Alves, N M F and Bártolo, P J S (2002) Reversing design through computer vision. In: Greenwood, D (ed.) Proceedings of 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2002, Northumbria, UK.
Abstract
The rapid generation of computer models from existing buildings will enable to enhance creativity and innovation within the architectural design process. However there is no effective system to perform such process, so a new approach based on the replication of the human vision process is proposed. This process uses two-dimensional photos to create three-dimensional computer models either to produce sophisticated photo-realistic renderings or to generate surface models for simulation purposes and rapid prototyping applications. The starting part of the computer code is briefly introduced here from a mathematical perspective. The proposed system intends to be a very robust, versatile and flexible computer tool that will enable to do architectural redesign of buildings from non-existing digital models.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architectural design; digital model; image-based modelling; redesign |
| Index terms: | redesign, computer vision, creativity, modelling, architectural design, rapid prototyping |
| Subjects: | design methods, design practice, innovation and creative processes, analytical methods, innovation and technology management, computer vision |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here