FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2080742511> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2080742511 endingPage "172" @default.
• W2080742511 startingPage "162" @default.
• W2080742511 abstract "Using wall materials, we compared the impressions of objects when viewed in reality and when reproduced and viewed through visual media: a cathode ray tube (CRT) display and a video projector. The results showed that the materials were evaluated from three different perspectives: evaluation (preference), potency (solidity) and activity (diversity) and that the similarity of the walls was determined according to the two-dimensional characteristics of visual and tactile textures. Concerning the viewing condition it was found that: (i) a video projector can transmit information about color and pattern, but it cannot transmit enough texture, (ii) a CRT can transmit information about texture such as smoothness, as well as color and pattern, but it gives a tense impression, probably due to the image’s brightness and clarity, and (iii) seeing the objects in reality is the best way to evaluate their visual and factile textures. Although these findings showed the differences among the visual media used, the impression and evaluation of them were similar as a whole. We discussed this similarity of the judgement from the point of view of an observer’s ability to adjust to or to maintain a preset attitude to reproductions. We often have to evaluate objects through visual media as substitutes for the original ones. When objects are too large or too distant to compare several at one time in front of us, as in the case of architectural materials, we must judge their characteristics or impressions based on photos, slides or digital images. The popularity and rapid increase of media shopping, such as mail order shopping, telephone shopping or on-line shopping, has also brought reproduction-based evaluations into everyday reality. In art appreciation or education, we seldom come into contact with original art works at galleries or museums, but view their replication using media such as books, TV images, videos, or CD-ROMs. The same is true in the case of studies into experimental aesthetics or landscape assessment. We usually carry out these studies using photos, slides or cathode ray tube (CRT) displays of art works or scenes because they enable stimuli to be evaluated efficiently and in a controlled manner. In all cases, we assume that appropriate reproductions can substitute for originals. However, to what extent can reproductions viewed using visual media represent the original? What information or what aspects of the objects are apt not to be conveyed? What kinds of medium can or cannot transmit what kind of information? In particular, how and to what extent can tactile information be transmitted? Objects presented using visual media lack tactile information, yet this information often affects how the objects are evaluated. To what extent and in the use of what medium does textural information deteriorate in quality? In the present study, we examined the differences in impression between real objects and their reproductions when viewed using visual media, and the characteristics of the different media used to reproduce them. For this purpose, we used wall materials as stimuli because they are rich in tactile or textural information, and they are so large that we often evaluate them using reproductions, on-line and printed catalogues. Original presentation. Short walls approximately 90 × 100 cm in size made of 10 types of wall materials (see Appendices A and B) were placed in an outdoor setting. The walls’ bricks and sidings had been selected with consideration of their hue, texture (lightness, distribution, and roughness) and block size. Each wall was put on concrete stands 70 cm high to allow evaluation at eye level. A distance of 80 cm was placed between each wall’s edge, and more than 2 m in front of or behind each wall’s face, in accordance with the viewing distance required and the effect of shadows cast from other walls. CRT presentation. We took many digital photos of each wall, from which we selected the stimuli most similar to the actual walls. Each stimulus was presented through a personal computer (EPSON H64535M05, Seiko Epson, Nagano, Japan) on a white background in the center of a 19 inch CRT display (Sony GDM-F400, Sony, Tokyo, Japan) 27 × 37 cm in size. The viewing distance was 55–60 cm. Projector presentation. Using a video projector (Sony LCD DATA Projector VPL-PX1, Sony, Tokyo, Japan), we presented the selected stimuli onto a wide screen (125 × 125 cm). The projected size was 95 cm × 118 cm, and the stimuli were viewed in a dark room from a distance of 1–5 m. The visual characteristics of the materials and their hue and brightness when viewed under the three presentation conditions are shown in Appendices A and B. All subjects were asked to estimate the stimuli using the semantic differential method with 30 pairs of adjectives on a seven-point scale. The adjectives had been determined in a pre-experiment using 51 pairs of adjectives. We prepared five sheets of 30 adjective pairs listed in different order, and bound 10 sheets randomly. Original presentation. Five to 10 subjects participated in each evaluation. Subjects were instructed to evaluate the walls by standing at the pre-determined spot in front of them in an arbitrary sequence. As a result, the viewing order was randomized. Twenty students (three males and 17 females) aged 20–30 years participated as subjects. CRT presentation. At their own pace, subjects evaluated each stimulus presented on the CRT display in a lit room. Four sets of stimuli were prepared to vary the presentation order. White screens were interposed between each stimulus frame presented. Twenty students aged 20–24 years (five males and 15 females) participated as subjects. Projector presentation. In a dark room, stimuli were presented to all subjects at the same time in random