Fantastic overview of what transpired at the Flugsaurier 2010 convention by MarkWitton. An interesting bit for you artists out there:

John (Conway) discussed why pterosaur palaeoart – sorry – palaeontography – would benefit from a far more scientific approach. He’s dead right: pterosaurs are frequently portrayed with entirely incorrect proportions, muscle construction and unlikely colour schemes.

And: another write-up by Dave Hone with great coverage… and links to abstracts… in Chinese…

Argh. Looking forward to the detailed papers, particularly of water-launching pterosaurs and Helmut Tischlinger’s UV lit discovery of oversized headcrests.

Michael Keesey has been doing interesting things with phylogenetic trees, but now he’s gone and created a tree of animated animals. Click the image above for a full post of his phun phylogenies. Among the highlights: Marvin the Martian out in left field.

Pete Larson correctly praises the unknown fossil collector in this video of a beautifully exhibited specimen. This fossil is particularly glaring in the effort, skill and commitment that must have been necessary to have it exist in this form, so it is extremely unfortunate that the collector is unnamed.
I say this because it is unfortunately the case that museums are quick to look down upon commercially driven collectors, yet all too often are unwilling to credit the collectors who are willing to share their (extremely) hard earned finds.

…and David Orr’s corrections.

Edit (with spoiler):
Read more »

artEvolved is gathering some great thoughts on what paleoart is, and I can only stand on the sidelines for so long. Its obviously art - the name says so. And since no one can agree on what that is, I’m not going to make the mistake of offering any answers here… I couldn’t do better than the talented  Andreas Cau in the image above. What a great summary. It has everything: the geeky latin name-throwing, the pop culture fascination and a wonderful humor. Paleoart is art, and thus a matter of its perception.

This changes drastically if you follow John Conway’s lead and call it palaeontography however. Then you cut the camp out of it and focus on the intent to communicate, illustrate. Whether you take the art out of it in the process is another question… I think not. But palaeontography certainly sounds a lot less fun than paleoart - it sounds like measurements and analysis and scientific debate. If that sounds like fun, you may be the palaeontographic breed of paleoartist. You’re more likely to understand the power that you wield in your pen - be it ink or wacom: the power to prove. Because if you draw it, it’s out there and it unfairly has an impact that the science itself lacks. 3D realism has the added punch of potentially making something look as if it really was photographed, and thus assumed to have existed as presented… one of my gripes with the overall praise-worthy 3D visualization ala Walking with Dinosaurs.  There’s the responsibility of paleoart. You have the long years of a number of people in your hands - a community of fossil-hunters, preparators, scientists and publishers. This responsibility generally follows two different tactics: get science in there and keep implausibility out. The remaining space is there to - bluntly put - make it rock.

Getting science in

The purest form of palaeontography is the drawing of fossils with the intent to create a document which states and which communicates (I here prove my point by being unable to name the artist of this coelacanth). There is a lot of skill and knowledge involved in this, but this type of work is seldom admired to the degree that life reconstructions are.

That it doesn’t have to be this way is demonstrated by Ernst Haeckel, whose drawings prove themselves to this day as valuable artistic prints, or the scientist David Goodsell who creates fantastically beautiful work of his research with the cellular subjects of his research. The initial intention in both these artists was to illustrate in the literal sense of the word: to show, to make clear. As they delved into their subject matter and mastered their craft, their imagery began to stand for itself, while retaining their function in transporting scientific knowledge. While Haeckel only partially engages in paleoart (here his ammonites) and Goodsell not at all, both are role models for how aesthetically ambitious scientifically accurate paleoart can be.

One of the most influential artists in this direction has been Greg Paul, who goes beyond the fossil into its reconstruction… the skeletal as seen below, or the life reconstruction. The intent then is to visualize his vision of the creature in question as plausibly as possible. The skeletals have less conjecture, the life reconstructions a good deal more. The formulation is very important: What could the animal have been like? The drawing is a proposition and acts as a sort of dialogue. The animal is presented as a sum of scientific discussion. There is a good deal of imagination involved in this work, and the reaction in the general public has been immense… up to the point of introducing a paradigm shift about how we view dinosaurs. Despite the large amount of fantasy employed in this art, I still categorize his drawings within the scientific approach.

