zaterdag 27 augustus 2016

Now (27&28th of August) on show at DROOG Amsterdam: True Replicas

foto: Jantien Roozenburg

The two projects presented here examine how 3D prototyping and virtual techniques can be utilised to bring the stories of our heritage back into daily life.

3D prototyping are emerging technologies that offer new possibilities to render physical objects into digital data and vise versa, such as 3D-scanning and -printing. With Augmented Reality one can add virtual layers of contextual information on to an object, that can than be discovered using an application on a smartphone or tablet.  With Augmented Reality, objects are enriched and transformed into information carriers that can enrich the story of an object beyond the walls of a museum, archive or a library. Bringing the story of our heritage to our kitchen tables.

The underlying questions we seek to answer with these projects are; What is the meaning stored  in  all these historical objects? How does the story behind an object change our perception and appreciation of that object? What is the relevance of these objects in our increasingly digital and virtual society? How are these stories relevant to us today? Augmented Reality and 3D prototyping offer opportunities to investigate answers to these questions.



foto: Jantien Roozenburg

foto: Jantien Roozenburg

foto: Jantien Roozenburg

donderdag 11 augustus 2016

True Replicas @ DROOG


True Replicas

The two projects presented here examine how 3D prototyping and virtual techniques can be utilised to bring the stories of our heritage back into daily life.

3D prototyping are emerging technologies that offer new possibilities to render physical objects into digital data and vise versa, such as 3D-scanning and -printing. With Augmented Reality one can add virtual layers of contextual information on to an object, that can than be discovered using an application on a smartphone or tablet.  With Augmented Reality, objects are enriched and transformed into information carriers that can enrich the story of an object beyond the walls of a museum, archive or a library. Bringing the story of our heritage to our kitchen tables.

The underlying questions we seek to answer with these projects are; What is the meaning stored  in  all these historical objects? How does the story behind an object change our perception and appreciation of that object? What is the relevance of these objects in our increasingly digital and virtual society? How are these stories relevant to us today? Augmented Reality and 3D prototyping offer opportunities to investigate answers to these questions.





Smart Replicas

Smart Replicas is a research project pivoted on the junction of design, heritage and technology.  'Smart Replicas' are replicas of historical objects made useable again by combining 3D scanning and printing techniques with ‘traditional’ ceramic techniques. Smart Replicas are not just copies though. Smart refers to intelligent  enrichedment of objects with innovative virtual technologies that enable the object to carry information, so that outside of the museum they provide stories about its origin and history. And of course still serve their original intent.

In this show we present the initial prototype of a Smart Replica based on a seventeenth-century teacup from the collection of Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen.  This object was chosen not only for its great beauty but also because we have a wealth of contextual data about its history. The replica can be scanned with an iPad on the table to discover its history.  These stories are shown through the tablets camera in 3D animations placed around the object. One can navigate through the animations by moving the camera around the object and by tapping and swiping the timeline shown in the animation.

Smart Replicas is a project of Studio Maaike Roozenburg in collaboration with Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Delft Technical University and digital agency LikeFriends.
Smart Replicas is supported by  the Rijks Museum, Amsterdam Museum, Zeeuwsmuseum, Van Gogh Museum, Victoria & Albert Museum, Mareco Prototyping, InEdition|Grafic Design, Prins Bernard Cultuurfonds, Sunday Morning at EKWC, Atlas of Mutual Heritage and Stichting DOEN.





Exploring Replicas


With Exploring Replicas, we are researching these technologies, aiming to stretch the boundaries of traditional notions of the replica as an autonomous object based on a historical source. The goal of the project is not to make the most literal copy of the original, but to analyze, communicate and enhance those qualities of the historical source that are most meaningful for us now. These replicas allow us to articulate specific qualities of the historical source, and to isolate and communicate them through their reproduction.

