Erinevas graafilises tehnikas valminud visualiseeringute eelistused kujundusprojektides

The purpose of this work was to determine which type of visualization techniques commonly used in landscape simulation are most preferred in landscape architecture design projects. For that, the main question for the thesis was constructed, along with sub questions to guide the research. Knowing preferred image styles would benefit all specialists whose profession is related to creation of illustrative graphics to landscape projects. In order to identify preferences, a questionnaire, containing 18 pictures of landscape and architecture renderings and drawings, was made. It was carried out via internet (social network and e-mail sharing) and received a total of 133 responses. Pictures were told to judge on the scale of one to seven (one being not likeable at all, and seven very much likeable). At the end of the questionnaire people were asked to group themselves by their art relatedness, as art related or non-related. This helped to identify whether presenting to different groups would require varying image quality or type. Collected results were analysed in Microsoft Excel and then in statistics software SPSS, by using Mann-Whitney U test. Results in general were somewhat expected by the author and partially confirmed previous researches. Well done 3D photorealistic images done in Autodesk 3Ds Max had the highest ratings (“3D in the morning” and “3D in the evening” both 5,57, closely followed by “main 3D photorealistic” 5,41). Trimble SketchUp images had rather varying results, as stylized version was close to photorealistic images grades (4,95), but usual type of SketchUp image attained lower grades (4,13). Surreal style SketchUp image had the lowest grades of all (2,93). Hand drawing with pencils was also not far behind from a stylized version of SketchUp, with only minor grading difference (4,63). A bit surprising results came from 3D photorealistic image variations, where visualizations with trees as frames (4,74) and low camera angle (4,50) received lower grades than picture without them. Based on the popularity of those techniques in landscape architecture practice, it should have been vice versa. People’s preference based on their relationship to visual arts did actually not affect their preference to visualization styles. Biggest difference occurred on “SketchUp realistic image” (-17,7%), where art related people preferred it less, and on “SketchUp surrealistic” (10,3%), where it was non-art associated individuals, who rated it worse, but these were marginal differences. Based on results, it can be said that when using SketchUp, one should be careful to use it wisely, as for example applying too surreal style might ruin the work. But keeping the image too classic SketchUp looking, might also not be so good idea, especially when presenting to industry specialists. Although pencil drawing was behind higher quality 3D renders, it still succeeded regular SketchUp image. Though they’re both either free or cheap tools, but pencil drawing is more creative and quicker method of visualizing. In conclusion investing time in a perfect 3D photorealistic image does pay off, but the advantage over other graphical styles is too marginal, to suggest it as one certain way to go in visualizing. Considering the cost and time spent on photorealism, it might not be the recommended choice for beginner landscape architects. Moreover, as a landscape architect spends more time on idealizing the 3D visualization, it takes away time perfecting the actual design. Further researches could be made analysing also coloured pencil drawings, watercolours, and perhaps some other hand made visualization techniques in comparison with CG. Also, various framing levels could be tested, and/or trying the change of scenery (e.g. urban park). People’s relation to the arts can be also be further determined in more detail. Finally a time profitability study would be interesting, to determine which graphic styles take more time to produce – versus their preference.Käesolev magistritöö keskendub maastikuarhitektuuris enim kasutatavatele traditsioonilistele ning arvutigraafilistele visualiseeringutele, püüdes välja selgitada inimeste eelistusi nendega seoses. Töö eesmärki suunab üldine küsimus: Millised tavaliselt kasutatud graafikavõtted maastiku simuleerimiseks on enim eelistatud maastikuarhitektuuri kujundusprojektides? Töö koosneb kolmest põhiosast, esimene keskendub töö valdkonnaga seotud kirjanduse tutvustamisele ning analüüsimisele. Teises osas kirjeldatakse küsitluse ning piltide valmistamise viisi. Kolmas osa räägib tulemustest ning tulemuste järeldustest. Eelistuste välja uurimiseks loodi küsitlus, koosnedes 18-st isevalmistatud arhitektuuri ning maastikuarhitektuuri teemalistest piltidest, mis jagati laiali sotsiaalmeedia võrgustiku ja e-maili süsteemi kaudu, saades 133 vastust. Testis olnud piltide graafiline stiil hõlmas nii hariliku tööd, SketchUp-is valmistatud 3D visualiseeringuid erinevates stiilides kui ka 3Ds Maxis valmistatud erinevate seadete ning oludega fotoreaalseid illustratsioone. Tulemused olid üldiselt mõningalt ettearvatud autori poolt ning kinnitasid ka osaliselt eelnevaid uurimusi valdkonnas. Autodesk 3Ds Max-is tehtud põhilised 3D fotorealistlikud pildid said kõige kõrgemad hinnangud („3D hommikul“ ning „3D õhtul“ said mõlemad keskmise hinde 5,57 (Skaalal 1-7)). Neist jäi napilt maha „peamine fotoreaalne 3D“ (5,41). Trimble SketchUp-il olid üsna varieeruvad tulemused, stiliseeritud versioon sai tulemi üsna fotorealistlike renderite lähedale (4,95). Ent tavapärane SketchUp-i pilt sai madalama tulemuse (4,13). Kõige madala eelistuse kõigist kujutistest pälvis SketchUp-i sürreaalses stiilis pilt (2,93). Hariliku joonistus (4,63) seevastu ei jäänud palju maha stiliseeritud SketchUp-i joonistusest. Pisut üllatavad tulemused tulid fotorealistliku 3D pildi variatsioonide kohta, kus puudega raamitud vaade sai hindeks 4,74 ning madala kaameranurgaga 4,50. Baseerudes nende võtete kasutamise populaarsusele maastikuarhitektuuris, oleks nende tulemused võinud kõrgemad olla. Kokkuvõttes tasub fotorealistliku 3D tegemisse aega panustada, ent edu teiste graafika tehnikate ees on pole piisavalt suur, et seda kui ainsat stiili kasutada. Arvestades selle tarkvara maksumust ning ajakulu tööle, siis pole see algajatele maastikuarhitektidele soovitatav. Veelgi enam, see paneb maastikuarhitekti kulutama rohkem aega visualiseeringu kvaliteedi lihvimisele, kui reaalse kujunduse täiustamiseks