This approach can be very exciting when it comes to communicating movement an biomechanics. This illustration by Julia Molnar is at the top of my “achieve this” list.

Keeping implausibility out

This other approach is best presented via the work of Douglas Henderson. His steps back and shrouds the unproven details in atmospheric landscapes. Its like a safari snapshot. He favors every day river-crossings and stand-off encounters over sensational beast vs beast moments. Despite his deep-rooted knowledge and apparent amount of research, the details of anatomy and behavior are only alluded to. He leaves them to be  filled in with the level of knowledge that the viewer brings to the table.

There are endless degrees between these approaches, and others that focus on a translation to anthropomorphism or a dramatic function within an entertainment format. I also hope to revisit this discussion with the question: what can paleoart offer the paleontologist? Beyond inspiring future scientists, I’m convinced that there are opportunities for visualization and art to pay back a scientist’s engagement in consulting its creation.

But, enough for now. Check out the ongoing discussion at artEvolved for more.

Movement, attitude and animation were also important factors, since the show is based on wrangling creatures and behavioral experiments.

Marc Bourbonnais, Modus FX president

Discovery Channel does it again… Quebec house Modus had 25 artists work for 3 months to model, texture, animate and render a thick-legged Argentinosaurus, some Stegosaurs (are those cheeks?), Hypacrosaurus, Micro-raptor and (of course) a T-rex for a grand total of 192 shots using XSI and zBrush. Of course I’m itching to see some animation and find out how many seconds these 192 shots total up to. My first impression from these images is that the fine details don’t feel plausible, and that the rule of thumb for budget vfx once again holds true: darkness is your friend. The topic - behavior - is truly fascinating, yet it is the most singularly speculative aspect of paleontology, bounds beyond biomechanics… and so photoreal creatures comped with labcoat touting human actors (sic: scientists) immediately activates my more sceptic braincells. (Images of a generation thinking this is how scientists actually work taints my expectations.)

I’ll reserve final judgment until seeing the film, which - living in Europe - may be a year. If you’ve seen it, chime in. I doubt spoilers will be an issue here. Click here or on the image to read the interview. In the meantime… oil continues to pollute our world.

I’ll be interviewing Stuart Sumida for AWN (here on the left hunkering over a young Orobates pabsti with David Berman, and Thomas Martens - source) at this year’s fmx. His work is beyond exciting because he unifies hard science with social fascination. Click the image for great educational resources and check out his Ted talk below.

Sorry for the lack of activity here, which will likely continue for two more weeks. As a consolation, here an evolution rap. Found at pharyngula. The texts quite cleverly walk the line between being rappable and accurate.

Last Saturday, Tatjana (left) and I took advantage of Richard Leheis’ (right) invitation to roll up our sleeves and make the acquaintance of stone. Max, 12 years, was also along and it was amazing to witness his passion and perseverance. We found ammonites and one squid. A boy not far from us found a fish jaw. It was a great experience to see how many people come out to search for fossils, and to feel how much of a job it is. Stone is… stone.

Its a very infectious endeavor, however. You immediately begin to notice patterns in the stone and think up explanations, then test and discard them - hoping to improve your ability to anticipate a find. The next day, aching all over, I was happy to return to my computer desk. And grateful to have won new respect for the labors of those who have recognized, collected and prepared the petrefacts that our knowledge is built on.

Paleoart differs from concept art in that the artist is constrained by the attempt to faithfully reflect scientific research. Yet it remains concept art… the artist exerts considerable creative imagination in interpreting this research and filling in the gaps, balancing plausibility with the goal of creating captivating imagery. Or in this case, sculpture. What could be more captivating than a fully articulate, sculptural skeletal reconstruction? Bruce Woollatt is making one in 1/10 scale and sharing his experience over at concept.org. Inspired by such an undertaking, I’ve asked him for an interview. Take a moment (or two) to take in the many work-in-progress photos at his thread so that you can appreciate what it is he’s talking about, and feel free to add your questions in the comments.
Read the interview below the fold… Read more »

…dinosaurs offer an exceptional access point into the Great Story—our story.  …  These ancient creatures can be used to demonstrate that every ecosystem on Earth, whether in the Mesozoic or the present day, is the culmination of millions upon millions of years of co-evolution between and among life forms.

