Utilising a commercial workflow when reconstructing dinosaur skeletons in 3D

Reconstructing fossils digitally has become a vital technique in palaeontology in recent years. The ability to reconstruct the entire skeletons of extinct taxa gives us the opportunity to look at aspects of an organism’s life that would prove difficult or impossible using physical models, for example in biomechanics and gait analysis.

Er, hi. The final, posed Gorgosaurus model, created in zBrush 4R7 and Cinema 4D R16.

A recent paper by Stephan Lautenschlager  (http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/10/160342) on digital fossil restoration techniques provides a good overview of the methodology using tools available for digital palaeontology in most labs, including Avizo, Blender and Maya. I highly recommend this paper for anyone interested in the digital restoration of fossil specimens and the workflow involved, much contained in the paper being relevant to the digital reconstruction of specimens for research and outreach.

Last year I worked on a project with Dr. Willam Sellers of Animal Simulation Laboratory (http://www.animalsimulation.org) at the University of Manchester which required the creation of six accurate and complete dinosaur skeletons (see my previous post on the project: http://paleoillustrata.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/walking-and-making-dinosaur.html), and for this I used a workflow developed in my work creating scientific animations and illustrations for the MedComms industry, a workflow not dissimilar to many commercial studios where 3D assets of all description are produced. axon, the makers of one of the 3D modelling and animation applications I use, Cinema 4D R18, covered this project on their website: https://www.maxon.net/en/industries/visualization/article/everybody-walk-the-dinosaur/

A specimen (NHM R175) recorded using photogrammetry
and suitable for use as a basis for reconstruction of the bone.

The reference used to create individual elements comes from a number of sources. Primary amongst these are meshes generated using with photogrammetry, Lidar or CT scanning. These data are often received as point clouds that require the generation of a mesh. These datasets can be pretty hefty (especially if they are of entire mounted skeletons or other large, complex subjects) so they require chopping down into manageable chunks prior to meshing to make processing more efficient, for example isolating part of a limb or the skull. I use MeshLab (http://meshlab.sourceforge.net) for this part of the processes, saving sections of the point cloud and meshing them individually. The meshes generated from this procedure are the basis for the reconstruction and these are imported as reference meshes into the main 3D package prior to starting modelling. The literature was consulted and where possible collections were visited and photographs taken to maximise the available reference for modelling. This is important because as there is a fair amount of morphological variation within a particular taxa and this needs to be taken into account when modelling the skeletons, and in fact the final models are composites and don’t represent a single specimen.

Like many studios I use more than one application to create my models of palaeontological specimens. As mentioned earlier, the main 3D application I use for both research and commercial work is Cinema 4D R18 by Maxon (https://www.maxon.net). Within C4D I block out the basic form of the model by generating primitives, extruding polygons and dragging edges and points into approximate position (see this post for how this works: http://paleoillustrata.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/building-dinosaur-pulling-polygons-and.html). To make these models practical for biomechanical work and 3D printing, so they needed to have as few polygons as possible whilst retaining accuracy. By starting with very simple, blocky shapes it is far easier to keep control of the polygon count as you model and make sure the mesh density is as low as possible for the final model.

Low resolution, blocked-out skull ready for importing to zBrush for further sculpting (top),
 and the skull in the process of being modelled at a higher resolution.

Once the basic shape is modelled in C4D, the meshes (both reference and model are imported into Pixologic zBrush 4R7 (http://pixologic.com), a 3D modelling package that uses sculpting in clay as a metaphor for modelling 3D meshes. Why not continue modelling in Cinema 4D or anther package? Well, zBrush’s tools are intuitive, fast and easy to use (once you’re used to them) and well suited to creating organic shapes. As a modelling tool widely used in the gaming industry zBrush also offers excellent retopologising and mesh decimation tools, which means models can have a low mesh density whilst retaining detail; it produces very ‘clean’ meshes which are perfect for importing into a wide variety of other applications. Once the model is completed the final mesh is imported back into Cinema 4D for positioning and texturing (if required). I cannot recommend zBrush highly enough for organic modelling and anyone creating reconstructions in 3D should take a close look at this package.

The skull of Gorgosaurus during the modelling process, showing the layout within zBrush 4R7.