Exploring Replicas is a project in collaboration with Monuments & Archaeology Department City of Amsterdam, Delft University of Technology and the Royal Academy of Art with the support of Amsterdam Fund for the Arts.

With special thanks to: Prof.dr. Jerzy Gawronski, Ron Tousain, Dr.Ir. Jouke Verlinden, Yvo van Os, Bart Vissers, Lotte de Reus, Kotryna Valečkaitė, Sander Pliakis, Irene Neels en Jorinde Smitser.

 

True Replicas @ DROOG: Invitation


We invite you to 'True Replicas' an exhibition of Studio Maaike Roozenburg at Hotel Droog at Saturday 27th and Sunday 28th of august. Here two projects will be presented pivoted on the junction of design, heritage and technology. Projects examining how 3D prototyping and virtual techniques can bring our heritage back to life. On display, to tray and to play with: Smart replica #A7663.To look at touch and examine: research and sketches of replicas of excavated historical objects from Amsterdam soil. 

Saturday Sunday 27,28th 2016
9am - 7pm
on display, to tray and to play with: Smart replica #A7663
to look at and examine: research and sketches of replicas of excavated historical objects from Amsterdam soil.

DROOG
Staalstraat 7B
1011 JJ Amsterdam
the Netherlands

rsvp and more information about the project:
maaike@maaikeroozenburg.nl
www.maaikeroozenburg.nl

donderdag 17 maart 2016

(Smart) prototyping by Kotryna Valečkaitė

As the final working week begins, we must decide what precisely our explorations in production methods will lead to. In the beginning of the project our supervisor Maaike said that the priority and goal of the project was to “revive” chosen historical objects. She did not specify how leaving us to decide what it is supposed to be. As seen in the first post, we took the task very directly, thinking that filling the holes in different methods will bring the most successful results. After four weeks it is clear that archaeological ceramics can not only regain their original use, but also become a game or a party attribute. Therefore, it is essential that we decide how these ideas can be smartly introduced to our peers and supervisors: interaction and functionality being the first priorities.
To begin with, we would like to introduce the cup as a relatively cheap party attribute. Last week we strove for two solutions: paper printing and vacuum forming. Only the latter could come into life, but as it is, the cup could be called a high fidelity prototype for cold beverages containment.
Secondly, the cup as an interactive object. The idea behind this is rather simple: providing the user with a kit consisting of cup shards and color-able glue, both child-safe and heat resistant. Interpretation of the objects would vary with the user: it could be interpreted as a DIY project, treasure hunt for children or possibly an exercise object for amateur archaeologists. For the presentation we will have the shards and the glued cup ready for the exposition, making it again a high fidelity prototype.
Another idea, consisting of two solutions, is to restore the original function of the cup. The first silver bullet was to underline the cracks by making them in different material. In the end we decided on rubber, which gives a rather pleasant feeling for the cup bu making it partially flexible. The second solution is at least 70% rubber, which makes the flexibility a problem. Due to that, an inner structure is introduced, making it possible to implement very interesting spacial compositions. The latter cannot be fully explored before the end of the project, but a simplified version will be given to explain the main idea. In other words, during the science fair we will present the structure prints instead of two material prints: the cost of rapid prototyping in 2 materials is too high for research models. As for the first idea, the design is almost complete and therefore these costs can be justified.
Hope to see you in the science fair on the 27th of October, 12:00 in the faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, TU Delft, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft.

Revision of two scanning methods, by Kotryna Valečkaitė

As promised, we would give the summarized results for the two scanning sessions that we had: with CT scanners and with Artec Spider scanner.

