Impact of Computer Graphics in Our Daily Life free essay sample

Graphics and Architecture: State of the A r t and Outlook for the Future Julie Dorsey Leonard McMillan profession. Computer graphics has revolutionized the drafting process, enabling the rapid entry and modification of designs (see Musachusetts Instbitute o f Technology Figure I). In addition, modeling and rendering systems have proven to be invaluable aids in Introduction the visualization process, allowing designers During the three decades since Ivan to walk through their designs with photorealSutherland introduced the Skerchpad system istic imagery (see Figure 2) [6, 2, 3]. 7], there has been an outpouring of computComputer graphics systems have also demoner graphics systems for use in architecture [3, strated utility for capturing engineering infor5]. In response to this development, most of mation, greatly simplifying the analysis and the major architectural firms around the construction of proposed designs. However, it world have embraced the idea that computer is important to consider that all of these literacy is mandatory for success. We would tasks occur near the conclusion of a larger argue, however, that most of these recent design process. In fact, most of the artistic developments have failed to tap the potential and intellectual challenges of an architectural design have already been resolved by the time the designer sits down in front of a computer. In seeking insight into the design process, it is generally of little use to revisit the various computer archives kLE:I ~ L~. ~ ~ ~ and backups. Instead, it ~. , ~i? ,iiI, is best to explore the reams of sketches and crude balsa models that fill the trash cans of any architectural studio. Rlure h Hidden line axonemetric view of the Tenerife House. Designed by Ann In architecture, as in Pendleton-Jullian;modeled byJack de Valpine and Ben Black,V/SARCInc. ,Boston,MIL most other fields, the See page 99/or/map In full co/or. initial success of computerization has been in of the computer as a design tool. Instead, areas where it frees humans from tedious and computers have been relegated largely to the mundane tasks. This includes the redrawing of status of drafting instruments, so that the D floor plans after minor modifications, the genin CAD stands for drafting rather than design. eration of largely redundant, yet subtly differIt is important that future architectural design eat engineering drawings and the generation systems consider design as a continuous of perspective renderings. process rather than an eventual outcome. We believe that there is a largely untapped The advent of computer graphics technolopotential for computer graphics as a tool in gy has had an impact on the architectural the earlier phases of the design process. In this essay, we argue that computer graphics might play a larger role via applications that aid and amplify the creative process. Nature of the Architectural Design Process and Traditional Media Architectural design is an iterative, visual process one that involves thinking and exploring in pictorial or symbolic representations. teven Coons described the creative and complex acrivity of design as follows: It is typical of the design process that such iterations from concept, through analysis, evaluatJon of the analysis, decision to modify the concept, and finally to a new concept form loops that are traversed again and again, until eventually the designer judges the design adequate to satisfy some sca/eor scales of value judgment [I] Throughout the design process, desig ners employ a range of representational media and conventions to explore, assess and refine their ideas. Initially, these representations may be small diagrammatic sketches intended to stimulate the imagination, test initial thoughts and concepts and generate a series of alternatives. As a design concept is selected for clarification and development, the representations chat designers employ to study the idea also become more definitive and refined until the proposal is crystallized and presented for evaluation and implementation [4]. In the generative and developmental stages of the design process, the representations are distinctly speculative in nature. Thoughts come to mind as designers view a drawing or model in progress, which can alter their perceptions and suggest new possibilities. The emerging r e p r e s e n t a t i o n allows them to explore avenues that could not be foreseen, and ideas are generated along the way. Once executed, each representation depicts a separate reality that can be seen, evaluated and Fignre 2:Tenerife House renderings at different times of d~y. Designedby Ann Pendlemn-Jullian:medeled and rendered byJark de Vaipine and Ben Black, V/~RC Inc. ,Boston,~ See page 99 for/map in full color. Computer Graphics February 1998 4S edefined, or transformed. Even if eventually discarded, each representation will have stimulated the minds eye and set in motion the formation of further concepts. Therefore, speculative drawings or models are different in spirit and purpose from the definitive presentation media that architects use to accurately represent and communicate a fully formed design to others. While the techn ique and degree of finish of exploratory representations may vary with the nature of the problems and the individual designers way of working, the mode of representation is always open-ended, informal and personal. While not intended for public display, these artifacts can provide valuable insights into an individuals creative process. Speculative representations are essential to the creative process. Images rarely exist in the mind fully formed down to the last detail, waiting only to be transferred to a sheet of paper. An image develops over time and undergoes a