We used inexact adders to process images and found that relative errors up to 0.54 percent were almost indiscernible, and relative errors as high as 7.5 percent still produced discernible images.

Christian Enz

One of the advantages of NPR techniques is that it is efficient. Instead of following the arms-race of ever-increasing numbers ray-tracing (times x bounces) it works with approximations. It also swallows errors within the look determined by the artist. So when I read about this very efficient but imperfect computer chip developed at Rice University (link above to the gizmag review), I couldn’t help but exclaim: “Wow! An NPR chip!” For the first time, I find myself longing not just for NPR software, but an NPR computer to boot.

In times of dodgy media, it’s wonderful to see a site that does simple, straightforward fact-checking of politician’s comments. I’ve been visiting Politifact for years now, and you should too. In fact, I’d love to see a German or European counterpart. Maybe it even would serve as a role-model for a science-in-the-media fact-checker.

Once again, it’s time for me to gush about Creature Cast, as I have done in the past and will certainly do again. They’re that good. This time, Henry Astley talks about brittle star locomotion. The video is so successful because it posits a clearly formulated question and answers it just as clearly. No more, no less. It’s also colorful and vibrant - in service of the question at hand. Very well done!

I’ve been slow to get involved in crowdfunding projects. I participated in Nick Cross’s film, and just got word that the revolve I pitched in on has gotten its budget. (Expect some smooth films once my current projects are worked off). I’m also an interested follower of the scifund projects, though I haven’t participated yet. And now a student has jumped in with a very cool project at startnext - a German crowdfunding site.  I find the whole model incredibly appealing. It functions just as the pitching process at the academy does: cool projects build momentum and get made. So I have no doubt that Nicolas Palmer and his team will soon be making their film.

Most papers appear to me as a tasty little something tightly wrapped in a a few hours of work. Not this one… it has me salivating. Just what the artist ordered:

Inside Out: Modern Imaging Techniques to Reveal Animal Anatomy

Now at a Plos near you…
(via ScientificIllustration)

Great soundbytes by Niel DeGrasse… about being usurped by the atheism movement and the oddness of atheism as a term, and cites how odd it would be for non-golfers to organize and talking about how they don’t play golf. I had to laugh at that because - yeah, non-photorealism.

For the record, I find that to be an unfair representation of the atheist agenda. I perceive of the large majority of atheist lobbying as a reaction to wanton influence on the political system by religious parties, such as exemption from taxation or safety checks, not to mention their attempts to force IntelligentDesign on public education.

Alex Wild’s post about the possibility of infringement on his photography is burgeoning a new discussion of where the limits of copyright lie - legally, ethically, artistically. Very interesting read… the contributions range from thought-provoking evaluation to mind-boggling underrepresentation of the process of staging a photograph like Alex’.

What was copied from the photograph was simply the knowledge of what the ant looks like, and indeed the photo contained very little beyond that to begin with. It’s a catalogue-style shot… the only thing that was copied is the photograph’s subject, which Wild didn’t create.
…
I don’t think this is really a question of copying art so much as repeating facts

Leigh Beadon

Go HERE for the video (embedding disabled).

Okay… I’m an animator. I love this shit. Look at those lines, the anticipation, follow-through, the timing. Gorgeous. Just… The idea of evolution shown here embodies pretty much every misconception, every perpetuated falsity that it… is repulsive.

The wrongs? Evolution as a linear process from A to B to C - with a dinosaur turning into a mammal. Adaptations driven by a white, male hand which mysteriously appears to give that decisive push into the next stage of development, even occasionally threaten man with the loss of his manhood or toss him into an all-encompassing flood.

Such wonderful line work deserves more attention to content, and throws me completely out of the zone. Am I simply not the target audience (despite my impressive collection of drawing utensils?)? Am I being unduly picky? Have I crossed the line from animator to science communicator? Feedback welcome.

The Spiegel has an article about two jurassic fleas (Pseudopulex jurassicus und Pseudopulex magnus) that specialized on pterosaurs. Sounds like a regurgitated press release, but its cool that they cover it nonetheless. Of interest: they credit the artist Wang Cheng directly. Sounds a bit obvious, but many of these reports don’t.  The Oregon State University’s press release is in English (and reads a bit smoother).

Okay…. Jason’s been holding out on us. Check out this stunning Troodon in this Smithsonion article by Brain Switek - also a very good read. But first things first… this Troodon raises the bar. A beautiful, haptic animal rendition. Congratulations, Jason! Even if you stealthily avoided posting it on your blog.

I remember when they did this with a TRex and it cost millions.

Place this under the ’stranger-than-fiction’ category, this Martian landscape seems more like concept art. Look at those fractured swirls!

The default reaction of journalists is “we want to explain why dinosaurs are an evolutionary failure”, and you can tell them again and again that we should consider, according to the current score, dinosaurs as the most successful dominators of terrestrial ecosystems.

