Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gap acquires 3D fitting room startup Drapr

retaildive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: Gap acquires 3D fitting room startup Drapr

#41

Post by mint2 »

deanclatworthy wrote: post #9
wombatmobile wrote: post #7

What problem/s does 3D fitting room solve? What problem/s does 3D fitting room introduce?

Presumably what is my number one issue with online clothes shopping, and why I have and never will do it - sizing and perception. 1) Sizing - ordering multiple sizes so you get the right one is not a sustainable or environmentally friendly way of purchasing clothes online. 2) Perception - looking at a good-looking, slim person trying on clothes is not representative of most people. I've seen plenty of clothes look go…

On 2) perception. Not only are the models typically in the top 1% of fitness fit with 40” chests and 31” waists and six packs, but it’s rare they’re under 5”11 despite the median male height being 5’9”.

So all in all the male clothes models usually look like just a fraction of a fraction of the population and that fraction is all outliers in no way representative of a typical shopper.

Re: Gap acquires 3D fitting room startup Drapr

#42

Post by mint2 »

ghaff wrote: post #28
endisneigh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sizing isn't really quantified at all. Brands use vague terms like "Small, Medium, and Large" that aren't even consistent within the brand, and depend on the cut and particular style.

Mass-produced clothing sizing is certainly inexact. But the body measurements for an individual are reasonably well specified.

What does “body measurements for an individual are specified” mean? Like body measurements on the size charts are specified? Those don’t tell one of the clothing will fit, only that there’s a possibility it will fit. And in reality the ranges they give are far too wide.

And one can specify their body measurements all they like, but it barely helps selecting a size online or even in store.

Re: Gap acquires 3D fitting room startup Drapr

#43

Post by dragonwriter »

endisneigh wrote: post #13

Personally I don't think the issue is "3D fitting" - the issue is that the sizing and fit of clothes hasn't both been: standardized and quantified. Do both and a 3D fitting room wouldn't be necessary to begin with.

> Personally I don't think the issue is "3D fitting" - the issue is that the sizing and fit of clothes hasn't both been: standardized and quantified.

Yes, it has. The problem is that nontrivial clothing requires multidimensional fit which is impractical for mass-produced off-the-rack clothing, and marketing of mass-produced clothes is therefore driven by all kinds of things, none of which is using the well-established standardization and quantification of fit, which is used only by people making bespoke clothing or altering off-the-rack clothes for specific individuals.

Of course, unless it is paired by on-demand alteration, 3D fitting doesn't really address that problem.

But its not meant to (though the for-the-public image may be that), its to deal with the problem that taking clothes to actual fitting rooms increases handling, damage, theft losses, and the resulting policing and remerchandising is a major source of labor requirements for shops.

For the Gap, the problem this hopes to solve, or at least mitigate, is “retail employees”.

Re: Gap acquires 3D fitting room startup Drapr

#44

Post by bee_rider »

rhacker wrote: post #36
doikor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem with that is that not all the articles are the same size. You can order 1000 t-shirts in the same size from a manufacturer and not all of them will be the same size (especially if you order the cheapest you can find). This is mainly due to cheap fabrics stretching unevenly (roll to roll difference and beginning of the roll can stretch differently from the end) and if you cut them by pressing through a thi…

What if we ended up with a system where I know I'm a B29. Then after every shirt made, it's tested against the B26 - B34 (since it's probably somewhere in there) and then labelled as a fit for B29. Then I just go shopping for B29s.

You'd be mapping a multi-dimensional space to a single dimensional one, which might work, but would probably be less intuitive. In the very least, we'd probably want something like a small/medium/large, then some extra info about the shoulders, and then a little bit more info for guys who want a tight fit (those guys with abs to show off). You could map those all on to 26-34, but I think it would not really help much.

Re: Gap acquires 3D fitting room startup Drapr

#45

Post by mbesto »

brandall10 wrote: post #20
endisneigh wrote: post #13

Personally I don't think the issue is "3D fitting" - the issue is that the sizing and fit of clothes hasn't both been: standardized and quantified. Do both and a 3D fitting room wouldn't be necessary to begin with.

