Conference on Visual-
ization, Imaging and Image Processing (VIIP), pp. 261–266. ACTA
Press (2001)
29. Pauly, M., Mitra, N.J., Giesen, J., Gross, M.H., Guibas, L.J.:
Example-based 3D scan completion. In: Eurographics Symposium
on Geometry Processing (SGP), pp. 23–32. Eurographics Associ-
ation (2005)
Example-based 3D inpainting of point clouds using metric tensor and Christoffel symbols
30. Pernot, J.P., Moraru, G., Véron, P.: Filling holes in meshes using a
mechanical model to simulate the curvature variation minimization.
Comput. Graph. 30(6), 892–902 (2006)
31. Podolak, J., Rusinkiewicz, S.: Atomic volumes for mesh comple-
tion. In: Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing (SGP).
Eurographics Association (2005)
32. Rusinkiewicz, S., Levoy, M.: Efficient variants of the ICP algo-
rithm. In: 3D Digital Imaging and Modeling, pp. 145–152 (2001)
33. Sahay, P., Rajagopalan, A.: Geometric inpainting of 3D structures.
In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Workshops, pp. 1–7 (2015)
34. Sahay, P., Rajagopalan, A.N.: Harnessing self-similarity for recon-
struction of large missing regions in 3D models. In: International
Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pp. 101–104. IEEE
(2012)
35. Schnabel, R., Wahl, R., Klein, R.: Efficient ransac for point-cloud
shape detection. Comput. Graph. Forum 26(2), 214–226 (2007)
36. Sharf, A., Alexa, M., Cohen-Or, D.: Context-based surface com-
pletion. ACM Trans. Graph. TOG 23(3), 878–887 (2004 )
343
37. Sumner, R.W., Popović, J.: Deformation transfer for triangle
meshes. ACM Trans. Graph. 23(3), 399–405 (2004)
38. Telea, A.: An image inpainting technique based on the fast march-
ing method. J. Graph. GPU Game Tools 9, 23–34 (2004)
39. Verdera, J., Caselles, V., Bertalmio, M., Sapiro, G.: Inpainting sur-
face holes. Int. Conf. Image Process. ICIP 2, 903–906 (2003)
40. Wang, J., Oliveira, M.M.: A hole-filling strategy for reconstruction
of smooth surfaces in range images. In: SIBGRAPI, pp. 11–18.
IEEE Computer Society (2003)
41. Wu, X.J., Wang, M.Y., Han, B.: An automatic hole-filling algorithm
for polygon meshes. Comput. Aided Des. Appl. 5, 889–899 (2008)
42. Zhao, W., Gao, S., Lin, H.: A robust hole-filling algorithm for
triangular mesh. Vis. Comput. 23(12), 987–997 (2007)
123