The next iteration of Photoshop – you\’ll never be able to believe a video again!

This video shows the freaky results of research underway at the University of Washington: how easy it is to make it look like people said something they never did at all.

www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2015/12/software_generates_controllable_models_of_famous_people_s_faces_video.html

Automated post from Decahedralist Inc. – http://ift.tt/1N2nmAg
December 11, 2015 at 05:34PM

The next iteration of Photoshop – you\’ll never be able to believe a video again!

This video shows the freaky results of research underway at the University of Washington: how easy it is to make it look like people said something they never did at all.

www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2015/12/software_generates_controllable_models_of_famous_people_s_faces_video.html

Automated post from Decahedralist Inc. – http://ift.tt/1N2nmAg
December 11, 2015 at 05:34PM

I\’m presenting at The Empiricist League Tuesday, June 11th

\"\"

If you want to see me in action, I\’m presenting Tuesday (tomorrow) night on the \”Future of Fast….How 3D printing is speeding up how we make everything\” for the Empiricist League in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

I\’m be touching on different aspects of 3D printing, from architectural applications through to bioprinting livers cells and skin grafts…and manufacturing, where I\’ll be showing some very specific examples of how I use it to help bring products to market, quickly (in my case, jewelry!).

My speech is following George Musser, a former senior editor for Scientific American and the author of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to String Theory, and Chuck Blake (a former research scientist at the Laboratory for Computer Science at MIT) so – big boots to fill! No pressure at all lol.

Here are links to some of the great source articles I used to pull this talk together:

I\’m presenting at The Empiricist League Tuesday, June 11th

\"\"

If you want to see me in action, I\’m presenting Tuesday (tomorrow) night on the \”Future of Fast….How 3D printing is speeding up how we make everything\” for the Empiricist League in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

I\’m be touching on different aspects of 3D printing, from architectural applications through to bioprinting livers cells and skin grafts…and manufacturing, where I\’ll be showing some very specific examples of how I use it to help bring products to market, quickly (in my case, jewelry!).

My speech is following George Musser, a former senior editor for Scientific American and the author of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to String Theory, and Chuck Blake (a former research scientist at the Laboratory for Computer Science at MIT) so – big boots to fill! No pressure at all lol.

Here are links to some of the great source articles I used to pull this talk together:

Defining \”technology\”

This entry is part of a series for Handful of Salt about the role of technology in high end craft and design. Read the original article here.

 

Standardized oil paints were first sold in tubes in 1841, by Winsor Newton‘s founders from Henry Newton’s home in Rathbone Place, London.

\"medieval

To be sure – artists had been using oil paints (and a variety of ingredients) for a very, very long time. But each artist made their own; grinding pigments then adding their own proprietary blend of secret ingredients.

But then all of a sudden – oil paints, available in tubes! No grinding! No mess! No excruciatingly long, difficult and dangerous process! How disgustingly egalitarian. Why now *everyone* could, theoretically paint. I\’m sure the furor in the artistic circles was deafening.

Which is why I chuckled when I recently read the discussions around 3D printing on a leading professional jeweler\’s board…I quote: \”So now every housewife can make jewelry\”.  The voice, dripping with disgust, could be plainly \”heard\” through the computer pixels.

I sense much the same dichotomy across the craft spectrum; if CAD is even on many craftspeople\’s radars at all. Either, apparently, you are an \”artist\” who lovingly makes something by hand (preferably sacrificing for your craft by getting splinters or something), or you are an engineer, who uses a computer. There doesn\’t seem to be a lot of intersection.

\"\"

But why?  I\’m not sure why there is always such disdain by the \”old guard\” every time a game changing technology emerges, be it pre-made oil paints or CAD software. They are just tools to create with; yes, they lower the barrier to entry.

Just as the advent of commercially available tubes of paint made it possible to be more spontaneous, paint outdoors, and have at your immediate disposal more colors than before (Renoir did say that, “Without tubes of paint, there would have been no Impressionism\”).

CAD makes it possible to be intensely creative without having to spend the years apprenticing as a silver- or goldsmith; you can immediately completely visualize a design in  your head, iterating as you go – and indeed, change the nature of creation itself.

It\’s a wonderful design tool which should make any artist/craftsperson flock to the computer, I would think. The ability to visualize and refine what\’s in your head before you go make it, or indeed combine 3D printing with \”real world\” materials to create a new 3D collage – well, I think it\’s a fascinating new frontier.

Good design is still, good design, creativity still creativity – and the tools are still just the tools.

I\’d love to hear from artists & craftspeople as to what they think of this whole new emerging world, and how they are (if at all) using it.

 

 

 

 

Defining \”technology\”

This entry is part of a series for Handful of Salt about the role of technology in high end craft and design. Read the original article here.

 

Standardized oil paints were first sold in tubes in 1841, by Winsor Newton‘s founders from Henry Newton’s home in Rathbone Place, London.

\"medieval

To be sure – artists had been using oil paints (and a variety of ingredients) for a very, very long time. But each artist made their own; grinding pigments then adding their own proprietary blend of secret ingredients.

But then all of a sudden – oil paints, available in tubes! No grinding! No mess! No excruciatingly long, difficult and dangerous process! How disgustingly egalitarian. Why now *everyone* could, theoretically paint. I\’m sure the furor in the artistic circles was deafening.

Which is why I chuckled when I recently read the discussions around 3D printing on a leading professional jeweler\’s board…I quote: \”So now every housewife can make jewelry\”.  The voice, dripping with disgust, could be plainly \”heard\” through the computer pixels.