Assembling a skeleton in Cinema 4D is a task made easier by some of the tools that are add-ons to the application and widely used by modellers and animators. Foremost amongst these is the Mograph module, which allows the cloning of a single element and the manipulation of these clones. This is tremendously useful when creating multiple copies of broadly similar elements such as vertebrae. For example, the tail several vertebrae from certain points along the sequence would be modelled and then those in between generated by cloning and these would then be adjusted individually to match the reference.

The Triceratops skeleton rigged and hot to trot in GaitSym.

The final model can be exported out as any type of 3D file, with the most useful being .obj and .fbx at present, but anticipate this changing in the future and save in several formats as well as the proprietary format of the modelling applications.

The Giraffititan model, posed.

The use of commercial tools such as zBrush is becoming more common for palaeontologists and palaeoartists, and by paying close attention to the structure of production pipelines and workflows of commercial digital studios is something we as palaeontologists should consider, as there is much to learn from their techniques and methods which we can incorporate into our own reconstruction and restoration arsenal of techniques for generating 3D meshes useful or wide variety of research pathways.

For palaeontologists and public, the future is 3D.

Indet. ornithopod caudal vertebra recorded using photogrammetry.
480,342 polygons, with and without texture.

Here’s a prediction: 3D meshes of dinosaur bones and ichnites will become the main method of interaction with specimens for many palaeontologists within a decade. While not a panacea for all the issues that access to specimens raises for workers, this trend might go some way to mitigating some of the more persistent problems associated with the process. This prediction might come across as either a little obvious or a rather hubristic depending on your current engagement with virtual specimens and either view might be correct, but here’s why I think it will happen.

As the technology for recording, creating, distributing and working with 3D models becomes ever more widely used it’s becoming apparent that the usefulness of 3D specimen data is far more than originally envisaged. The advent of 3D printing and the ubiquity of 3D content on the internet means that meshes provide robust, testable data that is can used in a variety of ways. Biomechanics, finite element analysis and morphometrics are already well-established uses for 3D data as are comparative and descriptive purposes, reconstruction and illustration. By returning data to the physical world by 3D printing, specimens can be shared without ever having to leave the collections they are accessioned to. It’s now possible to carry and entire dinosaur skeleton on an iPad, each bone viewable at any time. Physical interaction with specimens is at the core of what we do as palaeontologists and from the field to the lab we need to be able to work on actual fossils, and this will never change. However, this might not be the most pragmatic way for us to get to all the specimens we need and 3D meshes will provide a way of accessing specimens in the future. 

Many ichnologists already do this and for them this is a no-brainer. Like many fossils, ichnites are often vulnerable to destruction and degradation, from collectors and erosion to specimens that need to remain in situ and are rightly afforded special protection so everyone can enjoy them. These can now be taken back to the lab (or pub) in as 3D data for study, recorded for research and posterity, a 3D snapshot in time. We can record how these resources change over the years, refer back to them countless times, and share them with each other easily.

For open access advocates, the rising popularity of 3D data for research should be a big deal. In an ideal world all described and figured specimens would be freely available for download at any time, by anybody. The ability to do this might have consequences for all palaeontologists, and the institutions specimens are housed in. One issue that continues to vex palaeontologists is the thorny issue of access to specimens in private and public collections. Whilst the argument that having first-hand access to a specimen is always best is irrefutable, practicalities dictate that it’s not always possible. 

Vitally, free open-access to specimens for everyone (not just scientists) might have many more benefits. The commercial trade in fossils is a subject of huge concern to any palaeontologist. With the insidious tendrils of the free market feeling their way towards more and more specimens it is a real and present danger more that more data will be lost forever; the self-regulation of markets is a myth. However, if palaeontologists can gain access to private collections or collections about to be dumped on the market by institutions (as San Deigo Museum nearly did with their Sternberg collection) all is not lost. We can now record specimens held in these collections and archive the data in a way we’ve never been able to before; there’s a tremendous amount of data out there that never gets studied. Using high-quality 3D data will remove the need for direct access the fossils to a certain degree and allow specimens otherwise unavailable to science to be worked on. We all know of specimens that are languishing in collections and might disappear at any time, lost forever and never published up. By depositing 3D data in an open access repository there will be easily obtained testable data available for research. 

This democratisation of data might have an important side effect if we could print off any fossil we wanted to. Fancy a .25 scale Tyrannosaurus rex skull on your mantlepiece? No problem, a specialist fabricators could print one off for a fraction of the price of the original. The kids want an ankylosaur spike for a school project? Download and print one off at the local high street print shop (or at home when the hardware becomes more affordable). This might be of help in pulling the rug from under a commercial fossil market that routinely prices important specimens out of the price range of virtually all public institutions; when they go, so so might the data they represent.

