Project 2 | Final Poster

Project 2b | images

Project 2a | a new try

The previous study was narrowed down into a single cut of the whole scene, which I found difficult to have breakthrough for developing a surface. And therefore, I decided to start over again.

Going back to the very beginning idea of the story board (which i didn't post), I defined several parameters to describe each cut of the scene, such as number of frames, number of figures, FOV, framing components, etc.. I numerize the data and organize them as a matrix in an excel spread sheet. Using the "Surface" graph function, the data are represented as a 3D surface.



Another idea is to take the matrix itself to create pattern on a 2D surface by color coding the values. It then can also be transformed into 3D surface by extruding different tones by different heights.



Unfortunately, due to the limited manipulation of the surface graph in excel, and the incapability to export the excel graph to 3D model. I end up reproduced the graph in CAD which look like this:



If I knew how to do scripting, I would translate the excel data into digital model by whatever formula that I could invent... or may be I can write a function in excel to interpret the data, and reproduce the surface in CAD again... Anyway, given the limited time I have, I should model the surface for tomorrow printing now...

Project 2a | image 2

Further analysis of a particular shot:
- from corridor-center to figure-center
- perspectival lines slightly shifted
- the proportion of the figure relative to the frame grow

Project 2a | image 1

I picked several shots of the selected scence which primarily are perspectival view and they interested me with the movement of the camera (frame) relative to the character.

Versioning | Evolving Architecture

"Designing through versioning questions rather than consolidates architecture as a representation, as a linear progressing design process that traditionally was often erroneously presumed to begin as an idea/concept that would successively and adequately be translated into built form. Versioning suggests instead a nonlinear process. Desing - far from being a mimetical representation of a priori ideas/concepts or prototypes - may, through versioning, be comprehended as a differential process that tirelessly allows forms to evolve and dissolve out of the 'nothing', or, more precisely, out of the 'medium' - the fugitive and hence incomprehensible remaining differentiation."


This arcticle striked me with the suggestion of losing the design concept. In my previous training in architecture, whether a project is successful or not is always judged by whether one can carry the concept through the design process. It is better to have the final design more true to the original concept. But versioning suggests a design process that is never based on priori concepts. Forms are allowed to evolve and dissolve out of the 'nothing' in the differential process of versioning. Design parameters (or information, using the term in the arcticle) control the versioning process so that every version is a clear development of the previous version. Concept becomes only a variable in the design process instead of the driving force. The final design can be deviated from previous concepts through the versioning process. I found it quite difficult to fit in to many architectural education, at least from the final review stand point.