number of transformations as the designer probes the idea it represents and searches for congruence between the image in the minds eye and the one being constructed. In short, the role of the media is to allow immediate capture of ideas for examination and revision, and to provide a ecord of the exploration process for later review. Computer~Aided Design Systems The classical tools of architectural design include a wide range of media. Among these are pencil and paper, cardboard and rubber cement and clay and wire. All of these media have a common set of properties. Each is pliant, flexible and forgiving. By their nature they encourag e exploration and iteration. In contrast, the representations used in computer-aided design systems tend to be rigid and precise. The focus of CAD systems is the accurate specification of geometric relationships. At the very core of all CAD systems resides the notion of specifying coordinates for every design element. Furthermore, these coordinates are specified relative to some arbitrary center of the universe called an origin. Both of these notions involve rather serious overheads and force the designer to adopt an unnatural point-of-view. In the words of Robert McKim: not all visualization materials are well-suited to exploring and recording ideas. Materials that involve the visualizer in difficult techniques, for instance, will absorb energy and divert attention away from hinking. Time-consuming techniques also impede rapid ideation, since ideas frequently come more quickly than they can be recorded. Frustration with an unwieldy material can block a train of thought or be reflected directly in a diminished quality of thinking. [4] During the design process, many drawings and models are often necessary to reveal the best choice or direction to pursue. They encourage designers to look at alternative strategies in a fluent and flexible manner and not close in on a solution too fast. A central aspect of these tools is that they are speculative in nature and thus subject to interpretation. In contrast, computer models can be inhibiting, which often leads to a premature closure of the design process. We interviewed several graduate students in the architectural design studios at MIT for this article. When asked whether they had built computer models of their projects to supplement the piles of sketches and models on their desks, a frequent response was that it was too early to make such a commitment. What is it about CAD systems that force such a level of finality? First, in the area of user interfaces, designers have to go to the computer rather than the c o m p u t e r coming t o the designer. Figure 4: A collection of representations. See page I O0 for image in full color. Figure 3:Typical view of a designers archive. See page I O0 for image in full color. 46 February Computer Graphics 1998 Architects that are successful in their use of C A D tools are distinguished by their ability to change modes rapidly between these domains. Second, in the realm of presentation, computers present design ideas with a hard edge. In this case hard means a focus on quantitative rather than qualitative notions. Fundamentally, todays computer graphics systems do not represent environments the way that architects conceive them. In typical architectural C A D systems the focus is on specifying the space defining elements, such as walls, rather than the space contained within them. In addition, architects find it dilficult to give up both the tactile qualities of a physical model and choices of the representations. A t first glance many of these problems appear solvable. For example, through the use of parametric design approaches, one could imagine that the focus on coordinates could be diminished. However, the mere acceptance of a p a r a m e t e r d r i v e n f u n c t i o n a l model requires a level of finality unlike any of the traditional design mediums used in architecture. While computer graphics techniques have aided in the design and analysis of many structures, this is generally through very specific and disjoint programs, each requiring special preparation of data and each being applied after the conceptual design is complete. The architectural profession has yet to be presented with integrated design software that provides the o p p o r t u n i t y to go from conceptual design to working drawings and specifications w i t h o u t many intermediate translations of representation. Most architectural design systems are multi-modal. In fact, efficient C A D users rarely use the supposedly intuitive user interFace that is ostensibly presented by the system. Instead they use cryptic keystroke and menu accelerators. Unfortunately all of this is done under the guise of providing a design environment with more features and flexibility. At what point do Features become clutter? A pencil has relatively few features other than the hardness of its lead, the sharpness of its point and the orientation and pressure with which it is presented to the paper. Despite all of their menu options, there are few computer-aided systems with comparable flexibility. computer modeling systems are good at generating arbitrary views of precise 3D models and exploring designs at a variety of scales -ranging from a birds-eye view to that of a person within the described space. One example prototype of a next-generation design tool is the SKETCH system developed by Zeleznik et al at Brown University [8]. SKETCH a~empts to combine the advan1~es of free-form drawing with a 3D modeling systems ability to generate arbitrary views in order to create an environment for rapidly conceptualizing and editing of approximate 3D scenes. To achieve this, SKETCH uses simple non-photorealistic rendering and a purely gestural interface based on