Wired has devoted its December 2011 Play section to the uncanny valley. I can't link now (they seem to post issues with a delay, so check the wired.com site in January), but if you're interested in this concept, the issue is worth a look.
They have short bits on CGI characters, robot toys, porn stars, and more!
Also, the historical background on the term, and the information that while it was coined in 1970, it's really only become popular in the last few years. Has the world been getting uncannier lately?
Showing posts with label images. Show all posts
Showing posts with label images. Show all posts
Friday, November 25, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Down in the Valley
I was talking to an ultrasound technician the other day--after the huge piles of cold hard cash, the talking to lots of interesting people is why I got into librarianship--and she said something I liked.
She said that they can do this 3D-style imaging of fetuses in the womb now, and that of course expectant parents always want to see them, but that she always recommends they not look at the 18-week images (although they always do anyway) because they're creepy-looking.
She said they're actually less creepy at 13 weeks, when the fetus looks less human, because at that stage it's sort of cute in an alien-blob sort of way, while at 18 weeks they're more human-looking, but also more weird.
"The uncanny valley!" I thought immediately.
For those not familiar, the uncanny valley is a theory that suggests that we find things more appealing the more human they look--right up until they reach a certain point, when we find them disturbing instead.
At that point, there in this uncanny valley, they're close enough to human that we sort of mistake them for human at a glance, but far enough away that we realize they aren't, and that makes us find them weird and wrong and super creepy.
You mostly see it used in reference to humanoid robots, and to characters in video games and CG animated movies, but I kind of like the idea that people also traverse the uncanny valley in the flesh on the way to being born.
As a not-very-developed embryo, with a vague general resemblance to a human, you might observe a sort of big-headed, spindly-limbed, weird charm. But as the fetus develops, acquiring more of the familiar characteristics of humanity, but still not having them all, it becomes faintly creepy-looking.
Also, of course, the resolution of the 3D images, compared to the classic, slightly fuzzy black and white ones, helps push the fetus into the uncanny valley by letting you see enough detail to notice how like/unlike a familiar human it looks.
It's all about the computer graphics, as usual.
At least that's my rough theory based on what the ultrasound tech said. I haven't seen a lot of 3D ultrasound images myself, and the ones I found online all look pretty equally creepy to me (here are some), so it could be a theory without basis in fact.
Nevertheless, I like it, so I'm going to assume, based on my extremely limited understanding of embryology and fetal development, that's it's totally plausible. As long as I never learn anything else about the subject, my theory should be untouchable.
Yup. That's how science works, people.
By which I mean, that's the opposite of how science works. Let my bad example be a terrifying warning to you.
She said that they can do this 3D-style imaging of fetuses in the womb now, and that of course expectant parents always want to see them, but that she always recommends they not look at the 18-week images (although they always do anyway) because they're creepy-looking.
She said they're actually less creepy at 13 weeks, when the fetus looks less human, because at that stage it's sort of cute in an alien-blob sort of way, while at 18 weeks they're more human-looking, but also more weird.
"The uncanny valley!" I thought immediately.
For those not familiar, the uncanny valley is a theory that suggests that we find things more appealing the more human they look--right up until they reach a certain point, when we find them disturbing instead.
At that point, there in this uncanny valley, they're close enough to human that we sort of mistake them for human at a glance, but far enough away that we realize they aren't, and that makes us find them weird and wrong and super creepy.
You mostly see it used in reference to humanoid robots, and to characters in video games and CG animated movies, but I kind of like the idea that people also traverse the uncanny valley in the flesh on the way to being born.
As a not-very-developed embryo, with a vague general resemblance to a human, you might observe a sort of big-headed, spindly-limbed, weird charm. But as the fetus develops, acquiring more of the familiar characteristics of humanity, but still not having them all, it becomes faintly creepy-looking.
Also, of course, the resolution of the 3D images, compared to the classic, slightly fuzzy black and white ones, helps push the fetus into the uncanny valley by letting you see enough detail to notice how like/unlike a familiar human it looks.
It's all about the computer graphics, as usual.
At least that's my rough theory based on what the ultrasound tech said. I haven't seen a lot of 3D ultrasound images myself, and the ones I found online all look pretty equally creepy to me (here are some), so it could be a theory without basis in fact.