Part of the results of the latter unexpectedly disappeared during the post-processing. The scan which promised the most for us, Hermione handle detail, was among the missing files. We hoped to get better results of the floral ornament and combine it with the CT-scan body, only the chosen comparison model and Harry survived.
Kam artec spider
As seen, for the comparison we chose the finest model we had. The lice-comb teeth were approximately 0.5 mm diameter with even smaller gaps between them. Due to this, the scanning technique used by Artec Spider could never achieve a proper result: too much was not visible, even with the precision of 0,05 mm. In other words, the grid which the range finding device projected could not be interpreted in the gaps and the result was a block with a texture instead of a comb. Moreover, looking at he scan of Harry we can see a big inconvenience for us: only the outer surface and the sections at the breaks were captured. Moreover, the cracked surface texture was not captured, because we got the file only in a mesh file.
artec scanner harry
Therefore, it would be expected that this problem would not be so apparent in CT-scans. This technique captures the sections of the object, instead of making an interpretation of surface. Just then these sections are interpreted into 3D files. However, the precision of 0,3 mm proved to be insufficient for the artifact we chose:
macro CT kam
As seen, the result was a more consistent file, which could actually be printed. Nevertheless, it was far from what we would call sufficient. Expecting this, we also made micro-CT scans of the object. The sneak-peaks of the object in the lab itself looked very promising. Yet our and publicly available computers could not handle the size of the data set (over 2000 sections!) and could only give results in the lowest resolution, leaving us with the following model:
micro kam
As seen in the picture, the separate teeth are clearly visible, although the main body is missing. This can be easily solved if the used computer has 16GB RAM, since we could get a proper model in Avizo a few moments before it crashed due to memory insufficiency.
To conclude, only the micro-CT scanner offered the sufficient results for the compared artifact. The Artec Spider is very interesting if surface detailing in necessary or if textures/colors have to be captured. However, if not enough scans are made and combined, you will get an object lacking details, thus resulting in incredible amount of work hours in post-processing. Another solution for this would be to make CT-scans and combine them with the Artec Spider scans only for the details.

Plaster prints, structural solutions and CNC-milling, by Kotryna Valečkaitė

This week we focused on production techniques, yet not all of them proved to be possible to produce. In the background we also finished up processing all of the CT scans, of which an overview article will follow next week.

To begin with, we made multiple 3D prints: plaster prints of all of the loose pieces and a tryout of structural solutions in Ultimaker2. The first one we decided to translate into a game during the science fair, while the second one was primarily made for the mid-project presentation. Moreover, we made a form with a CNC milling machine which was later used for vacuum forming. This proved to be the cheapest, easiest and the most user friendly object so far.
Plaster print
DSC_0380
Structural solution
DSC_0376 DSC_0375
CNC milling and vacuum forming
DSC_0377 DSC_0378 DSC_0379
Secondly, we discarded paper printing as a possibility due to two main reasons:
  1. Our files were too large to be opened in multiple programs with which we could have given the surfaces color;
  2. The delivery times were too long
This led us to choosing another form which would work the best in the Connex printer. Yet that would lead to rather large expenses, exceeding 100 euros per object. What is more, using soft materials would mean that we strive more for a visual than a functional prototype, since the objects could not withstand warm drinks or even a dishwasher. However, some of this could also be achieved by simply printing the different materials apart in the Ultimaker2. Simply put, we are still struggling to determine what fidelity level we are looking for and what each prototype can achieve. Moreover, instead of having a single idea to work out we actually multiple interpretations of the same object:
  1. Cheap, everyday object (vacuum form)
  2. Object focusing on the aesthetics of historical footprint/3D printing (Connex prints/plastic injection molding)
  3. A game, interactive cup (plaster print of shards)
In other words, it means that the objects form their own trajectories and cannot be easily compared with each other.
To conclude, we now have to focus on what precisely we want to achieve in these trajectories and how to do it using rapid prototyping techniques. That is not what we planned during the first week, but that will lead to more evenly divided workflow and, hopefully, more interesting results.