How could all this new data be curated? Firstly, there is now a real and present need for a cohesive set of standards to ensure the future viability of digital collections; file formats have a habit of becoming obsolete as technology races forward. Secondly, a single file format needs to be established as the standard for archiving and accessioning digital specimens. My own preference would be for Alias Wavefront’s .obj file standard for several reasons: it’s read by virtually every 3D program available, is robust, it can retain texture information in a separate jpeg file and includes the UV information relating to the texture. 

Finally, an open-access online repository to hold this data, an idea that has been wafting around for a while (see this post by Peter Falkingham for example, on establishing a database of neoichnological digital specimes). This is the biggie, and the establishment of such a resource would raise some quite contentious issues. Uploading a mesh of a dinosaur footprint spotted on a beach or of a certain outcrop is one thing, but what would be the consequences of uploading the entire holotype of a dinosaur? Museum curators might get the howling fantods at the thought of their exclusive specimens being available for free online, potentially depriving them of revenue generated from visitors to their collections. After all, this data would be freely available and if someone had the urge to print an entire skeleton out and start their own museum they would be able to, without paying a penny. Would some sort of commercial licensing be necessary? Would institutions and individuals be able to veto the inclusion of specimens they hold in such a repository? Questions, questions . . .

At the end of the day, specimens held by public institutions are owned by the public and free, unfettered access to them by anyone is the ideal scenario. Of course it’s less than ideal to allow anyone in to have a gander at your one-of-a-kind ultra-delicate fossil, but by making an accurate 3D mesh of that fossil available for all then you won’t need to; just download and print one off! For scientists and the public alike, there’s great potential in this technology if only we can all agree at the outset of how we can curate and manage it.

Not a palaeontologist? Well, you could always share heritage items such as this 3D mesh of a
2.5m recumbent stone from Arbor Low stone circle in the White Peak of Derbyshire, UK.
Send it to anyone with an internet connection. You can't do that with the real thing.

Postscript: After I wrote this Peter Falkingham posted over at his blog on the same subject, albeit from a slightly different viewpoint. I highly recommend reading it if you're interested in the digitisation of palaeontological specimens: http://pfalkingham.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/not-just-pretty-pictures/

Mr. Lee's dermal plates: the first Polacanthus?

The illustration from Lee's report of 1843 of a single osteoderm and surrounding ossicles.

The first sign that there was an armoured dinosaur present in the rocks of Wealden Sub-Basin of the Isle of Wight was when one John Edward Lee reported the existence of three fossils from the Hastings Beds of Sandown on the Isle of Wight way back in 1843. However, the Hastings Beds don’t outcrop on the island, so if they didn’t actually come from there where did they come from? Lee describes these fossils as ‘dermal plates’, and goes on to describe them at length in his paper. Only one is illustrated however, and this and the second plate were sent to Mr. Sowerby (presumably this is James De Calre Sowerby, a mineralogist and illustrator who co-founded the Royal Botanical Society and Gardens) in a hackney carriage along with drawings of the fossils destined for publication in the Annal of Natural History. The third was in poor condition and not deemed worthy of illustration and is still held in the Natural History Museum, London (BMNH R643) according to Pereda-Suberbiola. The surviving illustration clearly shows a single large osteoderm surrounded by smaller ossicles, themselves set amongst more ossicles. This certainly looks like a section of Polacanthus sacral shield, but is it?

The holotype of Polacanthus was found by the remarkable Rev. Fox of Brixton (now Brighstone) on the Isle of Wight around 1865. Fox had found the shield intact but it crumbled as he excavated the specimen, and when J.W. Hulke finally got around to describing the fossil in 1881 the shield was still in numerous small bits. Five years passed and Hulke revisited Fox’s Polacanthus, the shield of which had been reconstructed piece-by-piece by the remarkable efforts of a Mr. Hall and Mr. Barlow. This revealed the ornamented upper surface of the shield which Hulke describes in some detail, including the arrangement of larger keeled osteoderms amongst smaller ossicles, very similar to Lee’s specimen. Polacanthus is not the only nodosaurid (if Polacanthus is actually a nodosaurid, but that’s another story) with a sacral shield, and a comparison via the literature with sister taxa such as Mymroopelta and Gastiona reveal their sacral shields were similarly ornamented (see illustration below).