order. The experimenter changed the stimuli to meet the group’s pace of evaluation. Twenty-one students aged 19–22 years (15 males and 6 females) participated as subjects. A factor analysis was performed on the 30 pairs of adjectives for all three presentation conditions. Three factors emerged. Eliminating the scales whose loadings were smaller than 0.5, we repeated the factor analysis on 18 adjective pairs. Using varimax rotation, we obtained the results shown in Table 1. Factor 1 had high loadings on the scales of “pleasant,”“favorite,”“good,”“relaxed,” and “familiar,” so it was considered to be the evaluation factor. Factor 2 had high loadings on “solid,”“heavy,”“strong,” and “reliable,” so it was considered to be the potency factor. Factor 3 had high loadings on “heterogeneous,”“varied,” and “disorganized,” so it was considered to be the activity factor. These three factors: evaluation, potency and activity, corresponded with the results of preceding research that used the semantic differential method (Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1957). The subjects seemed to evaluate the walls as well as other objects using these three general perspectives. Although factor 2 was regarded as “potency,” this potency mainly consisted of the characteristics of weight and strength. Also, while factor 3 was called “activity,” this activity mainly concerned the diversity of color or texture on the wall surfaces. Therefore, we can say that the evaluations of the walls were based on impressions of preference, solidity, and diversity of color and texture. In order to clarify the relationship between the three factors and the presentation conditions, as well as the relationship between the stimuli or aspects of the stimuli and presentation conditions, we attempted to classify the stimuli by multidimensional scaling (MDS). Using all data from the three presentation conditions, we obtained a matrix of the standard scores of 3 factors × 10 stimuli. Then we calculated D-scores (the distances between stimuli in a similarity space) based on this matrix. We performed MDS with these D-scores, and adopted a two-dimensional solution. The Badness-of-fit criterion was 0.03. The results are shown in Figure 1. Two dimensions of a similarity space were considered to be a visual texture dimension and a tactile texture dimension, that is, visual richness of diversity and tactile roughness of the material surfaces. In this two-dimensional similarity space, the wall materials were separated into two groups. The first was a highly textured group (both roughness and color and/or luminance distribution), and the other was a group characterized by flat surfaces and regular patterns. The latter group seemed to be further divided into a brick subgroup and a siding subgroup, so we classified the stimuli into three groups, named “the textured brick group,”“the flat brick group,” and “the siding group.” A siding wall named “brick tile” was included in the flat brick group, so the characteristics of this group were flat, smooth surfaces with brick patterns. The siding group also had flat surfaces, but no brick patterns. It should be noted that any similarities of the wall materials lay in the texture information of their surfaces. Grouping of wall materials in the similarity space. Based on the standard scores shown in 2-4, we performed two-way ANOVAs (the presentation condition and the stimulus group) on each three factors. Standard score of evaluation factor. Standard score of potency factor. Standard score of activity factor. A significant effect was found only for the stimulus group (F2,116 = 24.0, p < 0.001). The two brick groups were better evaluated than the siding group. Brick patterns seemed to give greater impressions of being pleasant. Notable interaction was found between the stimulus group and the presentation conditions (F2,116 = 2.21, p < 0.1). The test of simple main effect of the stimulus group showed significant differences for the original presentation and for the CRT presentation (F2,116 = 10.03, p < 0.05; F2,116 = 16.84, p < 0.05). Ryan’s test suggested that in these presentations, the brick groups were better evaluated than the siding group. On the other hand, in the projector presentation, we could not find significant differences between the stimulus groups. The projector did not seem to convey enough information to discriminate between the stimulus groups for evaluation. There were significant main effects of the presentation condition and of the stimulus group (F2,58 = 3.17, p < 0.05; F2,116 = 95.66, p < 0.001). Concerning the presentation condition, a significant difference was obtained between the original presentation and the projector presentation. A projector gave a impression of heaviness and strength that was greater than the actual walls. Concerning the stimulus group, significant differences were found for all the presentation conditions. The potency increased in order of the siding group, the flat brick group, and the textured brick group. Brick patterns seemed to give a solid impression, and roughness seemed to increase this further. A significant interaction was also found between the stimulus group and the presentation condition (F4,116 = 11.23, p < 0.001). The test of simple main effect of each presentation condition showed significant differences for the stimulus groups (F2,116 = 24.81, p < 0.001; F2,116 = 71.35, p < 0.001; F2,116 = 21.96, p < 0.001). Ryan’s test showed that in the original presentation there were significant differences among the stimulus groups. Direct viewing clearly revealed the differences among the wall groups. The potency of direct viewing increased in the order of the siding group, the flat brick group, and the textured brick group. In the projector presentation, the subjects were apt to evaluate the brick groups heavier and stronger than they were. Especially, the flat brick group were overestimated. The projector could not convey enough information about the roughness of the brick