Last year I took a stab at illustrating an elephant’s foot. It wasn’t any old elephant’s foot, it was the object of John Hutchinson’s study on biomechanics, something which is fantastically interesting not just for its implications for illustrating other gigantic land animals but also in exploring the role of the artist in illustrating scientific research and in the role of the illustration itself. Over the course of the year, ideas I’d been developing congealed in this unfinished work. It was, so to speak, one small step for an elephant but one huge step for me as a novice in this field.

The research – which can be accessed here - is well illustrated, assuming the goal is to discuss comparative anatomy (the evolutionary development of the features) or morphology. The question I picked out of a blog post from Johns’ freezer, though, was the unique biomechanic model that elephants represent… they walk digitigrade (on their toes), but not quite. Due to a spongy foot pad, they could be argued to walk plantigrade (on the flats of their feet). I can only describe it as walking on silicone-cushioned high-heels. That’s cool. How do you illustrate that?

I contacted John to ask for materials to take a stab at it and came up with the above animation. Its a w.i.p and not fully successful but it does get the concept across. Weight loading is represented by a red arrow, extreme positions are ghosted in as the foot approaches the alternative extreme, and there’s a big silicon cushion which is possibly completely wrong. I created a linear morph between the relaxed and loaded states using John’s 3D scans and added an outline of the foot to place the bones in context. Visually, these things are all important to focus on the question I’d singled out.

What I find interesting in this exploration is 1) the potential for media artists to collaborate with scientists beyond lush life reconstructions of the latest, greatest dinosaur and 2) existing technical possibilities and their potential to make complex scientific questions accessible.

collaborate

Artists have an ingrained compass for eye-catching, cutting-edge imagery. It helps get your name out, acquire jobs and feel good about yourself. I want to do some myself, and will – I promise. But wait – I already am. The human perception system is triggered to spot movement, and I’m an animator – both in the sense that I animate and that I make films with a story. For me, that squishy elephant slipper is eye-catching, cutting edge coolness.

Not all artists will be drawn to such work, and not all will have the familiarity with digital toolsets to be able to do so. But there are lots that have the potential and talent to do so. Wouldn’t it be great to see fan-art explanations being meta-tagged to research papers?

technical possibilities

The crux of all this is that we are on the verge of large changes in the application of media on the functioning and sharing of science. What will OpenSource mean to artists? We can read the papers, contact the scientists, collaborate with journalists. What will animation technologies from games and film mean to science? Scientists are using digital imaging techniques that create incredible imagery practically as a by-product of their research. How can this wealth of material be employed in communication?

people want to learn

They big take-home message from the Senckenberg convention last June, proffered by museum director Dr. Mosbrugger, is that people want to learn. There’s an authentic interest in the world around us. If it’s accessible, people will listen, explore, even participate. And visual communication – illustrations, videos, etc – makes content more accessible, as can be ascertained by click rate comparisons of articles with and without an embedded image.

The logical consequence is that science communication is being complemented by a new possibility. Next to classical outreach – where the science-endowed prepares materials specifically for a non-scientifically endowed audience – there is a new option: inreach. This is where scientists do what they do – science. And the preparation of their communication materials is made accessible to a scientifically interested audience, who at as multipliers for an even larger group. Imagery plays a crucial role, but I’m not thinking of the simple jpg. I’m thinking of an integrated publishing system that allows quicker access to terminology via hyperlinks and interactive manipulation of the scientific content.

Imagine John’s foot (okay, not his but the elephant Betsy) being interactive. The reader can scrub the amount of pressure, controlling the amount of squish. The document could recognize that I’m reading the text passage about the prepollex and the illustration would rotate to offer a good view of this highlighted bone. Aha – that’s the prepollex. Aha, that’s a sagittal view. Hey, this paper isn’t that hard to follow after all. The summary could be an choreographed animation with additional imagery and videos accompanied by the voice of the scientist or a press agent. A youtube-ripe presentation, ready for hyperlinking.

Expensive, you say? I would argue that it’s not only inevitable, but likely cheaper in the long run, once the options for re-use through a chain of media outlets and museum presentations (both in-house and in the internet) are worked out. It’s inevitable, because the kids visiting the museum will already be up-to-date on the latest science blogs. They’ll know that Deinonychus is feathered or wrong, and they’ll demand that their museum keeps up with the pace, lest these bastions of scientific authority go the way of the television documentary, being buried in dust instead of sensationalism.

I’ll be adding more in the future, including cases where I see this shift to inreach successfully happening and my frustration with existing technical possibilities such as Unity3D in specifically addressing a publishing-embedded interactive 3D. Hopefully, I’ll get your thoughts as well…

Click the steam punk ant above to read Alex Wild’s argumentation for the difference between fair use and infringement. In a nutshell, whether the ‘inspired’ artist is replicating the original work’s intention or not plays a large role.