Marcus Clauss

Required reading: marcus-clauss-explains-codron-et-al-2012

It hurts when someone like Alex Wild, who shares his fantastic imagery with me via his blog, writes something like this:

I’ve had not one but several pest control operators claim that all internet images including mine are public domain, refuse to remove images, repost images after DMCA takedowns, question my ownership rights over my own photographs … and accuse me of being a predatory copyright troll out to hurt small businesses.

Alex Wild

Widening the scope of recent events, ArtEvolved is confronting an image-pilferer and numerous bloggers and re-bloggers are plugging palaeoillustrations, with or without author credit and artists are accessing information and skeletal reconstructions blogged by scientists. One step further back reveals a political party here in Germany is making waves for restructuring the political process (for which I find them very sympathetic) and also championing rights to copy… yeah, what? extremely vague definitions of author and usage rights. (If you are in America and view even a third party such as the independents as a freak appearance of some eccentric millionaire then you likely fail to appreciate the impact this will have. A topic outside my normal posting scope)

As a 3D artist, I’m very aware that the methods I use involve the cumulated efforts of literally hundreds of artists, programmers and business folk. Imagery I make often involve texture, lighting and tool presets that others have made, that I have tweaked… and for which there are no credits because it doesn’t fit into the neatly packaged definition of a signed artwork. My own compass in all these issues is centered about ‘intention’ - a wholly subjective and vague appraisal of usage based on interpretation of the goal. Pff.

Is the 3D artist who googled and incorporated a photograph into the background of his/her dinosaur render exercising infringement when the image is used one-to-one? Spliced and cut up into a matte painting? Mapped onto geometry and used as diffusion, displacement and specular maps on a mesh which is then rendered? Who is the author / authors of a textured mesh created via photogrammetry techniques from a museum display which is part bone, part sculptural reconstruction?

Man schützt, was man liebt, und man liebt, was man kennt.

You protect what you love, and you love what you know.

Jean-François Camilleri

Camilleri is head of the new Disney nature department, making family-safe wildlife documentaries which concentrate on dramatic stories. Fothergill, maker of Earth, is now filming a documentary Lion King called http://www.disney.de/disneynature/filme/raubkatzen/. Seriously. Read about it in the Spiegel and the above quote is brought up to justify the editing decisions - no sex, no all-too-bloody kills, one case of vfx to clean up a lion’s bloody snout… It’s an old argument, and I tend to think documentaries should be documentaries. But the way we’re consuming our way through every biotope on the planet I’m willing to wish them luck.

Animal Logic is calling for production coordinators for animation, lighting and compositing on the stereoscopic feature “Walking with Dinosaurs”. They ask for skills in VfX and animation, of course, but fail to mention anything in the way of “familiarity with the biomechanics of ornithischians and extant species of related archeosaurs”. Would be cool if. Jus’ sayin’.

Whack the image to zap on over. They’re also inviting interested artists for whatever… so, maybe they would pick up on a consultant. Sydney - lekker.

(Compare that static graphic above with this.)

Interactive gadgets … are classified as supplemental material, or maybe educational software, and are not seen as an integral part of the publication itself. Years ago, many publishers segregated photographs and certain other kinds of illustrations in an analogous way. They were printed on special paper and bound in a separate section of “plates.” That practice ended with improvements in printing technology. Likewise, when publications are distributed over the network and read on a computer screen, active graphics can be integrated into a document in the same way that ordinary photographs and drawings are. There’s no reason to keep them out of the mainstream.

Brain Hayes

via Flowing Data

The English film subtitle “Band of Scientists” gets an American work-over into “Band of Misfits”. What’s the difference?

There are of course various theories doing the rounds. One suggests that the animator is a “national treasure” here in the UK, is known for its [very British] eccentricity and therefore we are more tolerant of its whims…and seemingly its film titles. Sounds reasonable. Another theory suggests that the film title was dropped in the US because the film makers did not want to risk offending – and, presumably not selling tickets to – the considerable proportion of the US population who do not accept the theory of evolution. After all, Charles Darwin is the grand daddy of evolution. Again, plausible if hardly enlightened. However, I believe there is a more simple explanation:  what is fixed, and problematic, is that word “scientist”.

Quentin Cooper

Add crowd-funding to the many ways to participate in science, thanks to Microryza. Am curious what the scientists think about this venture, which is basically kickstarter for science funding. I’m a bit skeptical if the public will fund things that they don’t understand, but I think this could be interesting as a model for outreach projects. And for filling holes in projects like… excavating a Triceratops? Adopt a dinosaur, like you can adopt zoo animals?

Via gizmag.

The Center for Cretacious Studies highlights Scoot Hurlman’s fishing Unenlagia comahuensis. Good site for news about lake-dwelling sauria and other serious science.

note: while I checked that Scott was properly credited, there are apparently numerous other images at the site that weren’t, so I’ve removed the link for now.