surface, so observers had to evaluate the walls based only on brick patterns. As a result, they might judge the solidity not only from the direct impression, but also from their existing knowledge on or image to the brick walls. Concerning the underestimation of siding walls, the same cause seemed to affect the result. Meanwhile, in the CRT presentation, the siding group was evaluated to be more solid than in other viewing conditions. A clearer CRT image may have focused attention on the textural details, exaggerating the roughness of the textured bricks and giving a more solid impression. The test of simple main effect of the stimulus groups showed significant differences on the flat brick group and on the siding group for presentation media (F2,174 = 5.88, p < 0.005; F2,174 = 14.52, p < 0.001). Ryan’s test showed that when viewed through a video projector, the flat brick groups were judged to be heavier and stronger than the originals, and the siding walls viewed on a CRT display were judged to be more solid than when seen on a projected screen. The projector transmitted little textural information, increasing the risk of inaccurate judgments being made regarding potency, overestimating potency in the flat brick group. However, a CRT that transmits clear and detailed images could exaggerate the roughness of siding walls and give a greater impression of heaviness. A significant main effect was shown only for the stimulus group (F2,116 = 207.11, p < 0.001). Activity increased in the order of the siding group, the flat brick group and the textured brick group. The brick pattern gave an impression of diversity, which was enhanced by texture (roughness). A significant interaction was observed between the stimulus group and the presentation condition (F4,116 = 5.35, p < 0.001). The test of simple main effect of the stimulus groups showed significant differences for all the presentation conditions (F2,116 = 119.21, p < 0.001; F2,116 = 46.83, p < 0.001; F2,116 = 51.78, p < 0.001). Ryan’s test suggested that the textured bricks gave the impression of greater activity under all presentation conditions. Surface roughness seemed to be the main factor giving an impression of diversity. The test of simple main effect also showed a significant difference for the presentation conditions (F2,174 = 10.10, p < 0.01). As for the textured bricks, the impression of the original walls differed from other presentation conditions. That is, to convey information on the texture (roughness) of wall materials, there seems to be no better way than to view the real walls directly. Using the wall materials, which were large in size and rich in texture, we examined what medium could transmit what aspects of the original materials, and what type of information and to what extent could it be transmitted through that medium. The results suggested that a projector could transmit information about wall color and patterns, but could not transmit detailed information about texture. A CRT display, on the other hand, was able to transmit information about texture, such as smoothness, as well as color and pattern, but tended to enhance the impression of roughness. There seemed to be no better way than observing the real objects to ascertain roughness. Shafer and Richards (1974) showed that the impression given by a real landscape was different from a slide projection of the scene only where unfamiliar architecture appeared in the landscape. In our experiment, although the impression given by some aspects of some walls differed slightly according to the media, this was not necessarily the case with unfamiliar wall types. We have pointed out that the impression and evaluation of the objects changed according to the visual media used, but we should also note that the difference was not great. The correlation of the average evaluation scores between originals and their reproductions was high (r = 0.739 for a CRT; r = 0.816 for a projector), and between the reproductions viewed through different media (r = 0.674 between a CRT and a projector). Considering that the data on the different media were obtained from different subjects, the correlation coefficients should be very high. That is, although the information available differed according to the media used, the impressions given and evaluations made through these media were similar. Regardless of the visual media, brick walls were preferred and gave a pleasant impression. Richly textured surfaces gave a good impression whatever medium we used for presentation. This high correlation of the evaluation transcending the media corresponds to studies by Kellomäki and Savolainen (1984) for natural scenes and by Yanase (1978) for coffee-cup design. They also showed high correlations of evaluation between originals and their slide projections. It may be surmised, then, that a reproduction though visual media can be used as a substitute for the original object. However, this would mean that neither seeing a reproduction is the same as seeing the original, nor that observers slighted the information on texture, which tends to diminish when using visual media. Here, we need to consider the “facsimile effect” pointed out by Locher, Smith and Smith (1999). They studied whether the perceived pictorial and aesthetic qualities of artworks vary according to the mode of presentation. Comparing the impressions given by original art works with those of slide and computer reproductions, they concluded that we could maintain the transferability thesis without abandoning the notion that “there is nothing like the original.” The transferability thesis proposed by Currie (1985) states that a copy or reproduction of a picture is as aesthetically valuable as the original. Locher et al. explained their “hybrid conclusion” in terms of an observer’s individual ability or preset attitudes. They stated that “even while looking at a slide or a computer screen, people ‘look for art’ that can be seen in the facsimile.” This means that observers