I’m going to launch on some rants. And I’m going to start off on Stephen Brusatte’s  highly recommendable book Dinosaur Paleobiology. It is a great overview and wonderfully written. So why would I rant about it? For one thing, it shows how I don’t take my rants so seriously. (I’m grumpy and only have time to write until the next render is ready.) For another, the thing I’m going to rant about toady happens to me all the time. You get caught up in a term and use it beyond all further meaning. It’s become a meme. In the chapter on dinosaur diets, Stephen mentions how most theropods are carnivores. Only few have specialized diets. Then he repeats this formula repeatedly. “They ate plants or subsisted on a more specialized diet.” And I stop reading the otherwise wonderfully written book and think…

what does that mean?

He repeats the term enough for me to know per exclusion that a specialized diet is not one consisting of meat, plants, bones or fish. Of course I’m thinking – ‘Alvasuars!’ But this is a rant and I’m in no mood to be forgiving. The wierdest usage comes when he uses the term directly after describing Tyrannosaurs as such a pure meat -eater that they could be termed hyper-carnivores. What’s more specialized than that!?

Render done. Rant over.

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.

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.

It would cost me the rest of my life.

I read this quote from Jason Ur at the Spiegel about analysis of satellite data in searching for promising archaeological sites. Dramatic, eh? Can anyone point me to other cases of dramatic efficiency increases due to digital workflows? Granted, I’m quote-mining. I’m sure there are loads of cool examples out there.

Full Spiegel quote:
Theoretisch seien entsprechende Untersuchungen natürlich auch am Boden möglich, erklärte Jason Ur. “Aber es würde mich vermutlich den Rest meines Lebens kosten, eine Gegend von dieser Größe zu begutachten. Mit Hilfe der Computertechnik bekommen wir schnell eine umfassende Karte.”

Theoretically, it’s possible to do the necessary analysis on the ground, says Jason Ur. “But it would likely cost me the rest of my life to survey an area of this size. Using computer technology, we’re quickly putting together a comprehensive map. (my translation, likely back into the language the quote was made in.)

Here’s the paper, by the way. Buried beneath a huge pile of french fries.

The new Microraptor paper is exemplary in many ways… a press package that offers clearcut interpretation, including a pre-recorded high-res video interview with Mark Norell himself, a scheduled live webcast talk (1:30p.m EST or 6:30 +1 Berlin time) with Mark & Mick Ellison – who created a jaw-dropping reconstruction (above left). As if that weren’t enough, Jason Brougham contributed fantastic renderings of the creature in its environment. A great opportunity to compare the best of both worlds – traditional and digital art work of the highest quality. Fantastic!

Where will all this photogammetry lead? Well, Smithsonian is forging ahead with 3D printing its collection to increase public access. It’s only a matter of time before museums offer variable scale dinosaur skeletons for home printing. Where do I order?

There’s an article by Alan Bavley profiling Casey Holliday and his work on archosaur joints. Neat stuff. And it’s got neat graphic illustrations by Martin Ansin. Not sure why the Brachio here is spread eagled, but I love the infographic mish-mash feel of it.

via paleoillustration

Check it out if you’re interested.

How do you get the best photos of that wonderful mount? With all the problems of lighting, camera distortion, parallax and composition, well… you may soon just be photosculpting it. Check out Andrew Plumb’s camera phone composition with automated 3D cloud thanks to Hyper3D. More at thingaverse.

Taking the temperature of the dinosphere this week would show a good deal of fever.

Failing grades for EB
Heinrich Mallison inserts a thermometer into Encyclopedia Britannica’s back end, coming up with less than ‘e’ for effort.

This book/pdf is modeled on the curriculum for grades 5 through 9 (or 10, depending on the edition). It is meant to be an additional resource, and an expensive one at that, for pupils. It should not contain stupid mistakes of this proportion.

As he headlines: catastrophic fail (if not outright exploitation of dinosaur popularity. This is a for-profit old-school authority. This is a resource that kids reach for when doing homework.

Defending the Defense of Infringement
On the far side of dinosphere, James Gurney posts about a case of infringement. And his community’s comments are divided. Some take offense at his ‘ridiculing’ (sav) and ‘unprofessional’ (SteveRB511) response. Others defend the obvious differences between the TerraNova and Dinotopia formats.

Hello!? James is spot-on, justifiably offended:

I do object to the premise of advertising the program by making a mockery of images from Dinotopia. … The visual that they developed directly used images that I painted from the Dinotopia universe, and the image could easily have been confused for something from Dinotopia, which is an infringement.

And, what of it?
Why connect the dots between two such disparate events? Because we have obvious, blind-for-profit idiocy with naively offensive behavior. These are multi-million corporations engaging in bad behavior. The individuals commissioned to write the double-page spread or the letter of inquiry aren’t evil… they’re doing a job that they’ve been assigned. But they aren’t being criticized in either case: the net result structure is, and that is a very much intentional process by top-down executives who will not change their behavior unless they are financially pressured to do so.