A selection of osteoderms and ossicle arrangements from various nodosaurids.
Lee's specimen is top right, the others are redrawn from various papers.

It’s likely that Lee’s specimens were the first remains of a Polacanthus sacral shield ever reported. As was mentioned earlier, the fossils probably didn’t come from the Hastings Beds as they aren’t present on the Isle of Wight; Pereda-Suberbiola suggests these remains are from the Wessex Formation at Brook Bay (Pereda-Suberbiola, 1994), although a part of the Wessex Formation is exposed in the cliff at Sandown and he doesn’t give his reasons for favouring this location. As for the fossils themselves, Lee was an astute observer and commented on the histology of the osteoderms, recognising the fibrous nature of the bones. He compared them with the scales of extant iguanas and crocodilians, and despite the fragmentary nature of the material found no reason to connect them with lizards or crocodiles.

The two ‘plates’ and drawings never made it to Sowerby. They were sent in a hackney carriage but never arrived and so joined the list of other dinosaur specimens lost to science. Had they had done, it’s entirely plausible that Polacanthus would have been named twenty years before it actually was.

References:

Hulke, J.W. 1881. Polacanthus foxii, a large undescribed dinosaur from the Wealden Formation in the Isle of Wight. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 172; 653-662.

Hulke, J. W. 1887. Supplemental note on Polacanthus foxii, describing the dorsal shield and some parts of the endoskeleton, imperfectly known in 1881. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 178: 169-72.

Lee, J.E. 1843. Notice of Saurian Dermal Plates from the Wealden of the Isle of Wight. Annals of Natural History. London. 11: 5-7.

Pereda-Suberbiola, X. 1994. Polacanthus (Ornithischia: Ankylosauria), a transatlantic armoured dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of Europe and North America. Palaeontographica, Abteilung A, 232: 133–159.

Ph.D update: On being a testudine, not a lagomorph.

How does a being a part-time PhD researcher actually work in daily life? This is a question I gave some considerable thought to before I started my doctorate in January, as I wanted to be sure I could make the commitment to research whilst working in a job that often means long hours for weeks at a time. Now the reality is becoming apparent and the past six weeks have gone some way to answering this question more fully than previously, as the practicalities of keeping research momentum when the day job gets busy have had to be addressed (see my work here).

As I've mentioned on this blog previously one of my specialities is creating 3D animations of drug mechanisms of action; these tend to be commissioned during the middle–later stages of a drug's development to show the target audience how the drug works at a molecular level. This involves modelling lots of proteins, cells, viri, bacteria, DNA, RNA etc, often referring to published data of the structures themselves for accuracy. The animations are mainly educational in nature (being targeted at consultants and doctors) and are based on some quite remarkable cutting edge science and I love working on them. They are also extremely labour intensive and time-consuming.

So recently I've been in full animation production mode and research has had to be put on the back-burner. Well, almost. Gaps in the production process (which occur for any number of reasons i.e. awaiting assets, team and client review, rendering) for the MOA are little windows of opportunity to keep things moving, even in a small way. I had photographed most of the vertebral column and some dermal armour elements of the Polacanthus specimen I'm working on for processing into 3D data. If a machine is not rendering a sequence of animation, it can be crunching through these data and making lovely 3D models of dinosaur bones. Despite being a basic set up, the results so far have been encouraging; I'm getting good quality, detailed meshes of the specimen.

My photogrammetry setup. A tad bottom end to be sure, but it's delivering good results.

Periods of reduced work activity also give me time to get on with other small but essential tasks such as reading and annotating papers, reviews, planning next steps and keeping up with developments in the field. I use this time to get to grips with new subjects such as looking at methods of statistical analysis, bones need measuring and drawing, meetings have to be booked, talks prepared amongst the myriad of other tasks that need attending to keep the whole process moving forward.

Animation showing the mesh obtained from the photogrammetry setup shown above.

All this can be done without the slightest disruption to my work as an artist and graphic designer. Although there are periods where I work long hours for many consecutive days (running into weeks on large projects) and can't get any research done at all generally I can take tortoise-like, small steps towards the mountain on a daily basis.

It's a marathon and not a sprint for sure.

