Lighting quality research using rendered images of offices

Forty participants viewed a series of high-quality, computer-rendered colour images of a typical open-plan partitioned office, and rated them for attractiveness. The images were projected at realistic luminances and 33% of full size. The images were geometrically identical, but the outputs of four lighting circuits depicted in the renderings were independently manipulated. Initially, the lighting circuit outputs were random, but a genetic algorithm was used to generate new images that retained features of prior, highly-rated, images. As a result, the images converged on an individual’s preferred scene. Luminances in the preferred image were similar to preferred luminances chosen by people in real settings. A sub-set of images was rated on Brightness, Non-Uniformity and Attraction scales. Ratings were significantly related to simple photometric descriptors of the images. In particular, around 50% of the variance in Attraction ratings was predicted by average image luminance and its square, or by average image luminance and a measure of luminance variability.

[1]  Guy R. Newsham,et al.  Lighting quality recommendations for VDT offices: a new method of derivation , 2001 .

[2]  Jennifer A. Veitch,et al.  Preferred luminous conditions in open-plan offices: research and practice recommendations , 2000 .

[3]  Michael F. Cohen,et al.  Radioptimization: goal based rendering , 1993, SIGGRAPH.

[4]  Jennifer A. Veitch,et al.  Preferred Surface Luminances in Offices, by Evolution , 2004 .

[5]  T. Daniel,et al.  REPRESENTATIONAL VALIDITY OF LANDSCAPE VISUALIZATIONS: THE EFFECTS OF GRAPHICAL REALISM ON PERCEIVED SCENIC BEAUTY OF FOREST VISTAS , 2001 .

[6]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: a comparison , 2003 .

[7]  L. Loe,et al.  Appearance of lit environment and its relevance in lighting design: Experimental study , 1994 .

[8]  John E. Flynn,et al.  A Guide to Methodology Procedures for Measuring Subjective Impressions in Lighting , 1979 .

[9]  Guy R. Newsham,et al.  Lighting quality and energy-efficiency effects on task performance , 1998 .

[10]  J. Gill Hierarchical Linear Models , 2005 .

[11]  Ardeshir Mahdavi,et al.  Subjective Evaluation of Architectural Lighting Via Computationally Rendered Images , 2002 .

[12]  James Arvo,et al.  Painting with light , 1993, SIGGRAPH.

[13]  Joop J. Hox,et al.  Applied Multilevel Analysis. , 1995 .

[14]  Scott Danford,et al.  Subjective Responses To Architectural Displays , 1975 .

[15]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Beauty Is in the Eye of the Beholder , 2010, Phunny Stuph.

[16]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Subjective responses to computer simulations of urban environments , 2002 .

[17]  Ian Ashdown,et al.  Non-Imaging Optics Design Using Genetic Algorithms , 1994 .

[18]  John E. Flynn,et al.  Procedures for Investigating the Effect of Light on Impression , 1977 .

[19]  Jennifer A. Veitch,et al.  Perceived room brightness: Pilot study on the effect of luminance distribution , 1995 .

[20]  S. H. A. Begemann,et al.  Preferred Luminances in Offices , 1987 .

[21]  Neil H. Eklund,et al.  Multi-Objective Optimization of Spectra Using Genetic Algorithms , 2001 .

[22]  Victor S. Johnston,et al.  Is beauty in the eye of the beholder , 1993 .

[23]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[24]  Craig Caldwell,et al.  Tracking a Criminal Suspect Through "Face-Space" with a Genetic Algorithm , 1991, ICGA.

[25]  Martin Moeck Designed Appearance Lighting - Revisited , 2001 .

[26]  Massimo Corcione,et al.  Optimal design of outdoor lighting systems by genetic algorithms , 2003 .