Back story: after receiving complaints that his book Dinosaur Odyssey had too few glorious illustrations, Sampson describes his fascination in dinosaurs. I find myself drawn to these issues myself. I’m less interested in illustrating a specific species (even if its the biggest, tallest, baddest ever) and more interested in key discoveries that illustrate the functioning of evolutionary pressures that are still relevant today - in dinosaurs, but also in fish, cronoids, whatever. And I want to make those glorious illustrations that Scott Sampson’s readers miss… using technical advances. In doing so, I have to be cautious not to overshadow the true stars of the show - the fossils. My experiments to date confirm me in feeling that the key to achieving this lies in the skeletal reconstruction, as it establishes the context between creative conjecture and founded knowledge. Thoughts?

OpenAccess and internet connectivity (lists of OpenAccess journals here and here) are making research results and scientific exchange much easier. The German magazine Spiegel just wrote about ResearchGate, a community site akin to Facebook but dedicated to scientific exchange. Monitor-sharing, closed access management and efficient research searches make it very appealing. Search for non-photorealistic rendering there and top-notch results appear, specific searches for something like dynamic canvas research points to a decent overview.

In the aftermath of Matt Wedel’s collision with the Discovery Channel’s dubious documentary editing, many ideas were exchanged about how to gain more control over the way science is propagated to a wider audience. One of them suggested the institutions spread the word themselves. I think this is not only a great idea, but also doable. Cameras and the internet make it possible, and I even see potential to tap a portion of the fan base which has professional or prosumer experience in media production.

In this context, the following press releases deserve some extra attention. Edit: videos now below the fold…

Read more »

The better the portrait, the easier it is to forget all the complexity to the science behind it.

Ah… finally a Carl Zimmer quote on my blog. The authority of a well-crafted image is easily transferred to the science it represents, and photorealism heightens this effect by literally appearing real and therefore true. Dave Hone also describes this effect of  ‘proof by illustration‘.

Net Logo seems to be a flexible network for visualizing mathematical simulations. It was originally authored by  Uri Wilensky and is being further developed by the Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling which Wilensky directs. The site collects numerous community models, one of which - called Fur - can be used to create typical animal patterns such as tiger stripes, leopard spots and giraffe splotches…  what a fantastic way to demonstrate the underlying workings of graphic structures!

Unfortunately, I couldn’t get to to run yet so this is all a bit of conjecture on my part. But judging from the many community models on the site, the problem is local (sic: me). Above are 3 representatives of a teeming community: Evolution (a fitness/mutation simulation) by Iain Weaver , a cooperative countries simulation by Julia Verhoeven and ForestFire3 (simulation of forest recovery after a fire) by Qasim Siddique.

Cristóbal Vila follows up his Escheresque Snakes and Falling Water visualizations with a new film called Nature by Numbers. It’s a fantastic piece visualizing the mathematics of patterns recurrent in nature. The music is very dramatic. On second watching I turned it off to concentrate on the graphics and the a third time. There are many very clever decisions in there, particularly during transitions in which Cristóbal manages to create an abstracted layer separate from the represented organisms. Great work, and a wonderful example of how dramatic such visualizations can be made.

Matt van Rooijen dissects his “pretty exciting gig“. Its great that an artist allows a detailed look at the processes that led to a reconstruction, in this case of Linheraptor exquisitus. Matt goes into the acquisition (via internet) and communication with Dave Hone. Thanks Matt!

At yesterday’s AR demo, a very important issue was discussed. I proposed that in 5 years or so, a visitor would pick up virtual reality goggles at the front counter much like the earphones many museums distribute today. Dr. Eder, director of the museum, took offense to this idea. Rightly so, assuming the use of virtual reality to be like the case presented… entombing the bones in a cg costume. I had something much more graphic in mind, a layered informational screen that shows up when a visitor passes by a breath-taking specimen and offers to highlight why the troodont wrist is so bird-like, to call up a constantly accessible timeline and world map or to outline that hardly discernible but oh-so defining skull feature. Complementary and secondary, therefore. Not barging to the forefront. Similar to this interactively annotated Ida fossil, but with the additional options of animated, interactive 3 dimensional content and audio. (3D skeletal reconstruction from the production house ZOO).