Jehol-Wealden Conference schedule

The schedule for the upcoming Celebrating Dinosaur Isle: Jehol-Wealden Conference at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton is now available, and is posted below (get a pdf version here). The conference consists of a full programme of international speakers on the 20th September and a very busy field trip (including two site visits) to the Isle of Wight on the 21st September. This will be an essential meeting for anyone working on or interested in Early Cretaceous research, and will provide a great networking opportunity. Booking via the conference web page at the University of Southampton web site.

Celebrating Dinosaur Island in September 2013

The University of Southampton has announced it will be hosting a meeting called Celebrating Dinosaur Isle: A Jehol-Wealden International Conference on 20th and 21st September 2013 at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton. UK and Chinese palaeontologists will present their research, and the meeting will be an excellent opportunity to forge new contacts and discuss future research. There will also be an opportunity to visit some of the main fossil sites on the Isle of Wight, which is a hop over the Solent from Southampton.

More programme information as it comes through, in the meantime here is the poster.

In the interests of full disclosure I have to state I am a research associate with the University of Southampton and also designed the poster. The image on the poster is a reconstruction of the skull of Neovenator salerii, a theropod dinosaur unique to the Isle of Wight.

The Chooks got the look: the soft tissues of Gallus gallus domesticus

Like many people, my experience with Gallus gallus domesticus is largely confined to consuming the poor creature in variety of rather tasty dishes; indeed, as I write this a deceased, plucked, eviscerated and recently defrosted Gallus gallus domesticus is on a plate in the fridge awaiting its fate as tonights Sunday roast dinner. This is a shame because for all it's familiarity the humble domestic chicken is a beautiful bird that is deserving of more attention outside of supermarket freezers and specialist breeders.  Darren over at Tet Zoo has discussed them briefly but yesterday I had the good fortune to visit the High Peak Poultry Show which was being held in Bakewell, Derbyshire and got the chance to see these birds in a different context to the usual.

Palaeontologists spend a lot of time wondering about how dinosaurs looked and moved in real life, and these thoughts recently were expressed by the recent shift in ideas about external appearance of dinosaurs that move away from the more traditional scaly-hided, shrink-wrapped Paulian beasts of the last forty years to the new anatomically rigorous yet rationally speculative reconstructions illustrated in the brilliant All Yesterdays or Matthew Martyniuk's equally inspirational Field Guide to Mesozoic Birds and Other Winged Dinosaurs.

My trip to the poultry show added plenty of fuel to the fires of imagination when it comes to thinking about the reconstruction of the soft tissues of dinosaurs, as the various breeds of chicken present had a bewildering array of wattles, combs and other ornamentations. They were equally diverse in terms of body shape and type of feathery integument as well as the placement of feathers over the body. In short, some looked they had really funny haircuts, some quite weird faces and fleshy bits and others looked duller but distinctly dinosaurian and at least one breed looked cuddly. Never thought I'd say that about a chicken.

Here are the pictures. I took these with my iPhone and so they're not great quality and them chucks have a habit of not staying still at all. I didn't get the breed names of most of these birds so apologies for the lack of clear labelling. However, I hope they convey some of the beauty of a bird it's all too easy to take for granted.

First up, this chicken with a mostly naked head.

A more traditional looking bird, with an elaborate, flat comb.

The cuddly chicken.

This bird would not stay still hence the motion blur, but has very distinctive ear lobes.

Another chicken with prominent fleshy wattles, ear lobes and comb.

A lovely wattle/comb/feather combo on display here.

This breed is quite spectacular, and slightly weird (in a good way).
In the Tet Zoo Gallus post Darren notes this breed is a Transylvanian Naked-Necked Chicken. 

A very solid comb and prominent fleshy eyelid, plus feathery ear coverts.

Er, obviously not a chicken, but a Dewlap Toulouse gander.

BBC - How Do You Build A Dinosaur?

Just a heads-up about this programme that is being shown on BBC4 tonight which is discussing how dinosaur restorations and displays are constructed and the science behind them. Sounds interesting!

How Do You Build A Dinosaur?