I sense much the same dichotomy across the craft spectrum; if CAD is even on many craftspeople\’s radars at all. Either, apparently, you are an \”artist\” who lovingly makes something by hand (preferably sacrificing for your craft by getting splinters or something), or you are an engineer, who uses a computer. There doesn\’t seem to be a lot of intersection.

\"\"

But why?  I\’m not sure why there is always such disdain by the \”old guard\” every time a game changing technology emerges, be it pre-made oil paints or CAD software. They are just tools to create with; yes, they lower the barrier to entry.

Just as the advent of commercially available tubes of paint made it possible to be more spontaneous, paint outdoors, and have at your immediate disposal more colors than before (Renoir did say that, “Without tubes of paint, there would have been no Impressionism\”).

CAD makes it possible to be intensely creative without having to spend the years apprenticing as a silver- or goldsmith; you can immediately completely visualize a design in  your head, iterating as you go – and indeed, change the nature of creation itself.

It\’s a wonderful design tool which should make any artist/craftsperson flock to the computer, I would think. The ability to visualize and refine what\’s in your head before you go make it, or indeed combine 3D printing with \”real world\” materials to create a new 3D collage – well, I think it\’s a fascinating new frontier.

Good design is still, good design, creativity still creativity – and the tools are still just the tools.

I\’d love to hear from artists & craftspeople as to what they think of this whole new emerging world, and how they are (if at all) using it.

 

 

 

 

Ho hum: Where\’s the innovation?

Article out today on Fast Company, titled \”The Smartphone Revolution is Over.\” And I agree. In terms of form they\’ve pretty much reached the limit of the current form factor. They got small, now they\’re getting bigger, flatter, bigger screens, etc. Sure they might develop a model with a folding screen (to make it bigger again), or smaller (to fit on a wristwatch – oh joy!), or curvier, or in purple.

But personally, I think if products lead with \”now available in a color\” in their advertising (as Motorola\’s Razr is doing) the category has jumped the shark a bit, so to speak.

\"\"

The question is, what happens next? Since being able to communicate in any way you want, wherever and whenever you want – well, that\’s not going away.

Coincidentally Google announced today that they will sell \”Heads-Up Display Glasses\” by the end of 2012, a pair of glasses that will be able to \”stream information to the wearer’s eyeballs in real time.\” Given advancements in voice interaction and jawbone-type microphones, why wouldn\’t this be a form for a future \”phone\”? I\’m actually of the opinion that the form factors are going to fragment, and potentially become modular a la Transformers…add or subtract whichever module you want or need.

And I\’ve already talked about how there should/will be devices that are the \”node points\” for all communication and content, then send the right content to the right place – and how that will disintermediate the entertainment industry.

But so far, everyone\’s still playing it boringly safe. I\’m looking forward to seeing the impact Google\’s glasses will have. Until then, it\’s all been a little ho-hum.

Ho hum: Where\’s the innovation?

Article out today on Fast Company, titled \”The Smartphone Revolution is Over.\” And I agree. In terms of form they\’ve pretty much reached the limit of the current form factor. They got small, now they\’re getting bigger, flatter, bigger screens, etc. Sure they might develop a model with a folding screen (to make it bigger again), or smaller (to fit on a wristwatch – oh joy!), or curvier, or in purple.

But personally, I think if products lead with \”now available in a color\” in their advertising (as Motorola\’s Razr is doing) the category has jumped the shark a bit, so to speak.

\"\"

The question is, what happens next? Since being able to communicate in any way you want, wherever and whenever you want – well, that\’s not going away.

Coincidentally Google announced today that they will sell \”Heads-Up Display Glasses\” by the end of 2012, a pair of glasses that will be able to \”stream information to the wearer’s eyeballs in real time.\” Given advancements in voice interaction and jawbone-type microphones, why wouldn\’t this be a form for a future \”phone\”? I\’m actually of the opinion that the form factors are going to fragment, and potentially become modular a la Transformers…add or subtract whichever module you want or need.

And I\’ve already talked about how there should/will be devices that are the \”node points\” for all communication and content, then send the right content to the right place – and how that will disintermediate the entertainment industry.

But so far, everyone\’s still playing it boringly safe. I\’m looking forward to seeing the impact Google\’s glasses will have. Until then, it\’s all been a little ho-hum.

Connecting the dots: Evaluating new business opportunities

I\’\"\"m heavily back into the New York City startup scene and – phew, it\’s a hopping one. Recession schmecession.

Had the pleasure of recently attended a party mixing VCs and startups (many already operating, some not) and I honestly have more fun listening to the startup\’s business pitches and evaluating (sometimes in my head, sometimes freely giving my two cents\’ worth!) the market potential than just about anything; the neurons start firing, the dots connecting (a la my previous post…..).

There\’s a big party going on my head, just hearing all the ideas and \”seeing\” opportunities way beyond what they think their business is about.

The companies are all tech-based, and seem to pick one super small sliver of the tech universe and just madly scramble with 150% effort to get it running; I noticed this in Silicon Valley too, many startups just madly chase making the initial idea a reality…what they often miss, though, is the business savvy to see the larger strategic opportunities – which is a shame.

So many good ideas just don\’t see market success because they are too focused on one idea without seeing the bigger picture – opportunities, partnerships, even threats; my head is all a-buzz.

It\’s fun for me because I get to combine my love of tech and trend spotting with my MBA roots (which I get to use all too infrequently lately *sigh*). What I wouldn\’t give to work with either a VC or consulting firm to help evaluate businesses – or help established companies develop plans to identify opportunities from emerging tech in our increasingly complex world! McKinsey, are you listening?!

Scroll to Top