3d computer rendering
Rendering is the process of generating an image from a model, by means of computer programs. The model is a description of three dimensional objects in a strictly defined language or data structure. It would contain geometry, viewpoint, texture, lighting, and shading information. The image is a digital image or raster graphics image. The term may be by analogy with an “artist’s rendering” of a scene. ‘Rendering’ is also used to describe the process of calculating effects in a video editing file to produce final video output.
It is one of the major sub-topics of 3D computer graphics, and in practice always connected to the others. In the graphics pipeline, it is the last major step, giving the final appearance to the models and animation. With the increasing sophistication of computer graphics since the 1970s onward, it has become a more distinct subject.
Rendering has uses in architecture, video games, simulators, movie or TV special effects, and design visualization, each employing a different balance of features and techniques. As a product, a wide variety of renderers are available. Some are integrated into larger modeling and animation packages, some are stand-alone, some are free open-source projects. On the inside, a renderer is a carefully engineered program, based on a selective mixture of disciplines related to: light physics, visual perception, mathematics, and software development.
excerpt taken from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendering_%28computer_graphics%29
Posted in Studio Render Inc and tagged 3d, 3d rendering, CAD, computer, Editorial, graphics, rendering by Studio Render with 3 comments.
Thoughts on the City of Detroit
Detroit today is a city bound by what built it: the car. With advances in technology, commuting to work has become the rule rather than the exception. Commuting is unbearable – to our time, our money, the environment and our childcare. The fact is, people love their cars and the suburbs offer a desirable lifestyle. The result is that Detroit has become a place of decay with a stereotype to match it. The current residents of Detroit have a median household income of $18,742 and 37% are without a high school diploma (census information). On the other hand, one of the suburbs close to Detroit (Redford Township) has a household income of $51,840 with only 21% of residents without a high school diploma. The scale follows this trend the further you travel from Detroit. So, how can Detroit attract these middle to upper class suburbanites to live downtown?
Money needs to be spent within city limits. This increase in affordable technology (computers, cell phones, etc.) has made being your own boss no longer just a dream. Live/work housing combines living and working into one piece of property, making the employees full-time residents of the city and keeping money in the area and local retailers. The book, “Loft’s: Living in space” states loft living began in the United States when artists began occupying entire floors of industrial factories in New York’s SoHo during the 1940’s. It was the fashionable residence of the day; a symbol of millennial cool. The concept adapted over time from the store owner living above his store, the lawyer whose office in front conceals his residence in the rear and the artist who can work at any time of the day. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 21 million people work from their home.
Cities need people in them to make them a thriving, inviting and exciting area. Detroit has sections of the city where land is abundant and in need of revival. For a live/work development to work, it must be based on the city center. If there are no supporting amenities for the residents, there will be no appeal. The Fox Town/Sports District offers residents access to theatres, sports venues, night clubs, casinos and restaurants. This area would be able to attract young professionals, dot-comers, entrepreneurs, young and empty-nesters to name a few. By offering some of the suburban amenities in the city as a viable alternative to conventional housing, live/work units will help provide the draw needed to bring people back into the city.
Isolation, sense of place and separation. Architect Thomas Dolan, AIA of the live/work institute claims, “The greatest drawback of working at home is isolation”. He suggests that a sense of community will arise with opportunities of spontaneous socializing due to a greater caring for the space and for others who share it because of the 24-7 lifestyle. Conversely, separation of living and working spaces may become the fine line of success or failure. “One Space Living” by Cynthia Inions stresses degrees of separation in the units. Public and private areas must be distinguished to ensure the appeal and mental health of its occupants.
Copyright © 2007 Adam A. Dailide www.studio-render.com
Posted in Editorial and tagged area, automobile, automotive, car, city, community, commuting, decay, detroit, economic, economics, Editorial, exciting, industry, isolation, lifestyle, living, michigan, money, residence, residents, socializing, space, suburbs, technology by Studio Render with 12 comments.
What is Architecture?