Science and Communication 2: Museums

Sometime in the late seventies, a small boy who was visiting his grandparents in London was taken on a red Routemaster bus into the city, and guided by his Grandma into a cathedral-like building standing on the buys road where the bus dropped them off. Walking up the steps, into the vast atrium he was confronted by the sight of a giant, long-dead animal. He knew what he was looking at was a Diplodocus skeleton, a type of long-dead reptile called a dinosaur (he recognised the long neck and long tail from his many books on dinosaurs).  What he had never realised however, was just how big it was. It was immense! What did it eat? Where was it from? Were they all this big? Why aren't there any dinosaurs left? He wanted to know more, and his Grandma patiently took his hand and led him into the room of giant skeletons and huge bones. Thirty-five years later, he's as interested and fascinated by dinosaurs as ever, as excited by new discoveries and the science and the fieldwork and the art and . . . this is why communicating science is massively important. It inspires, invigorates and encourages people of all ages and walks of life to indulge their natural curiosity and find out – why? how?

Many of us had our first real experience of science when as children we were taken to a museum to gaze, wide-eyed and fascinated at the various exhibits. I'm sure that I'm not alone when I say that walking through the dinosaur halls of the Natural History Museum in London was a defining part of my childhood. Dinosaurs looked great in pictures, but when you see the skeletons – wow! The seed of a lifelong passion had been planted years before, but seeing the remains of these wonderful animals up close and personal certainly made it take root beyond any doubt. The reality was better than the books.

Ornithischian Hall, American Museum of Natural History, New York.

The best museum in the world? For me, the best I've ever seen as it contains

so many iconic fossils, plus a collection of feathered dinosaurs was there when we visited in 2001.

Museums are one of the main ways scientists and especially palaeontologists, can communicate the results of their research to the wider public. Riding on the back of the public's fascination with all things prehistoric much of the knowledge teased from the bones by the long labours of workers in the field and labs is disseminated through these august institutions. But is it always effective?

The dinosaur hall at the Field Museum, Chicago.

Face to face with a Stegosaurus and Charles Knight's iconic murals,

plus Mould-O-Rama machines in the basement - what's not to like?

The prep lab was empty all day when we visited - not like Dinosaur Isle in the UK.

Although I haven't been to the NHM in London for several years, I was fortunate enough to visit The Field Museum in Chicago and The Black Hills Institute in Hill City, SD last year and the American Museum of Natural History in New York just under ten years ago. What all these museums have in common is the displays feature one thing more prominently than anything else: the actual fossils. In fact, they were by far and away better in terms of presentation and information dissemination than virtually any other museums I have visited, relying less on cheesy animatronics (although the Field Museum had a room full of these that used motion sensory technology to react to you as you walked past them - impressive to be sure but those hatchling Triceratops - ugh!) and placing the emphasis on the fossils themselves. Of course these museums represent possibly the greatest palaeontology exhibits in the world with incredible specimens and resources to match . . . except the Black Hills Institute is a small, privately owned concern and as well as excellent fossils it had the best graphic panels of any of them.

Here be dragons: The Black Hills Institute, Hill City, South Dakota.

Small but packed to the rafters with superb fossils and casts.

We went to see Stan the Tyrannosaurus rex in the flesh (er, bone) after seeing the cast many times

in Manchester Museum back in the UK. We were not disappointed.

Did I mention the gift shop? Bring mucho cash.

The BHI panels were well-designed and informative, containing photographs of the excavations and prep of the various exhibits, as well as site maps showing the distribution of bones in the bed. There was no sensationalism, just information and fossils. I can't recall seeing any interactives in the main hall and it might have been good to get some sort of visitor operated attraction alongside the fossils; these can be quite compact but contain lots of information. They needn't be just for kids either, perhaps illustrated catalogues of the museums specimens and accessions that could be accessed in the fossil hall by researchers and public, complete with description, acquisition and provenance data for example. Combine this with reusage applications on the internet and a powerful new tool will be at the public's and academic community's disposal.

Over here in the UK, outside of the capital our dinosaur museums are altogether more modest but no less interesting. Leading the way in recent years is Dinosaur Isle in Sandown, on the Isle of Wight. Under the curation of Steve Hutt the museum has emphasised the fossils themselves rather than simply animatics (although the kids love 'em!) and through the combination of information-packed graphic panels and an interactive kiosk they communicate the science of the island's dinosaur species very effectively. More than that though, the public can look directly into a working prep lab and talk to the preparators and bring in their own fossils for identification without having to leave them and come back. This direct interfacing with the public is a strength other museums could do with taking note of.

The primate case in the newly refurbished Life Galleries at Manchester Museum, UK.

One of my favourite displays ever. I want this in my house.