Why would we expect private individuals who call them out to remain overly polite and discrete after initial contact hasn’t led anywhere?

…

Allow me to copy/paste from Heinrich, in the language of Goethe and Kant:
Nur wo Scheisse drauf steht, ist auch Scheisse drin

The Software Studies Initiative presents a visual evolution of the pages of Popular Science (above) and Science. Fantastic and powerful image reflecting the reading habits of people like you and I. It would be interesting to have a more differentiated look at the graphics themselves. How many are  visual enhancements (glossies) and how many are informational graphics providing further editorial understanding? A central issue now that the digital bridge is being crossed: reader behavior can be quantified, illustration can be interacted with. Brave new worlds.

Communication of terms such as ‘non-commercial’ are being stirred up by Wired’s terms in releasing their staff-produced imagery under CC license. Ads on the page? no problem, just make sure you link back to the source article.A very pertinent issue…

I love CC, but this is one of its biggest underlying problems. Its reason for existence is to give people a way to make clear the terms under which they can share content. But those terms aren’t particularly clear to either the people creating CC content or using it.

Link from Alex Wild.

Justified critique on the state of science TV and art is not exclusive to paleontology…

I find it incredible and frightening that a worldwide distributed television channel that bills itself as ‘The History Channel’ can broadcast such rubbish as Ancient Aliens. If it were an entertainment programme, I’d have fewer worries (although it would still make me cross)

Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews

The History Channel would be about history, not von Daniken and Nazi UFOs; Discovery would be about science, not motorcycle enthusiasts and bargain hunters; the Learning Channel would be about learning, not octuplets and hoarding; the SciFi channel would actually present decent science-fiction, instead of schlock horror, ghost-hunters, and fake wrestling.

PZ Meyers on science TV

So, picking up on the earlier post… say you see an interesting image at FYDA!, and say there’s no artist or source mentioned (there is). And say there’s no big watermarked artist name smack in the middle (good for you, Christopher!). Use the google image search and – voila! Project Dryptosaurus + a cool assortment of color-matched landscapes.

Then you google Dryptosaurus’ headline image and you get patriotic butterflies. This is begging to become a meme.

Over at SciAm’s Symbiartic, Kalliopi Monoyios addresses an interesting case of derivative artwork representing the carbon cycle. It’s most revealing to overlay these images directly: all I’ve done is scale the figures to fit each other. I have no knowledge of the processes or artists involved – I’d rather point to a google search feature that helps in identifying imagery.

If you drag/drop an image from anywhere onto the input bar of google image search, it will present a swarth of 1) instances where that exact image can be found throughout the net and 2) a wild assortment of imagery that has nothing to do the source image except that they share the same palette to an degree that can only be called uncanny. If I find an interesting, uncredited image and would like to know who created it, I often use this feature. It’s also interesting to see where your own imagery is popping up. An all-round good tool to have as a modern illustrator.

The 3d-ish carbon cycle image cited above is apparently credited to Nasa (though not with absolute clarity).

Dan Varner (via DML) points out this very fine screen shot from Dinosaur Revolution by David Krentz. Amidst the many negative critiques the show has received, its almost universally praised for the quality of its models and their shading. An image such as this really does show what’s been achieved.

Edit: rereading this, the composition and mood comes off way too short. Intended message: this image is all-round fantastic!

Color me increasingly skeptical after seeing the new batch of Dinosaur Revolution preview clips up at Discovery. I’m drawn to anthropomorphized concepts myself, and to my horror – the show is very close to things I’ve been working on. My inner reaction is a clean split between respect for the courageous attempt and shock at how vague the line between projected motivational character and transport of scientific content has been drawn. I want to love this thing – I mean, hey, wordless presentation of dinosaurs living their lives. Yo!

That’s the promise, but that’s not what’s in the box. Barring the possibility that these previews slant the content for some misunderstood press campaign, the show is flaunting … animation. This is a tip-of-the-hat not to Raptor Red, but to Gertie the Dinosaur. The dinosaurs are there to make the stories more interesting, not the other way around. Bakker’s format painted a vibrant scenario rife with conflict and resolution cleverly riddled with commentary that propped these stories up on science. The above sequence of a young Allosaurus getting a sauropod thrashing is no doubt entertaining, but it doesn’t rise to the occasion of melding documentary with drama.

One of the main elements pushing me to this skepticism is the hyped revolutionary aspects – the show will do away with preconceptions. Yet we have memes galore: a sauropod shaking its head like my-little-pony, a mosasaur nonchalantly birthing at high speeds in shark-infested deep ocean (oddly raising memories of Monty Python’s Meaning of Life) and talking-head specialists still deprived of their working environments but now in cinemagic hologram form. Animation quality differs greatly – from beautiful character work to what seems to be deadline plagued lovelessness, including the physically careless (mosasaurs flying through water or a sauropod being knocked to the ground by a theropod shove).

So – color me skeptical, but grateful. There will be loads to learn from this show.