Ever since the Enlightenment, questioning has become the status-quo. The push forward of philosophy and rationale thought coupled with the separation of engineering and architecture, has had architecture searching for a purpose. “Architecture as the embodiment of the architect’s emotions has no justification. Architecture as a continuous building tradition mean being carried on the tide of building’s history”. Is this to say that no matter what changes occur Architecture will always be based on the historical model? What alternatives have been argued? What is architecture?
Up until 1747 Architecture was a process as a means to and end. Historically, this defined architecture as function. In 1851 consumption was the model and in 1918 mass production took the fore. Adolf Loos’ Ornament and Crime, saw architecture as a total environment, one with no past and no future. The 20th Century brought on the Modernist thinkers who thought architecture was to house and used the self-referential statement of “architecture about architecture”. The Bauhaus stated, “We aim to create a clear, organic architecture whose inner logic will be radiant and naked, unencumbered by lying facings and trickery; we want architecture adapted to our world of machines, radios and fast cars….”. Structuralists sought after the universal meaning, where “A” means “A” because everything is interconnected. Poststructuralists also believed architecture was to house, but took the stance that architecture was always moving and creating its boundaries. Semiotics showed us that architecture was about “Truth” and felt that it is what it is; a complex simplicity. Bernard Tschumi believed that architecture was a catalyst for events to occur. Architecture in that sense is neutral, it creates spaces that can increase or decrease actions. The Normative view on architecture is mass culture; the architecture of everyday. Finally, we see Phenomenonlogists who believed that Architecture is reality and is based on human perception and experience.
What does all this mean? We have several definitions to the question of what is Architecture. Architecture in classification is known as a formation or construction as or as if as the result of conscious act. The engineer may make the building stand up, but the architect is the conceptual basis for the design; the conscious act. The mind of the conceptual thinker has to be taken into account, because without these thinkers than we would be living and working in a bunch of Eiffel Towers. They are nice to look at and may form a sense of identity, but what is the function? Conversely, we see that function is not the only reason architecture is conceived in contemporary society. In the past one needed shelter and that is what the function was. Depending on the location and the materials available, these were the only other factors in play. As we see today, architecture must take the face of a multitude of motivation for conception. Architecture extracts feelings, creates spaces and becomes a total experience for use. One does not have to be a theorist to understand how a building makes them feel. Any person can walk into a spectacular piece of architecture and know that it is good as well as feel its power. This stance would in turn accept the ideals of Phenomenology and the humanist approach to the answer.
As Mies Van Der Rohe believed, drawings are not an exact image of a building. You can not convey the feeling for materials through a drawing. As it is, a drawing is only an image of what the mind has seen. Architecture is the attempt to convey what the mind of the Architect has perceived. Conversely, as the International Style conveyed a utopian idea of the ideal city, I believe that this type of imagery is impossible to achieve in a world dominated by capitalism. Unfortunately, for the Architect of today, money drives everything and land is not in abundance, we must work within the boundaries of the past and try to correct those past indiscretions to put some pieces back into the puzzle. This would in turn deny the Modernist stance of Architecture.
Starting from zero is impossible and the fabric of society can not be escaped. So does this mean we must repeat what the past has produced or can we learn from those mistakes and create a superior Architecture? The Architecture of today is not the architecture of ancient Greece. Technology has forced us to use it; from the elevator to the computer. Architecture is now produced in less time and is almost becoming a cookie cutter drive-thru business. Everyone wants it now and wants it under budget. Is Architecture a program a lay person can buy at the store to design a home without the knowledge of architectural history and theory? If so, what is Architecture then? Has architecture become the strip mall and the corner drug store, the Architecture of everyday? I do not think Normative Architecture is the answer to the question. Mass culture as a whole is uneducated and unskilled in the mannerisms of which Architecture requires.
Architecture is an ever changing ideal that goes with the ideas of the present and with respect to the past. Architecture can not escape tradition, it can not copy the past and it will always be in the process of moving towards the next great Architecture. The beauty of the question “What is Architecture” is that there is no distinct answer and it has been the question Architects, philosophers and theorists have debated over the last century and most likely will continue to do for the next century
Copyright © 2007 Adam A. Dailide www.studio-render.com
Posted in Architectural Theory and tagged architecture, definition, Editorial by Studio Render with 15 comments.