My nearest large museum is in Manchester and has a wonderful old Victorian fossil hall, which houses a cast of the BHI's Tyrannosaurus rex Stan, controversially positioned in full running pose. This magnificent mount (I sometimes go up to gaze in slack-jawed awe at it like the small boy I was thirty-five years ago at the NHM) is surrounded by a small but perfectly formed collection of excellent fossils, including specimens from the Burgess Shale, Wigan and some superb marine reptiles from the south coast of England. There are some gems in here and I especially love the dinosaur footprints which show the texture of the soles of the animals tridactyl feet. The life galleries have been recently re-jigged with the old cases of stuffed animals removed and replaced by cases with a more considered thematic thread running through them. In truth, I'm not overly fond of these as I think one or two are a tad abstract (featuring origami birds rather than, er, stuffed birds) and I would prefer seeing actual specimens being displayed; if it comes to science over fuzzy concepts of 'life' I would suggest the science speaks for itself. The primate case display is utterly brilliant though and thankfully the Cassowary skeleton is still there (I can't help thinking that now there is a back room in the museum that contains some wonderful specimens I'll never see again . . . sigh), albeit the lighting's a bit gloomy. Looks like those skeletal reconstructions are going to get ever more difficult to do.

Screen grab from a proposal for a touch-screen museum interactive on my favourite subject, dinosaurs.

The large icons on the left-hand side were designed to be easy for little fingers to press.

Note: The 3D models dinosaur models used here were stock ones, the hammer and microscope my own.

Of course, much of what was written in my last post regarding the advantages of working with science-literate designers will is relevant for museum work too. To avoid repeating myself I'll assume you've read my previous post on the moving image. In that post I suggested working with science-literate creatives can enhance and improve the communication of concepts and current research because these creatives understand the science and can assist in the creation of effective and cost-conscious information delivery methods (there, I repeated myself). Many museums have their own in-house graphic units (perhaps shared with a university) that have designers who understand the subjects they are communicating. In this case, 'understand' means some knowledge of the subject and scientific methodology; this knowledge doesn't have to be extensive but it should be enough that the commissioning expert doesn't have to re-educate the designer whilst delivering a brief - this is important. However, there is a move towards outsourcing as the austerity measures we are experiencing at the moment begin to take effect. Once more, it's worth considering using independents rather than large studios as they will make your budget go much further with no loss of quality; if a larger team is needed to complete a project an independent can organise one or recommend another.

I was going to address symposia and other meetings in this post, but as this has gone on far longer I'll write a separate post for that subject. For now though, ponder over this concept: reusage.

Science and communication 1: The Moving Image

As I've mentioned on this blog before, for my day job as a graphic designer and animator (2D and 3D) I spend a fair percentage of my time working on drug mechanism of action animations for various medical communications agencies. This work consists of liaising with scientists, editors and project teams to create visualisations of how various in-vitro processes occur, from viral replication to signalling cascades and how various drugs in development or coming to market affect the relevant molecules. Despite the controversy surrounding modern drug development, some of the research being done in the private sector is quite incredible, and I always really enjoy learning about the science when working on these projects (I mean, this stuff is all sooooo tiny and gloopy - what's not to like?).

Over the years I've been following my passion for vertebrate palaeontology (especially dinosaurs) I've become more aware of the vast difference in the way communicating the findings of science varies between the commercial sector and those engaged in non-commercial research, i.e. palaeontologists. Is it possible, despite the difference in resources for the results of palaeontology research to be disseminated in a way that takes some of it's cues from commercial graphic design and animation? I've been pondering this for a while and I think it can.

Image from a proposed video for a museum. No CGI here!

© Stuart Pond 2011

There's been some interesting discussion on the dinosaur mailing list recently regarding the current state of TV programming of paleontological subject matter, especially with regard to dinosaurs and this has prompted me to post on this subject (I've been meaning to post about the role of graphics and animation in scientific communication for a while and there will be two posts on the subject pertaining top different delivery methods). As most of us with an obsession with dinosaurs know this area of programming is suffering from a distinct lack of integrity and imagination at present. It seems most of the current crop of dino-related programmes at the moment either interview experts then edit the resulting footage to alter the meanings or simply have a voice-over that contains little or no information. The images are often based on regurgitated, outdated old palaeontological tropes and are quite inaccurate. The same pieces of footage are played again and again within a single programme, perhaps tinted various hues or horizontally flipped to give the impression it's not the same clip. On the whole they're tedious, repetitive and don't convey any real information, and their reconstructions are woefully inaccurate. In short, they're complete crap. There are exceptions of course, as Phil Manning's recent series Jurassic CSI demonstrates; it contained actual science and actual scientists talking about their research. How refreshing was that (paleoartists take note, check out the episode where Phil reconstructs the leg of an Edmontosaurus - excellent stuff)? Also, take a look at David Attenborough's superb First Life series to see how palaeontology can be exciting and interesting. Both these programmes have knowledgeable and enthusiastic scientists presenting them; that they are a cut above the rest is not a coincidence. So what can be done to improve the quality of programmes and get the results of research out to the public?