simplified line drawings oF primitives that allows all operations to be specified w i t h i n the 3D world. Figure 5 shows an example of output from the system. In order to satisfy the needs of architectural designers, it is important that we, as computer graphics system designers, embrace the traditional tools of the architect_ In addition 1[o creating computer graphics tools based on imprecise modes of representation and interaction, another intriguing possibility is co combine such represen~tions with traditional representations. For example, designers sometimes digitize physical models into 3D odeling systems for the purpose of rel~nement and construction documentation. It would be interesting if designers could digitize drawings~models early in the design process and then have computer graphics systems chat support novel interactions w i t h these representations. In this way, architects could combine the advantages of traditional tools with those of computer graphics systems. If pencil sketching is the natural medium for exploration, then pencil sketches should be the starting points of the computer-aided design process. Tools should be developed to manipulate sketches directly, providing capabilities that are difficult to attain on paper, such as unconstrained zooming in and out of the sketched design. Future systems should also support iteration by providing output of preliminary w o r k that can be easily erased and drawn over and once again read back into the system. Ideally through a series of iterations and manipulation, the design system could deduce and modify geometric relationships implicitly. Future C A D systems should support the generation of rapid prototypes. For instance a system might generate cutouts for paper folded models. Designing on the computer with todays C A D systems is often like following a recipe, O u t l o o k for the Future What is it about the medium of pencil and paper thac allows for exploration of ideas, and how might this attribute be captured in a real computer-aided design system? Sketching communicates ideas rapidly through approximate visual images with low overhead, no need For precision or specialized knowledge. Furthermore, due to its low overhead, the processes of iteration and revision are encouraged. In contrast, most 3D F~ure 5: Sampleimafe from ~he SKETCHsystem. See page 100 for Image in ~ull ca/or. Computer Graphics February1998 47 as designers are forced to limit themselves only to preconceived images and miss opportunities for discovery along the way. While a prior image is necessary to initiate a computer model, it can be a hindrance if we do not see that evolving image as something we can interact with and modify as we design. The place of computer graphics in architectural design is not yet fixed, which may be a good thing. We need to develop tools that fit the approach that architects actually use when they design buildings; specifically, we should aim to create tools that allow architects to bring computers into the design process much earlier than they do now. In a sense,computers ought to be like many other design media, in that they should be flexible and practical enough to use at many different stages of design. If the next generation of CAD systems can attain this exploratory nature, we may well realize the possibility for inspiration and invention that computer graphics has long promised. References I. Coons, Steven A. An Outline for the Requirements for a Computer-aided Design System, Proceedings of the Spring Joint Computer Conference, Spartan Books, Baltimore, MD, 1963,pp. 299-304. 2. Glassner, Andrew S. Principles of Digital Image Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers,San Francisco,CA, 1995. 3. Greenberg, Donald R Computers in Architecture, Scientific American, 264, 2, February 199 I, pp. 04-109. 4. McKim, Robert H. Experiences in Visual Thinking, PWS Publishers, Boston, MA, 1980. 5. Mitchell, William J. and Malcolm McCullough. Digital Design Media, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NewYork, NY 1995. 6. Sillion, Francois and Claude Puech. Radiosity and Global Illumination, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco,CA, 1994. 7. Sutherland, I. E. Sketchpad:A Man-Machine Graphical Communication System, Julie D orsey is an Associate Professor in the Laboratory for Computer Science and Department of Architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Her research interests include image synthesis, texture and material models, image-based rendering and computer-aided lighting and acoustical design. Leonard McMillan is an Assistant Professor in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department and the Laboratory for Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research interests include image-based approaches to computer graphics, graphical applications of computer vision and computer vision applications to multimedia. Julie Dorsey and Leonard McMillan Proceedings of the Spring Joint Computer Conference, Spartan Books, Baltimore, MD, 1963, pp. 329-346. 8. Zeleznik, Robert C. , Kenneth P. Herndon, John E Hughes. SKETCH: An Interface for Sketching 3D Scenes, Computer Graphics, Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 96,ACM SIGGRAPH, New York, NY, pp. 163-170. Computer GraphicsGroup MassachusettsInstituteof Technology NE43-218 545TechnologySquare Cambridge,MA 02139 Tel:+ 1-617-253-6846 Fax:+ 1-617-253-6652 Email:{dorseyI mcmillan}@graphics. lcs. mit. edu http://graphics. lcs. mitedu 48 February Computer Graphics 1998 . FROM THE ED IT O R Gordon Cameron SOFTIMA6E, Inc. When we look at the current state of computer graphics it is easy to take so much for granted. By doing so, we forget the remarkable flurry of research and development undertaken over the past quarter century (and more) which has led us to a present where computer-generated imagery mesmerizes us at the cinema, visualizations aid in our hospitals, graphical tools aid in the design of ou r homes and vehicles and countless other applications of computer graphics impact our daily life. I~e been involved in computers and graphics in one way or another for around 16 years (since my I~rst dabblings at the age of 13 on a neighbours Apple II Europlus, and implementation of a painfully basic drawing program in 0. 