ARTEFACTS CONCLUSION DRAFT

CONCLUSION

Two out of the four members in my focus group have read some parts of my research project document, they are not experts in the subject nonetheless they now have sufficient knowledge about my area of discussion. The two members acted as my

'Placebo'. Therefore I will be able to asses the placebo effect by comparing similarities and differences of the answers from my placebo group and my non placebo group. To avoid the two members of my focus group from being biased I created constraints for them. I gave them a 30 second time constraint for each artefact they viewed. I did this so their opinions were as realistic as possible.

One thing I realized is that I was approaching my artefacts from a different angle, I knew forehand the things I was keen to experiment on, after writing my research document, however Joolz explained to me that it is the results of one artefact that are meant to lead you to your next artefact. He said it is fine in knowing what you want to experiment next, although I should be hoping to find out e.g. for my second artefact, how shapes influence the space without being to explicit. Both Joolz and Danny mentioned that my questions were guiding the viewer into making them believe what I wanted too. Danny advised me to restructure my questions in my questionnaire and also look for appropriate images that match the question. He also advised me to use unreal editor when experimenting with my next artefacts.

I learn't that you can't divorce other elements of space whilst looking at another one, Block never privileged any elements, so why should I? I should try and combine all of the elements and so to find out what are the key elements that often make people perceive spaces differently.

Experimenting with my artefacts helped me discover the things that affect what really affects the perception of space when looking at a non virtual environment, in comparison to a real environment. The following things affect one's view of "space".

In tones and textures, there a few things that often affect the appearance of objects whilst looking at them on a two dimensional screen. It is things like;

1. The direction from which the light is coming. (Left, right, above, behind, or below.)

2. The intensity of the light. (Candlelight or sunlight.)

3. The type of light (Light from the setting sun or flash.)

4. Objects standing between the light source and your subject or object. (Light passing through a thin fabric.)

5. The colour and texture of the object. (A fuzzy blanket looks a lot different than a piece of granite.)

Artefact 6

"Movement & Rhythm"

Artefact 5

PERSPECTIVE

Bruce Block argues that “deep space is the illusion of a three-dimensional world on a two dimensional screen surface”. He says that “our ability to fool the audience into thinking there’s depth on the screen comes from our knowledge and use of depth ques”.

Artefact 4 Evaluation

COLOUR

"Arouses feelings in us and we use it to reflect our personality and moods in the decoration of ourselves and our environment".

The aim of this artefact was to use another visual element of art and design 'colour' and examine whether Frederick palmers theory would apply when merging these two different environments. "Arouses feelings in us and we use it to reflect our personality and moods in the decoration of ourselves and our environment". As Frederick palmer argues that colour is probably the visual element to which we initially respond most strongly. I tested this theory by merging a model I created in 3ds max (the virtual environment) and placed it in a image of a 'real world environment'. I wanted to see how 'colours' of a non virtual world differ or are similar to those of a real world environment. My aim was to see if anyone one could detect a distinct difference between the model and the environment. I played around with the adjustments with the auto levels and auto contrasts in Photo Shop and positions of the building, in an attempt to make it look as 'realistic' as possible. Members of my focus group commented on the lighting of my merged building they said that is what made the image not appear to be 'real'.

Artefact 4 Evaluation (Not Final)

The aim of my artefacts is to examine the potential difference of the perception of 3d environments in comparison to a real environment. Whilst writing my research question it occured to me that characteristics of a 3d environment differ from characteristics of a real environment; however both environments do occasionally share and agree on some principals. The aim of this artefact was to use another visual element of art and design 'colour' and examine wether Frederick palmers theory would apply when merging these two different environments.

"Arouses feelings in us and we use it to reflect our personality and moods in the decoration of ourselves and our environment".

As Frederick palmer argues that colour is probably the visual element to which we initially respond most strongly. I tested this theory by merging a model i created in 3ds max (the virtual environment) and placed it in a image of a 'real world environment'. I wanted to see how 'colours' of a non virtual world differ or are similar to those of a real world environment.
I want to see whether there will be a distinct difference between the model and the environment.

I asked my focus group the following questions.

1. What strikes you the most about this image?
2. Does the colour make you percieve the space differently
3. Does placing the building (created in 3ds max), on different positions of the real world environment image make you percieve whole the space differently?
4. What differs between the 5 images i've experimented with? Is there a distinct difference?
5. What strikes you most about the space of the original image?

Members of my focus group commented on the lighting of my merged building they said that is what made the image not appear to be 'real'. The first image from the bottom, where i played around with the auto colour adjustments, was argued to appear the most 'realistic' above all the others.

I think i successfully placed the building in positions that made it blend in with the 'real world image'. I keep in mind the direction of sources of light, therefore the shadows between the merged images would appear as one. Nonetheless i agree with members of my focus group, i think the colours/tones of the real world environment image differs from my virtual building thus making the building appear out of place.

Artefact 3 - Evaluation

TONE

"Tone refers to shading of light and dark on an object"

Frederick Palmer argues that tone maybe use to evoke a sense of space and distance or convey harmony etc. My aim was to find out whether it is true that tone can make people perceive spaces differently and the moods and ideas they communicate to a viewer. How far do tones go out in assisting textures in two dimensional screen surfaces appear believable and of a 3dimensional nature? Bruce Block argues that “the basic visual components are space, line, shape, tone, colour, movement and rhythm. These visual components are found in every picture we see. Actors, locations, props, costumes, and scenery are made up of visual components. A visual component communicates moods, emotions, ideas and most importantly gives visual structure to what we’re watching”.

I modelled a kitchen/ living room environment to demonstrate this. I used architectural and design and textures and lit the environment several different ways.

I then compared it with images of the original kitchen. After questioning my focus group about my artefact, it occurred to me that you cannot fully isolate one depth cue from the rest to get an accurate result. I noticed that visual components or depth cues all interrelate and affect each other. Looking at my test images I noticed that its things like shadows that make an environment appear to have depth. It is the light source that generated the shadows, which made the textures of the environment appear more realistic. Without the light source the textures would be flat and the space of the environment would be perceived differently. Lighting does not only bring about the 'real' textures it also conjures up the mood of the space. The light source of these images was set to be in the evening thus giving the environment a relaxed. Therefore for my fourth artefact I want to test different sources of light and how they can make the viewer perceive an environment differently.

Artefact 4 - Merging of Virtual and Real environments

The aim of this artefact is to see whether there will be a distinct difference between the building i created in a 'virtual environment' and the picture taken of a 'real environment'. I manipulated these images using photo shop. I played around with the adjustments with the auto levels and auto contrasts and positions of the building, in an attempt to make it look as 'realistic' as possible. Has this successfully been achieved? If not, what would you say is making the following images appear 'not real' ?

Playing with the Auto levels

Different position

Try three - I placed the building in a different position

Try two with auto colour adjustment.

Try one with no auto colour adjustment on photo shop.

This the original picture