dinsdag 15 maart 2016

Comparison of image processing software 3, by Kotryna Valečkaitė


After multiple emails and a Skype talk we finally acquired a trial version of Mimics. According to their representative, the program is mainly focused at medical uses. Most importantly how do bones, implants react to friction and temperature changes.
This got us interested, since this was also rather important in our project: we were using CT scans to determine the break-line positions and in the end also fill up the missing shards with (possibly) other materials. In other words, it would be very interesting to see how different connections between materials would influence the durability of the object. I must add, that this is only a presumption after a talk with their representative and we might not be able to go so deep in the subject due to the time limitations. Yet this could be very interesting as a research subject for future students.
Having only a week of work left till the presentation, we decided to only  check what were the possibilities of the translation (CT-scans to .stl) procedure and if the results could be better than from Avizo.
The interface seemed clear, but more limited to what was offered at the latter program. It seemed actually very similar to already mentioned Seg3D, which is also focused on medical use.
Interface of Mimics
Interface of Mimics
After comparing multiple objects we came to conclusion that this program does not offer better translation. The meshing is coarser and even though the stepping is less visible, so are the break lines.
hagrid rhino
In conclusion, this program might offer higher possibilities going deep into material interaction(3-matic research), but for simple .stl translations Avizo is still the best option.
P.s. For post processing use MeshLab (open source!): there you can both reduce the fineness of the mesh and smooth it.

Reproduction Methods

As told in the planning, each of us would come up with a multiple reproduction methods for Harry. We pitched these ideas to each other and discussed which would suit the purpose of this project best. Afterwards everybody choose their favorite and best method, making sure we had a diversity of production techniques.
cupe◄Click on me!
Sander Plaster Print
The goal of this technique is to recreate Harry as well as possible. Therefore, the existing cup will be plaster printed in several pieces. Af varnishing the inner and outer surface, these pieces will be glued together in order recreate the cracks. The holes shall be filled with separately (Ultimaker) 3D-printed parts.

Irene Paper printing
Using the technique of 3D printing paper it is possible to make a relatively inexpensive product using a 3D printer. We don’t expect this technique to be waterproof. By experimenting with lacquer or varnish we can find out the possibilities to make the cups usable for daily usage. To print the rough version of Harry it will cost €34,- euros.

Kotryna 3d printing/plastic injection molding
With this technique we could achieve a very sophisticated look for a high end product. With this design we would bring out the beauty of 3D printing by making an expressive carcass which will either support the cavities in the structure or the whole structure. This also accentuates the historical marks on the object, which is necessary because the original form is then recreated in transparent material. The latter can either be achieved by plastic injection molding (which is beneficial if this is produced in larger numbers) or by using a Objet500 Connex printer (very convenient, because the whole object can be printed out in one go). Moreover, this design would be very interesting if steel 3D printing could be achieved in very small diameters, since then the translucent material could be glass.
Jorinde Vacuum Forming
The main reason for choosing this technique is because 3d printing is too expensive for a consumer product, so the product is still not used for its purpose. The most used cup has got to be the plastic disposable cup. This cup is made with the technique thermoforming, but this is not achievable in the short amount of the we have. Therefore the simplified technique vacuum forming will be used. With vacuum forming s sheet of plastic is heated and forced against the mold by the suction of air. It is important that form is mold-releasing.
With this technique it isn’t possible to use different materials or make holes. To preserve the historic character of the cup the difference between the shards will be made visible with a difference in height. CNC milling at PMB cost 10 euros.



Basic (existing) shape Cracks Holes Speciality
Sander Plaster, several separately printed parts Through glueing the parts together Seperately 3D-Printed Trying to recreate Harry as well as possible
Irene Paper
Different colour Low budget
Jorinde Plastic, vacuum formed as one part height difference
between the shards
Holes have to be filled, visable with height difference Making an old thrown away cup into a useable and disposable product
Kotryna  Plastic, (partially) 3D printed (and plastic molding)  Surface texture, carcass deformations  Carcass or carcass deformations (depends on the final design)  Showcase of 3D printing possibilities and accentuating historical footprint in newly added  details