Although modelled in 3D, this is from a series of 2D stills that created an animated sequence.

Cheaper than animated 3D, but just as effective and you always have models if

you decide to animate later. Result!

There are several issues here that need addressing, but to me one stands out more than the others. Commercial production houses are where the majority of these programmes are made and they often have large overheads and are not specialists in the fields of the programmes they produce; they might have talented staff but these people are not well-versed or even interested in the subject matter and may never even meet an expert. Some, like Framestore who created the memorable footage for Walking With Dinosaurs has developed some expertise in this area, however the programmes they make are often funded by public broadcasting bodies such as the BBC and the budgets can be huge and almost certainly out of the range of smaller commissioning broadcasters.

One of the reasons I do motion graphics for medcomms is I have developed some understanding of my field of work over the years. Whilst certainly not anywhere near to understanding the complexity of some of these processes (there is always learning to be done for each new animation) I do have enough of a grounding to allow the scientists I work alongside to impart information quickly and with minimal recourse to lengthy explanations to how and why this and that occurs, the role of proteins in signalling, the replication of viruses and RNA etc. This enables accuracy and efficiency in production, with minimal downtime as artists struggle to come to terms with the science. So finding artists familiar with the subject matter is essential in my opinion; many of the woefully inaccurate representations of morphology and behaviour could be avoided if the people creating the animation knew what was accurate from the beginning.

Cost has also been citied as a reason why creating this sort of programming is not practical. Here I think a new business model might wrest some of the control back into the hands of the scientists and other workers. It might seem there is no real alternative to large, established production houses but there is: independent specialists.

As I said earlier in the post these large production houses have big overheads and often big mark ups. Their staff, whilst extremely technically proficient at their chosen skillset are not necessarily that interested in the subject matter (and why should they be? they might work on a dozen programmes a year) and tend to be part of a larger team, including admins and generalists and they all need to be paid. But individuals can be found that are interested in the subject matter and these are the people that need to make themselves known to the palaeontology community. There are so many artists and designers out there that would be excellent choices for this sort of work as can be seen by the number of paleo artists on the web.

Of course some knowledge and experience is needed to create successful programmes but like science this is a collaborative effort. Teams of independents can be organised by a producer (also an independent, sometimes an experienced artist or camera person) who will personally know, trust and have worked before with these specialists; far more efficient and cost-effective level than dealing with a production house. Scientists could have direct access to the writers, artists, producers and directors and thus far more input and influence on the final product than previously - far better than handing over control to an in-house editor you've never met in some dark Avid suite somewhere out there. . .  Voiceovers, shoots and animations can all be sourced and created without the involvement of a commercial studio which will mark all of these assets up; everyone gets paid for their time worked without bunging a few quid more to fund the bosses golf holiday.

Concepts, scripts, storyboards, rough edits, finished edits, animatics, voiceovers etc are all sent for approval via the internet, so geographical location is no object to the efficiency of the production process. Without the overheads of big companies, teams of self-employed professionals now work from their own homes and drastically reduce the cost of creating meaningful, quality programmes which tell a story in an engaging and informative way. This means more control of the production, for budget-strapped customers alternatives to tacky 3D CGI can be found that won't make the final result look like it was churned off a virtual production line by a disinterested hack.

I am aware this could look like some big advert for the work I do but it isn't, that's here. I have never animated a dinosaur in my life (although it's coming - a new post soon in the 'Building a 3D dinosaur' series); there are plenty of independents out there far more expert than I at that. What I'm proposing is that people commissioning programmes look at a different way of making them, of giving the research the platform it deserves and eliminating the sensationalist nonsense that passes for the majority of paleo-programming these days.

It is not a cheap business (especially where 3D is concerned), but there is an alternative that might bring in better quality programming at less cost. And who knows, the public might get programmes that actually teach them something.

Next: Museums, symposia and graphic design.