5K on a ZXtil). It is amazing to me how Par we have come since 82, and equally amazing how we got to that stage from preRy much nothing over the preceding few decades. This year marks the official 25th birthday of the 51GGRAPH conference (Ed/t0rs note: although the organization is older m see Carl Machovers column on page 25). To kick off the celebrations, I asked FranTois 5illion (a pioneer in graphics, particularly in the fields of rendering and global illumination) if he would like to guest edit an issue which would ask a selection of experts from a cross section of the community to offer their musings on the past few computer graphic decades, as well as look into their personal crystal balls to give us their opinion on what lies in store m a ~orward-looking retrospective: Much to my delight, Francois decided co rise to the chal. enge and collect and collate for us a fantastic selection of articles written by some of the leading researchers from a wide range of computer graphics disciplines. My thanks go out to all the authors and FranTois for presenting a fascinating view on the world of computer graphics past, present and possible future! This February issue also sees the debut of a new regular education column, as well as a student gallery to showcase the works of those studying in educational esta blishments around the globe. Many thanks and best wishes ro the new additions to the Computer Graphicscolumnist family, Rosalee Wolfe, Jodi Giroux-Lang, Lynn Pocock and Karen Sullivan. On a column- related note, the real-time column is on rata. tion for this issue,but will return in Hay. Next time around, we investicate an area that has had tremendous impact on society and the computer graphics world over the past decades computer taming. To coincide with the 25th anniversary, an earlyAugust issue will act as a special history document tied specifically to the conference. The world of computer graphics continues to evolve at a stardinI pace. I hope you enjoy this trip down memory lane and look to the future. Gordon Cameron Software Development SOFTIMAGE, Inc. 3510 boul. $t-Laurent Suite 400 Montreal,Quebec H2X 2V2 Canada Tel:+ I-514-845-1636 ex? _3445 Fmc+ I-514-845-5676 En~l: [emailprotected]/araph. arg Computer Graphi,q February1998 3 ,. FROM THE ED IT O R Gordon Cameron SOFTIMA6E, Inc. When we look at the current state of computer graphics it is easy to take so much for granted. By doing so, we forget the remarkable flurry of research and development undertaken over the past quarter century (and more) which has led us to a present where computer-generated imagery mesmerizes us at the cinema, visualizations aid in our hospitals, graphical tools aid in the design of our homes and vehicles and countless other applications of computer graphics impact our daily life. I~e been involved in computers and graphics in one way or another for around 16 years (since my I~rst dabblings at the age of 13 on a neighbours Apple II Europlus, and implementation of a painfully basic drawing program in 0. 5K on a ZXtil). It is amazing to me how Par we have come since 82, and equally amazing how we got to that stage from preRy much nothing over the preceding few decades. This year marks the official 25th birthday of the 51GGRAPH conference (Ed/t0rs note: although the organization is older m see Carl Machovers column on page 25). To kick off the celebrations, I asked FranTois 5illion (a pioneer in graphics, particularly in the fields of rendering and global illumination) if he would like to guest edit an issue which would ask a selection of experts from a cross section of the community to offer their musings on the past few computer graphic decades, as well as look into their personal crystal balls to give us their opinion on what lies in store m a ~orward-looking retrospective: Much to my delight, Francois decided co rise to the chal. enge and collect and collate for us a fantastic selection of articles written by some of the leading researchers from a wide range of computer graphics disciplines. My thanks go out to all the authors and FranTois for presenting a fascinating view on the world of computer graphics past, present and possible future! This February issue also sees the debut of a new regular education column, as well as a student gallery to showcase the works of those studying in educational esta blishments around the globe. Many thanks and best wishes ro the new additions to the Computer Graphicscolumnist family, Rosalee Wolfe, Jodi Giroux-Lang, Lynn Pocock and Karen Sullivan. On a column- related note, the real-time column is on rata. tion for this issue,but will return in Hay. Next time around, we investicate an area that has had tremendous impact on society and the computer graphics world over the past decades computer taming. To coincide with the 25th anniversary, an earlyAugust issue will act as a special history document tied specifically to the conference. The world of computer graphics continues to evolve at a stardinI pace. I hope you enjoy this trip down memory lane and look to the future. Gordon Cameron Software Development SOFTIMAGE, Inc. 3510 boul. $t-Laurent Suite 400 Montreal,Quebec H2X 2V2 Canada Tel:+ I-514-845-1636 ex? _3445 Fmc+ I-514-845-5676 En~l: [emailprotected]/araph. arg Computer Graphi,q February1998 3