Comparison of visual properties in digital wood images

Forest Products Journal

Volumn 57, Issue 1-2, 2007, Pages 97-102

  Nordvik, Enar ^a   Broman, N Olof ^a  

^a LULEÅ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SYSTEMS; FORESTRY; WOOD;

DIGITAL WOOD IMAGES; PHYSICAL PICTURE; VISUAL IMPRESSIONS;

IMAGE PROCESSING;

COMPUTERS; FORESTRY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; WOOD;

EID: 33947127636     PISSN: 00157473     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Bishop, I.D. and P.N.A. Leahy. 1989. Assessing the visual impact of development proposals: The validity of computer simulations. Landscape J. 8:92-100.
2. Broman, N.O. 1995a. Visual impressions of features in scots pine wood surfaces. Forest Prod. J. 45(3):61-66.
3. _. 1995b. Two methods for measuring people's preferences for wood. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 41(11):994-1005.
4. Broudy, H.S. 1987. The Role of Imagery in Learning. The Getty Center for Education in the Arts. Los Angeles, CA, USA.
5. Bumgardner, M.S., R.J. Bush, and C.D. West. 2001. Knots as an incongruent product feature: A demonstration of the potential for charactermarked hardwood furniture. J. of the Inst. of Wood Sci. 15(6):327-336.
6. Cox, D.J. 1990. The art of scientific visualization. Academic Computing. 4:20-56.
7. Daniel, T. and M.M. Meitner. 2001. Representational validity of landscape visualizations: The effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. J. Environ. Psychol. 21(1):61-72.
8. Donovan, G.H. and D. Nichols. 2003. Customer preferences and willingness to pay for character-marked cabinets from Alaska birch. Forest Prod. J. 53(11/12):27-32.
9. Fridell A. 2000. What colour is the red house?: Perceived colour of painted facades. KTH Stockholm. 338 pp.
10. Hansen, E.N. and S. Weinfurter. 1999. Softwood lumber quality requirements: Examining the supplier/buyer perception gap. Wood Fibre Sci. 31(1):83-94.
11. Hesselgren, S. 1987. On Architecture: An Architectural Theory Based on Psychological Res. Chartwell-Bratt, Bromley, Great Britain. 310 pp.
12. Jahn, L.G., M. Bumgardner, C. Forbes, and C. West. 2001. Consumer perceptions of character marks on cabinet doors. AG-617. Cooperative Extension. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC.
13. Marchai, R. and F. Mothe. 1994. Appreciations of oak wood for the French consumer and wood professionals. Annales des Sci. Foresteriere 51(3):213-231.
14. Mazet, J.F. and G. Janin. 1990. The quality of appearance of oak veneerscolor measurements and visual appreciation of French and Italian professionals. Ann. Sci. For. 47:255-268.
15. Mitchell, S.A. 1983. The Effects of Visual and Emotional Advertising: An Information Processing Approach. In: Advertising and Consumer Psychology. Larry Percy and Arch Woodside, eds. Lexington Books. Lexington, MA: Pp. 197-217.
16. Nakamura, M., M. Masuda, and M. Inagaki. 1993. Influence of knots and grooves on psychological images of wood wall-panels. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 2:152-160.
17. Nordvik, E. 2003. Visualizing the qualities of wood. Submitted to Forest Prod. J.
18. _. 2005. Visualizing wood interiors: A qualitative assessment of what people react to and how they describe it. Forest Prod. J. 55(2): 81-86.
19. Pakarinen, T. 1999. Success factors of wood as a furniture material. Forest Prod. J. 49(9):79-85.
20. Plato. 400 BC - The Divided Line. The Republic, Book VI.
21. Rasmussen, S.E. 1962. Experiencing Architecture. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 245 pp.
22. Silverstein, D.A. and J.E. Farrell. 2001. Efficient method for paired comparison. J. Electron. Imaging 10(2):394-398.
23. Swearingen, K.A., E.N. Hansen, and J.E. Reeb. 1998. Customer preference for pacific northwest hardwoods. Forest Prod. J. 48(2):29-33.