understand they are not looking at the original and adjust to the limitations of the facsimile. Based on this theory, our subjects would have had no intention of judging the picture quality of the wall materials when reproduced using visual media, but would have judged their impressions of the walls according to the reproduction. They may have adjusted their judgmental standards according to the medium they were encountering. Taking into consideration this ability in observers, we may say that a reproduction can be used as a substitute for the original. We also refer to the results of the correlation coefficients of the average evaluation scores between the originals and their media reproductions. The correlation coefficients were somewhat lower at the evaluation factor, especially for the “relaxed-tense” scale viewing through a CRT. A CRT’s bright, clear images may have enhanced the impression of tenseness. The correlation coefficients were also lower for the textured bricks. As mentioned, it seemed difficult to transmit textural information precisely using visual media. Contrary to our predictions, the correlation coefficients between the originals and their CRT representations were lower than in the case of the originals and their projector representations. The display size of a projector image, which was almost the same as the actual walls, may have enhanced their realism. Finally, the results of the original walls placed outdoors were obtained under particular conditions: weather, time, seasons, aging of materials, and subjects. To evaluate the walls themselves, we should collect data under various conditions. Appendix A. Wall materials used as stimuli. 1. Flat smooth whitish siding wall without lightness distribution. 2. Granada rough yellowish Austrian brick with color distribution. 3. Ohtani stone-type siding pale ivory siding wall with small irregular texture like Ohtani stone. This material also has broad horizontal concave stripes. 4. Red smooth, flat Japanese vermilion brick. 5. Hanaguro deep reddish Japanese brick with irregular texture and color distribution. 6. Small stack type siding smooth whitish siding wall with irregular fine-grained texture. This material has broad horizontal concave stripes. 7. Woodberry rough reddish English brick. 8. Beige cream-beige Japanese brick with flat, smooth and lustrous surface. 9. Brick tile brick-patterned siding wall with red tiles and gray joints. 10. Bathurst yellow-reddish Australian brick with rough texture and fine vertical irregular stripes." @default.
• W2080742511 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2080742511 creator A5054598463 @default.
• W2080742511 creator A5062859723 @default.
• W2080742511 creator A5062944225 @default.
• W2080742511 date "2002-08-06" @default.
• W2080742511 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2080742511 title "Are there any differences of impression between real objects and their reproductions viewed through CRT displays and video projectors?1" @default.
• W2080742511 cites W2022077828 @default.
• W2080742511 cites W2321738524 @default.
• W2080742511 cites W2332896126 @default.
• W2080742511 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5884.00019" @default.
• W2080742511 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W2080742511 type Work @default.
• W2080742511 sameAs 2080742511 @default.
• W2080742511 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2080742511 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2080742511 hasAuthorship W2080742511A5054598463 @default.
• W2080742511 hasAuthorship W2080742511A5062859723 @default.
• W2080742511 hasAuthorship W2080742511A5062944225 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConcept C121684516 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConcept C129484327 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConcept C17822864 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConcept C26760741 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConcept C2776684213 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConcept C31972630 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConceptScore W2080742511C121684516 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConceptScore W2080742511C129484327 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConceptScore W2080742511C136764020 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConceptScore W2080742511C15744967 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConceptScore W2080742511C169760540 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConceptScore W2080742511C17822864 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConceptScore W2080742511C26760741 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConceptScore W2080742511C2776684213 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConceptScore W2080742511C31972630 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConceptScore W2080742511C41008148 @default.
• W2080742511 hasConceptScore W2080742511C46312422 @default.
• W2080742511 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2080742511 hasLocation W20807425111 @default.
• W2080742511 hasOpenAccess W2080742511 @default.
• W2080742511 hasPrimaryLocation W20807425111 @default.
• W2080742511 hasRelatedWork W1913389741 @default.
• W2080742511 hasRelatedWork W1975673287 @default.
• W2080742511 hasRelatedWork W1994637492 @default.
• W2080742511 hasRelatedWork W2008443934 @default.
• W2080742511 hasRelatedWork W2021718300 @default.
• W2080742511 hasRelatedWork W2040213875 @default.
• W2080742511 hasRelatedWork W2054435530 @default.
• W2080742511 hasRelatedWork W2056508792 @default.
• W2080742511 hasRelatedWork W2095428419 @default.
• W2080742511 hasRelatedWork W2115968682 @default.
• W2080742511 hasVolume "44" @default.
• W2080742511 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2080742511 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2080742511 magId "2080742511" @default.
• W2080742511 workType "article" @default.