“Insitu: sketching architectural designs in context”
Conference:
Type(s):
Title:
- Insitu: sketching architectural designs in context
Session/Category Title: Architectural Design and Analysis
Presenter(s)/Author(s):
Abstract:
Architecture is design in spatial context. The only current methods for representing context involve designing in a heavyweight computer-aided design system, using a full model of existing buildings and landscape, or sketching on a panoramic photo. The former is too cumbersome; the latter is too restrictive in viewpoint and in the handling of occlusions and topography. We introduce a novel approach to presenting context such that it is an integral component in a lightweight conceptual design system. We represent sites through a fusion of data available from different sources. We derive a site model from geographic elevation data, on-site point-to-point distance measurements, and images of the site. To acquire and process the data, we use publicly available data sources, multidimensional scaling techniques and refinements of recent bundle adjustment techniques. We offer a suite of interactive tools to acquire, process, and combine the data into a lightweight stroke and image-billboard representation. We create multiple and linked pop-ups derived from images, forming a lightweight representation of a three-dimensional environment. We implemented our techniques in a stroke-based conceptual design system we call Insitu. We developed our work through continuous interaction with professional designers. We present designs created with our new techniques integrated in a conceptual design system.
References:
1. Aliakseyeu, D., Martens, J.-B., and Rauterberg, M. 2006. A computer support tool for the early stages of architectural design. Interacting with Computers 18, 4, 528–555. Google ScholarDigital Library
2. Bilda, Z., and Gero, J. S. 2005. Do we need CAD during conceptual design? In Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures. Springer, 155–164.Google Scholar
3. Borg, I., and Groenen, P. 2005. Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications. Springer.Google Scholar
4. Chrabin, A. M., Szewczyk, J., and Neuckermans, H. 2003. A critical evaluation of early stages software in its capacity of coping with contextual issues. In Local Values in a Networked Design World. DUP Science.Google Scholar
5. Cohen, J. M., Hughes, J. F., and Zeleznik, R. C. 2000. Harold: a world made of drawings. In Proc. Symposium on Non-Photorealistic Animation and Rendering, ACM, New York, 83–90. Google ScholarDigital Library
6. Dorsey, J., Xu, S., Smedresman, G., Rushmeier, H. E., and McMillan, L. 2007. The Mental Canvas: A tool for conceptual architectural design and analysis. In Pacific Graphics 2007, IEEE, 201–210. Google ScholarDigital Library
7. Echelman, J., 2010. 1.26 Sculpture Project at the Biennial of the Americas. http://www.echelman.com/denver.html.Google Scholar
8. Gesch, D. 2007. Digital elevation model technologies and applications: The DEM users manual. 2nd ed. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, 99–118.Google Scholar
9. Google Inc., 2011. SketchUp 8. http://sketchup.google.com/.Google Scholar
10. Hoiem, D., Efros, A. A., and Hebert, M. 2005. Automatic photo pop-up. ACM Trans. on Graph. 24, 3, 577–584. Google ScholarDigital Library
11. Jorge, J., and Samavati, F., Eds. 2011. Sketch-based Interfaces and Modeling, 1st ed. Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
12. Kallio, K. 2005. 3D6B Editor: Projective 3D Sketching with Line-Based Rendering. In Proc. Workshop on Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling, 73–80.Google Scholar
13. Kalnins, R. D., Markosian, L., Meier, B. J., Kowalski, M. A., Lee, J. C., Davidson, P. L., Webb, M., Hughes, J. F., and Finkelstein, A. 2002. WYSIWYG NPR: drawing strokes directly on 3D models. ACM Trans. on Graph. 21, 3, 755–762. Google ScholarDigital Library
14. Lau, M., Saul, G., Mitani, J., and Igarashi, T. 2010. Modeling-in-context: User design of complementary objects with a single photo. In Proc. Symposium on Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling, 1–8. Google ScholarDigital Library
15. Lee, S., Feng, D., Grimm, C., and Gooch, B. 2008. A sketch-based user interface for reconstructing architectural drawings. Comput. Graph. Forum 27, 1, 81–90.Google ScholarCross Ref
16. Leica, 2011. Leica Reporter38. http://www.leicageosystems.com/reporter/reporter_38/reporter38.pdf.Google Scholar
