Hybrid Design Tools—Image Quality Assessment of a Digitally Augmented Blackboard Integrated System
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Context and Related Work
3. Methodology and Hardware Setup
3.1. Hybrid Projection System Overview
- projecting course slides/images over a surface,
- capturing (electronically saving) the image of the surface containing previously projected slide/image and human interaction as drawings in chalk over a blackboard,
- reprojection of the saved images on demand.
- PC,
- Camera—high resolution web camera or photo camera,
- Projector—good color light output (brightness) minimum 2000 lumens,
- Smart phone (optional) —running Android operating system,
- Arduino Uno & Bluetooth module (optional).
3.2. Hardware Setup
- Laptop: Lenovo B590,
- Projector: Benq MX511,
- Camera & Lens: Canon EOS 60D & Canon Zoom Lens EF 100–400 mm, 1:4.5–5.6 L;
- Distance from projector to the board: 280 cm,
- Distance from camera lens to the board: 750 cm,
- Captured image dimension: 130 × 95 cm,
- Distance between image markers: 126 × 85 cm,
- Ambient/board illuminance level: 205 lux,
- Projector/board illuminance level: 820 lux,
- Height of projected Lena’s image [24]: 96 cm.
4. Case Studies
- “ssimval = ssim(A,ref) computes the Structural Similarity Index (SSIM) value for image A using ref as the reference image”,
- “imshowpair(A,B,‘falsecolor’) creates a composite RGB image showing A and B overlaid in different color bands. Gray regions in the composite image show where the two images have the same intensities. Magenta and green regions show where the intensities are different”.
4.1. Analyzing the Use of Different Types of Design References in Reprojected Images
4.2. Analyzing the Use of Projected References in Complex Design
4.3. Analyzing the Quality of Successive Reprojection
4.4. Analyzing the Loss of Quality in Different Types of Projections
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Betcher, C.; Lee, M. The Interactive Whiteboard Revolution: Teaching with IWBs; Aust Council for Ed Research: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Schmid, E.C. Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Comput. Educ. 2008, 51, 1553–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillen, J.; Staarman, J.; Littleton, K.; Mercer, N.; Twiner, A. A ‘learning revolution’? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learn. Media Technol. 2008, 32, 243–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shenton, A.; Linda, P. From ‘bored’to screen: The use of the interactive whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England. Literacy 2007, 41, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tataroğlu, B.; Ayten, E. Examining students’ attitudes and views towards usage an interactive whiteboard in mathematics lessons. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 2533–2538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kennewell, S.; Gary, B. The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learn. Media Technol. 2007, 32, 227–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewin, C.; Bridget, S.; Stephen, S. Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2008, 13, 291–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dede, C. Planning for neomillennial learning styles. Educ. Q. 2005, 28, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
- Dorta, T.; Edgar, P.; Annemarie, L. The ideation gap: Hybrid tools, design flow and practice. Des. Stud. 2008, 29, 121–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gregorcic, B.; Eugenia, E.; Gorazd, P. A new way of using the interactive whiteboard in a high school physics classroom: A case study. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 465–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milincu, C.O.; Tudoran, O.A. Whiteboard upgrade? Discussing specific needs for architecture and design. In Proceedings of the 5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences & Arts SGEM, Albena Co., Bulgaria, 26 August–1 September 2018; pp. 497–504. [Google Scholar]
- Milincu, C.O.; Tudoran, O.A.; Banias, O.; Tarce, P. Hybrid Design Tools—Making of a Digitally Augmented Blackboard. In Proceedings of the 5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences & Arts SGEM, Albena Co., Bulgaria, 26 August–1 September 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Bax, S. Magic Wand or Museum Piece? The Future of the Interactive Whiteboard in Education; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Serriano, P. Form Follows Software, Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design, Indianapolis. Available online: https://cumincad.architexturez.net/doc/oai-cumincadworks-id-acadia03-025 (accessed on 1 November 2018).
- Arnheim, R. Art and Visual Perception; Univ of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, S.; Forster, H.M.; Bailey, P.; Griffiths, T.D. Mapping unpleasantness of sounds to their auditory representation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 124, 3810–3817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kao, H.S.R. An analysis of user preference toward handwriting instruments. Percept. Mot. Ski. 1976, 43, 522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Racolta, A.; Milincu, C.O. Augmented Creativity or Diminished Shape Complexity? The Use of the Computer by Students in Furniture Design. In Conference Proceedings, Book 5, Proceedings of the International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts/SGEM Vienna, Vienna, Austria, 22–31 August 2017; SGEM World Scientific: Vienna, Austria, 2017; pp. 397–415. [Google Scholar]
- Panagiotis, P. Analog vs. Digital: Why bother? The role of Critical Points of Change (CPC) as a vital mechanism for enhancing designability. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Critical Digital: What Matter(s)? Cambridge, MA, USA, 18–19 April 2008; pp. 117–127. [Google Scholar]
- Oxman, R. Theory and design in the first digital age. Des. Stud. 2006, 27, 229–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demirkan, H.; Demirbasx, O. Focus on the learning styles of freshman design students. Des. Stud. 2008, 29, 254–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, H.; Yuan, B.; Dong, B.; Jiang, Z. No-Reference Blurred Image Quality Assessment by Structural Similarity Index. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Bovik, A.C.; Sheikh, H.R.; Simoncelli, E.P. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2004, 13, 600–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hutchinson, J. Culture, communication, and an information age Madonna. IEEE Prof. Commun. Soc. Newsl. 2001, 43, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Pelli, D.G.; Bex, P. Measuring contrast sensitivity. Vis. Res. 2013, 90, 10–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Simone, G.; Pedersen, M.; Hardeberg, J.Y. Measuring perceptual contrast in digital images. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 2012, 23, 491–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alibali, M.W.; Bassok, M.; Solomon, K.O.; Syc, S.E.; Goldin-Meadow, S. Illuminating mental representations through speech and gesture. Psychol. Sci. 1999, 10, 327–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Banias, O.; Milincu, C.O. Hybrid Design Tools—Image Quality Assessment of a Digitally Augmented Blackboard Integrated System. Informatics 2019, 6, 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6010006
Banias O, Milincu CO. Hybrid Design Tools—Image Quality Assessment of a Digitally Augmented Blackboard Integrated System. Informatics. 2019; 6(1):6. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6010006
Chicago/Turabian StyleBanias, Ovidiu, and Camil Octavian Milincu. 2019. "Hybrid Design Tools—Image Quality Assessment of a Digitally Augmented Blackboard Integrated System" Informatics 6, no. 1: 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6010006