Nevertheless, I like it, so I'm going to assume, based on my extremely limited understanding of embryology and fetal development, that's it's totally plausible. As long as I never learn anything else about the subject, my theory should be untouchable.
Yup. That's how science works, people.
By which I mean, that's the opposite of how science works. Let my bad example be a terrifying warning to you.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Who's That?
It's funny how even if you're not consciously picturing yourself as looking like anything in particular, you can still be slightly startled to catch a glimpse of yourself in the mirror after a noticeable change in appearance, such as a new hairstyle.
I was going to say, "it's not as if you're going around all the time with this little mental avatar of yourself with a certain haircut"--but on reflection, I think it might actually be exactly like that.
When you look at yourself and have that half-moment of surprise, that "who is that?" reaction, it's clearly because your image is being contrasted to something, so you must have a kind of background picture of yourself in mind.
And in a world of mirrors and photographs, our mental avatars are based on what we actually look like, more or less, so we can be startled by a comparison. I wonder what it was like in the old days when there were no photographs and mirrors weren't very common or very good. I guess you could pretty much count on always being kind of startled, if you did happen to get a clear image of yourself somehow.
If you don't really know what you look like, do you form a mental picture of yourself that includes an image anyway, or do you not think that much about it? Since I have plenty of mirrors, I perhaps will never know.
.
I was going to say, "it's not as if you're going around all the time with this little mental avatar of yourself with a certain haircut"--but on reflection, I think it might actually be exactly like that.
When you look at yourself and have that half-moment of surprise, that "who is that?" reaction, it's clearly because your image is being contrasted to something, so you must have a kind of background picture of yourself in mind.
And in a world of mirrors and photographs, our mental avatars are based on what we actually look like, more or less, so we can be startled by a comparison. I wonder what it was like in the old days when there were no photographs and mirrors weren't very common or very good. I guess you could pretty much count on always being kind of startled, if you did happen to get a clear image of yourself somehow.
If you don't really know what you look like, do you form a mental picture of yourself that includes an image anyway, or do you not think that much about it? Since I have plenty of mirrors, I perhaps will never know.
.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Ouch Illustrated
I've been having some muscle cramps in my shoulder and upper arm since I broke my collarbone, and lacking a clear explanation (hey, I dutifully turned to the literature, but I found no results in PubMed for "Muscle Cramp"[Mesh] AND "Arm"[Mesh] AND "Clavicle"[Mesh] AND "Fractures, Bone"[Mesh]), I decided to concoct a wild theory.
I doubt this theory is actually physiologically plausible, but this is what I've come up with. I think you'll like it. (I don't really have any reason to think that, but I'm going to go with it because this is a time for rampant speculation.)
Anyway, here's what my collarbone feels like right now when I prod at it, beautifully illustrated in MS Paint. Note the dramatic jutting spur thing there on the left bone (helpfully circled), compared to the uninterrupted line of the right side.
My unsupported theory is that the bone spur is poking the shoulder muscles and making them cramp up, and that attempts to uncramp by redistributing the general burden of carrying an arm with this shoulder then result in further cramps being transmitted down the arm and occasionally to the back.
It's a total muscle-crampfest, is what I'm saying.
Or it could just be the redistribution of burden part, making muscles hold things in ways they're not accustomed to (probably), but I like blaming things on bone spurs.
That knob there just feels so dramatic, it has to be responsible for something bad.
Mostly, I just wanted to post that awesome image. My next career will be medical illustrator, for sure. Anything clavicle-related will be my specialty.
.
I doubt this theory is actually physiologically plausible, but this is what I've come up with. I think you'll like it. (I don't really have any reason to think that, but I'm going to go with it because this is a time for rampant speculation.)
Anyway, here's what my collarbone feels like right now when I prod at it, beautifully illustrated in MS Paint. Note the dramatic jutting spur thing there on the left bone (helpfully circled), compared to the uninterrupted line of the right side.
It's a total muscle-crampfest, is what I'm saying.
Or it could just be the redistribution of burden part, making muscles hold things in ways they're not accustomed to (probably), but I like blaming things on bone spurs.