17. Lowe, D. G. 2004. Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int. J. Computer Vision 60, 2, 91–110. Google ScholarDigital Library
18. McHarg, I. 1991. Design with Nature. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
19. Oh, J.-Y., Stürzlinger, W., and Danahy, J. 2006. SESAME: towards better 3D conceptual design systems. In Proc. Conf. Designing Interactive Systems, ACM, 80–89. Google ScholarDigital Library
20. Olsen, Jr., D. R., and Harris, M. K. 2008. Edge-respecting brushes. In Proc. User Interface Software and Technology, ACM, New York, 171–180. Google ScholarDigital Library
21. Pollefeys, M., Gool, L. J. V., Vergauwen, M., Verbiest, F., Cornelis, K., Tops, J., and Koch, R. 2004. Visual modeling with a hand-held camera. Int. J. Computer Vision 59, 3, 207–232. Google ScholarDigital Library
22. Rekittke, J., and Paar, P. 2008. Real-time collage in landscape architecture. Digital Design in Landscape Architecture, 88–95.Google Scholar
23. Rosin, P. L., and Lai, Y.-K. 2010. Towards artistic minimal rendering. In Proc. Symposium on Non-Photorealistic Animation and Rendering, ACM, 119–127. Google ScholarDigital Library
24. Rother, C., Kolmogorov, V., and Blake, A. 2004. “grabcut”: interactive foreground extraction using iterated graph cuts. ACM Trans. Graph. 23 (August), 309–314. Google ScholarDigital Library
25. Rushmeier, H. E., Xu, C., Wang, B., Rushmeier, R., and Dorsey, J. 2007. Shape capture assisted by traditional tools. In Proc. Virtual Reality, Archaeology, and Cultural Heritage (VAST), 1–8. Google ScholarDigital Library
26. Sando, T., Tory, M., and Irani, P. 2009. Effects of animation, user-controlled interactions, and multiple static views in understanding 3D structures. In Proc. Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, ACM, 69–76. Google ScholarDigital Library
27. Schon, D. A. 1983. The reflective practitioner. Harper Collins.Google Scholar
28. Shneiderman, B., and Plaisant, C. 2006. Strategies for evaluating information visualization tools. In Proc. AVI Workshop on BEyond time and errors: novel evaluation methods for information visualization, ACM, 1–7. Google ScholarDigital Library
29. Snavely, N., Seitz, S. M., and Szeliski, R. 2006. Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3D. ACM Trans. Graph 25, 3, 835–846. Google ScholarDigital Library
30. Sollenberger, R. L., and Milgram, P. 1993. Effects of stereoscopic and rotational displays in a three-dimensional path-tracing task. Human Factors 35, 3, 483–499.Google ScholarCross Ref
31. Stellingwerff, M. 2007. Googlized contextual design. In Proc. EAEA, 1–7.Google Scholar
32. Sutherland, I. E. 1964. Sketchpad a man-machine graphical communication system. In Proc. the SHARE design automation workshop, ACM, New York, DAC ’64, 6.329–6.346. Google ScholarDigital Library
33. Suzuki, S., and Abe, K. 1985. Topological structural analysis of digital binary image by border following. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing 30, 1, 32–46.Google ScholarCross Ref
34. Sxenko, 2007. Fallingwater, by Frank Lloyd Wright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wrightfallingwater.jpg.Google Scholar
35. Thormählen, T., and Seidel, H.-P. 2008. 3D-modeling by ortho-image generation from image sequences. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 86:1–5. Google ScholarDigital Library
36. Tolba, O., Dorsey, J., and McMillan, L. 2001. A projective drawing system. In Proc. the ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, 25–34. Google ScholarDigital Library
37. Tsang, S., Balakrishnan, R., Singh, K., and Ranjan, A. 2004. A suggestive interface for image guided 3D sketching. In Proc. the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 591–598. Google ScholarDigital Library
38. Ventura, J., Diverdi, S., and Hollerer, T. 2009. A sketch-based interface for photo pop-up. In Proc. Eurographics Symposium on Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling, 21–28. Google ScholarDigital Library
39. Warmerdam, F., 2010. GDAL – Geospatial Data Abstraction Library. http://www.gdal.org.Google Scholar
40. Zandbergen, P. A. 2009. Accuracy of iPhone locations: A comparison of assisted GPS, WiFi, and cellular positioning. Trans. GIS 13, s1, 5–25.Google ScholarCross Ref
41. Zhou, Y., Schembri, J., Lamont, L., and Bird, J. 2009. Analysis of stand-alone GPS for relative location discovery in wireless sensor networks. In Proc. CCECE, IEEE, 437–441.Google Scholar