I’ve witnessed unfortunate behavior that 3D productions can develop when the winds of the market are at their backs and a traditional “old school” methods before them. I’ve also seen many new techniques unfairly dismissed because the are ‘cold’ or just because that’s not the way you do things. That was the entertainment industry, which isn’t flatly comparable to a museum. Still, its important that issues of representation are discussed and awareness raised.

One aspect is the content - as alluded to above. To what degree does digital work remain in the background, when does it take a step forward, when does it leap on stage…  I’ll leave that for a later post - but suffice to say, we’ll need to be creative and sensitive, both resisting and following the urge to be bold. (How’s that for solid advice?)
To see how cool that urge can turn out, check out this virtual operating room:

Who wouldn’t want to get their hands dirty on that!?

The other aspect is how this content can be presented and here I concentrate on the visualization of things… bones, organs, organisms and artifacts. How can a reconstruction truthfully convey information about what is scientifically accurate and what is conjecture? How can the elements of that reconstruction be prioritized so that it conveys the information we want to convey?

These questions lie at the heart of non-photorealistic rendering… abstraction of data, prioritized level-of-detail, etc. (Image sources a, b, c) Above, for example, we have a traditionally illustrated heart, a modeled & textured 3D geometry and a scanned heart rendered so that the surface color is determined by its curvature. Each method represents a heart, and each can be altered in a myriad of ways. Each has advantages and disadvantages, so the only way to approach an evaluation is to establish criteria. What do we wish this representation to achieve?

I’ve talked before about my distaste for 3D skeletons that visually purport to be real, when they in fact are inexact artistic constructions. This is a major gripe of mine - both with skeletal and life reconstructions. They often have fine surface details with no relevance to the actual fossils. They present a realism which not only creates a disconnect with the quality of animation, but which aims to convey exactly those uncertain bits as fact, while fascinating key features are saran-wrapped into a slick cg skin and therefore disguised.

I hear some of you saying “yeah, but the budget didn’t allow for that kind of quality”. That argument doesn’t cut it, in my opinion. Quality documentary filmers and exhibition designers must develop a feel for how to select and present content in ways that fit the given budget.

Today I was invited to view the beta setup  for a very interesting augmented reality presentation system by Canon at the Loewentor Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart. The presentation touched on so many aspects of computer visualization and presentation that it was in itself a true cross-over event. The technology - while innovative - won’t be new to anyone in the industry. What is good, is that Canon is approaching production readiness for an off-the shelf hardware solution. The setup wasn’t a tech demo - it was an audience screening of sorts. A mounted dinosaur skeleton was presented in front of a prehistoric landscape and loads of unsightly tracking markers (don’t worry about those - Canon has numerous tracking options in development). Before all of this are the visitors and two hand-held bulky goggles (don’t worry about the bulky, either). Over the weekend, the museum is overrun with visitors and these were the star of the presentation, because the whole setup served to research the reception of technology and content among the audiences.

Visitors of all ages had the chance to encounter a dinosaur in 3D, moving around it while an informational ‘film’ was run. As a finale, it then came to life, jumped off its podium and greeted its viewers. Prof. Dr. Stephan Schwan (Knowledge Media Research Center) directed the studies, with the intent of finding out about how this kind of presentation affects short-term and long-term reception. Psychology, education, exhibit design, perception studies, AR technology and paleontology, all in one bunch! Its not often that disciplines rub elbows this way, and I was thrilled by the authenticity of the occasion.

Masahide Hamatani (Canon) laid out Canon’s future in augmented reality with exemplary projects not only in exhibit design, but product testing, archeology and architecture. Its likely all us computer artists will be getting up from our desks in the near future and working with airCAD. For my back - it can’t happen soon enough! A highlight was Dr. Makoto Manabe of the National Science Museum in Tokyo as he talked about exhibit design, including such inspired inventions as the “pig roast” theropod mount which allows the viewer to explore the skeleton from all angles, and the comparative a man/bird mount. Fantastic!  Thanks as well to Tomotsugu Kondo (Open University of Japan). And extra thanks to Richard Leheis for tipping me off to this event in the first place!