That knob there just feels so dramatic, it has to be responsible for something bad.
Mostly, I just wanted to post that awesome image. My next career will be medical illustrator, for sure. Anything clavicle-related will be my specialty.
.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Cover History
As a onetime player of the game, I was excited to see this Sociological Images post on the covers of the various editions of the Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook over the years. (D&D PHB, if you want to get concise.)
The post documents the evolution of the cover images, from a simple picture of a guy with a sword on a rearing horse, through colorful demons and bold adventurers, to a nifty "mystic tome" look with 3rd edition, and back to dramatic humanoid figures with the current 4th edition version.
There's an interesting conversation in the comments about whether the clothing of the current cover's female adventurer (the first woman to appear on a PHB cover) is absurdly skimpy, or actually pretty good given some of the more ridiculous conventions for women's garments in fantasy game/novel/artwork history (the chain mail bikini being perhaps the most notable example).
My take is, yes, the clothes are goofier than I like to wear when I fight monsters in dark caves, but also yes, compared to some of the outfits I've seen on female characters, they're almost practical. Progress!
Also, these pictures make me wish I were playing D&D right now. Curse our lack of a steady group.
.
The post documents the evolution of the cover images, from a simple picture of a guy with a sword on a rearing horse, through colorful demons and bold adventurers, to a nifty "mystic tome" look with 3rd edition, and back to dramatic humanoid figures with the current 4th edition version.
There's an interesting conversation in the comments about whether the clothing of the current cover's female adventurer (the first woman to appear on a PHB cover) is absurdly skimpy, or actually pretty good given some of the more ridiculous conventions for women's garments in fantasy game/novel/artwork history (the chain mail bikini being perhaps the most notable example).
My take is, yes, the clothes are goofier than I like to wear when I fight monsters in dark caves, but also yes, compared to some of the outfits I've seen on female characters, they're almost practical. Progress!
Also, these pictures make me wish I were playing D&D right now. Curse our lack of a steady group.
.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The Image of Mom
Sometimes I kind of love sidebar ads.
Is this guy a mom? Someone who encourages a mom to return to online school? (Perhaps an online school teacher!)
So many interesting questions.
.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The Color of Blood
I kind of like this recipe for homemade hand sanitizer, posted on Healthbolt. I usually just go with soap and water, or sometimes the bottled purple stuff that's scattered in convenient locations all over where I work (including, lately, right in front of the elevators, which is a nice way to make it available to pretty much everyone who passes through the building except lone weirdos like me who climb the stairs).
I like that stuff, 'cause it's purple. But I also like the idea of just mixing up a batch of my own purple stuff, using ingredients I have right to hand around the house:
On second thought, I don't have those things around the house. And it's hard to even find purple food coloring, so you have to try mixing your own out of red and blue, which even though they tell you that's the way color works, it never actually comes out purple, it comes out this strange muddy color.
Beware of trying to make purple. That's why they had to make purple dye out of sea snails in the old days: it's really hard to get it to come out right. Not that making it out of sea snails was exactly the work of a lazy moment.
I also hear (check ye olde Wikipedia) that the most popular purple shade was "exactly the colour of clotted blood, and is of a blackish hue to the sight, but of a shining appearance when held up to the light."
Clotted blood, eh? That sounds more like a very dark red than what I today think of as purple. I would call this purple:
Clotted blood, not quite so much:
I mean, it's a little purple, but really more red. But I guess the Phoenicians liked the color of blood more than the color of crocuses.
In closing, and to bring this back to the original topic of today's ramblings, please sanitize your hands if they come into contact with blood clots.
.
I like that stuff, 'cause it's purple. But I also like the idea of just mixing up a batch of my own purple stuff, using ingredients I have right to hand around the house:
- aloe vera gel
- grain alcohol
- tea tree oil
- fragrance
- purple food coloring (although that's my own addition, and might dye your hands)
On second thought, I don't have those things around the house. And it's hard to even find purple food coloring, so you have to try mixing your own out of red and blue, which even though they tell you that's the way color works, it never actually comes out purple, it comes out this strange muddy color.
