5 ms·

It's interesting and feels like a step in the right direction. I wonder about MRI or CT scans as an alternative to photogrammetry in order to more fully capture

It's interesting and feels like a step in the right direction. I wonder about MRI or CT scans as an alternative to photogrammetry in order to more fully capture hidden details. I'm also interested in simulation and movement. How SHOULD one capture the default shape and characteristics of a complicated soft structure in order to properly simulate it under gravity or other forces? Creating realistic stretching that takes into account the internal differences between ligaments and flesh for instance, could be an entire field of study. I'm excited to see where this leads in the future.

Edu4all 5y ago
Interesting thought. But CTs are pretty hard to read. The reasons why drawings or simplified models are used in sex ed, is that they can be understood easily. An actual model derived from a CT scan usually needs some explanations and a certain base knowledge of the matter. Regular organs do not look as “nice” as they do in drawings. But if you are interested in the shifting of the skin/genitals in different positions, then take a close look at the models and especially their “code” (the model names encode body alignment during the scan). There is also a comparison of a flaccid and an erected penis. Or different stages of a pregnancy. And a vulva comparison that shows arousal and the “relaxed” state.
mayhemchaos 5y ago
Good questions, but I have no answers now. The only vaguely scientific thing we accomplished was creating compound models that show the sexual arousal of a vulva. I was told that it "became puffy/engorged", but couldn't ever really see that in action. Until we made of model of a woman before arousal and just prior to orgasm. Our compound models are truly the most interesting ones: - https://wearebeautiful.info/model/426060-VLNP-2 https://wearebeautiful.info/model/426060-VLNP-2 - https://wearebeautiful.info/model/426060-VLNP https://wearebeautiful.info/model/426060-VLNP - https://wearebeautiful.info/model/746625-VLNP-2 https://wearebeautiful.info/model/746625-VLNP-2 Sadly, this project doesn't have a future. This HN post has gathered the most interest in the project yet. A clickbait headline got people to look, nothing else. :(
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  You might want to read this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28350174 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28350174 Best of luck.
  - mayhemchaos 5y ago
    Yep, so true. Our assessment of the applicability of our project was: Those who don't need it, love it. Those who need it the most, won't look at it. <lolsob>
    - DoreenMichele 5y ago
      The comment was about titling on HN. Titles are always hard, they are harder still for controversial or sensitive subjects. Life gets easier if you don't take that fact personally and just see it as a logistical issue.

Edu4all 5y ago

Interesting thought. But CTs are pretty hard to read. The reasons why drawings or simplified models are used in sex ed, is that they can be understood easily. An actual model derived from a CT scan usually needs some explanations and a certain base knowledge of the matter. Regular organs do not look as “nice” as they do in drawings. But if you are interested in the shifting of the skin/genitals in different positions, then take a close look at the models and especially their “code” (the model names encode body alignment during the scan). There is also a comparison of a flaccid and an erected penis. Or different stages of a pregnancy. And a vulva comparison that shows arousal and the “relaxed” state.

mayhemchaos 5y ago

Good questions, but I have no answers now. The only vaguely scientific thing we accomplished was creating compound models that show the sexual arousal of a vulva. I was told that it "became puffy/engorged", but couldn't ever really see that in action. Until we made of model of a woman before arousal and just prior to orgasm. Our compound models are truly the most interesting ones: - https://wearebeautiful.info/model/426060-VLNP-2 https://wearebeautiful.info/model/426060-VLNP-2 - https://wearebeautiful.info/model/426060-VLNP https://wearebeautiful.info/model/426060-VLNP - https://wearebeautiful.info/model/746625-VLNP-2 https://wearebeautiful.info/model/746625-VLNP-2 Sadly, this project doesn't have a future. This HN post has gathered the most interest in the project yet. A clickbait headline got people to look, nothing else. :(

DoreenMichele 5y ago
You might want to read this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28350174 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28350174 Best of luck.
- mayhemchaos 5y ago
  Yep, so true. Our assessment of the applicability of our project was: Those who don't need it, love it. Those who need it the most, won't look at it. <lolsob>
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    The comment was about titling on HN. Titles are always hard, they are harder still for controversial or sensitive subjects. Life gets easier if you don't take that fact personally and just see it as a logistical issue.