Beware of trying to make purple. That's why they had to make purple dye out of sea snails in the old days: it's really hard to get it to come out right. Not that making it out of sea snails was exactly the work of a lazy moment.
I also hear (check ye olde Wikipedia) that the most popular purple shade was "exactly the colour of clotted blood, and is of a blackish hue to the sight, but of a shining appearance when held up to the light."
Clotted blood, eh? That sounds more like a very dark red than what I today think of as purple. I would call this purple:
Clotted blood, not quite so much:
I mean, it's a little purple, but really more red. But I guess the Phoenicians liked the color of blood more than the color of crocuses.
In closing, and to bring this back to the original topic of today's ramblings, please sanitize your hands if they come into contact with blood clots.
.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Picturing Risks
Here's an interesting visual depiction of various demographic characteristics, risk factors and health conditions from GE.
You can click on things like age, gender, BMI, smoking, heart disease and stroke, and see crowds of little people shuffle around into color-coded categories to show, say, the percentage of people in each age group who smoke.
It's moderately entertaining, and gives us the useful information that, statistically, if you're below normal weight you will not get any diseases. (Of the four included here.)
Also, if you're morbidly obese, you may get diabetes and hypertension, but you will not get heart disease or have a stroke.
There are also little tidbits like "A 12-13 point reduction in systolic blood pressure can reduce heart disease risk by 21%."
I should note that my sweeping statement about low-weight meaning no risk of disease is of course a lie: the site is actually based on "a random sample of 100,000 patient records" and "[t]he numbers and percentages aren't statistically significant," but are meant to present basic information about risks in a new way in order to encourage creative thinking about the issues.
Well...I guess it's still interesting, even if it doesn't support my desire for grand pronouncements.
I got this from ScienceRoll.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tables and Charts and Graphs, Oh My!
A student at the reference desk was asking about medical image resources the other day.
I'm not sure this is what she was after, but will try to keep this interesting tool in mind another time: the Yale Image Finder.
It searches the images in articles from open access journals available through PubMed Central, retrieving illustrations, tables and pictures based on captions, image text, titles and abstracts.
It's extremely simple to use -- enter some terms, select where in the article you want to search for them -- and retrieved results for most of my randomly chosen terms (nothing for 'freckles,' I'm sad to say).
I imagine it could be quite handy if you're looking to check out depictions of gene distributions or what not. It does only search 34,000 articles, which in the grand scheme of biomedical literature is not that many, but presumably it will grow dramatically along with PubMed Central in the future.
I salute SHR Medical Library for this discovery.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Now for Something Really Dramatic
I see from Sid Schwab at Cutting Through the Crap that after some no-doubt painstaking calculations the Milky Way is now considered to be very likely the largest galaxy in the immediate stellar neighborhood!
It is at any rate at least as large as Andromeda, which had previously been awarded that crown. So, yeah! We live in an important cluster of stars!
I don't know about you, but I feel better about life in general.
Makes me want to renew my acquaintance with the Astronomy Picture of the Day, in hopes of one day seeing an illustration of our galaxy kicking Andromeda's butt in terms of hugeness. Yeah, that's a hard shot to get (multiple galaxy wide lens, anyone?), but I can hope.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
More Fun Stuff for Visual Learners
Slate has an interesting slide show up about 'infoviz' (information visualization) art, or "art that uses information patterns as paint."
Displaying information is pretty much a Subject of Interest for me, so I think this is very cool. Check it out!
While none of the pieces they depict is specifically about libraries (siiiiiiigh...why isn't it all about me yet?), there are pharmaceutical and research tie-ins we can work with from a health information standpoint. Other pieces address relationships, chess-playing computers and the popularity of names, which are also entertaining subjects.
The article refers the reader to a couple of other sites for more of this, including Visual Complexity, which I've previously encountered and liked on another blog, back in the mists of time when I was at university. (Nostalgic sigh.) The site is neatly divided into categories, including one for biology that includes a project to map the human "diseasome." Now that's health-library-tech-related!
The other recommended site, called information aesthetics, also has some nice images. The presentation there is not quite as conducive to browsing, to my mind, but there's still some interesting stuff.
Displaying information is pretty much a Subject of Interest for me, so I think this is very cool. Check it out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)