Body types vary widely though. If you’re athletic you may have a strong shoulder to hip drop, getting shirts that are blousy in the midsection. Conversely, if you’re heavy set or short you may get garments that are overly long. Some companies do try to address this to a degree with slim or athletic cuts, and yes a tailor could take you the rest of the way ‘mostly’ there, but the future of clothing is 3D scanning and…

> Body types vary widely though.

The GP is more referring to companies who deliberately don't conform to standards. Best example of this is women's clothing that alter sizes so they are more appealing to women who don't traditionally fit that size number.

TL;DR - "Omg I finally fit in a size 2 dress" is a huge selling point, even if its not categorically true.

Re: Gap acquires 3D fitting room startup Drapr

#46

Post by ethbr0 »

bee_rider wrote: post #44
rhacker wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if we ended up with a system where I know I'm a B29. Then after every shirt made, it's tested against the B26 - B34 (since it's probably somewhere in there) and then labelled as a fit for B29. Then I just go shopping for B29s.

You'd be mapping a multi-dimensional space to a single dimensional one, which might work, but would probably be less intuitive. In the very least, we'd probably want something like a small/medium/large, then some extra info about the shoulders, and then a little bit more info for guys who want a tight fit (those guys with abs to show off). You could map those all on to 26-34, but I think it would not really help much…

This is also a male / female -type body distinction.

I'd argue men have about 4 primary body shapes (roughly, height:shoulders:waist:hips), within which most are +/- a bit.

Women have... a lot more.

Re: Gap acquires 3D fitting room startup Drapr

#47

Post by ethbr0 »

clipradiowallet wrote: post #31
doikor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem with that is that not all the articles are the same size. You can order 1000 t-shirts in the same size from a manufacturer and not all of them will be the same size (especially if you order the cheapest you can find). This is mainly due to cheap fabrics stretching unevenly (roll to roll difference and beginning of the roll can stretch differently from the end) and if you cut them by pressing through a thi…

As someone totally ignorant of this industry... how can those problems be fixed? Is it an issue of using higher quality materials, or some factory process change?

Inexpensive, quality of construction, reliable sizing.

Pick two.

Re: Gap acquires 3D fitting room startup Drapr

#48

Post by dehrmann »

ghaff wrote: post #29
geoduck14 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>being off the rack without paying double/triple or whatever for customization. I bought a suit a while back - they tailored it (pants and jacket) for <$20. This is "really expensive" if it is a $10 t-shirt, but not that bad if it is an $80 point-down shirt, and even reasonable if it is a $200 pant/jacket combo

That seems cheap for tailoring in the US. I don't really wear suits or even blazers any longer but, when I did, I'd either get them custom-made in Asia or extensively tailored in the US. Haven't done that for ages though. I was mostly referring to day-to-day wear that's $10-40 or so off the rack.

> I'd either get them custom-made in Asia

I'm selfishly disappointed China's takeover of Hong Kong because it gives me very mixed feeling about getting suits from there. They do amazing work, but supporting them is, in a sense, supporting China's takeover, even if the shop had nothing to do with it.

Re: Gap acquires 3D fitting room startup Drapr

#49

Post by ethbr0 »

mc32 wrote: post #35
bluGill wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm waiting the day when I go into a store and the fitting room scans my body (naked or just underwear) and then it creates an outfit just for my body. We could probably pull it off already, but it can't compete with third world produced on price, and those are good enough.

I think there have been failed attempts at this over the past 20 years or so. If you're willing to wait, they could do this somewhat affordably --just won't be off the rack fast (week or two?) That said, a tailor will make you pose properly and not slouch or droop your shoulder, so they would take better measurements. Presumably, SW could correct for bad posture as well.

Measurement is easy. Even the elastic deformation (i.e. multiple poses).

Manufacturing at scale is currently impossible.

Tailoring is basically robotics' worst nightmare: input material with varying characteristics from batch to batch, delicate materials, multiple different motions and tasks, a non-reducible movement and orientation space (e.g. sew a hem along a curve), and a complex mapping between physical tasks and end result (different stitch on seam = different motion).

We'll get there (and if it weren't for low cost labor, would already be there for t-shirts). But it's really hard.

Re: Gap acquires 3D fitting room startup Drapr

#50

Post by bee_rider »

ethbr0 wrote: post #46
bee_rider wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be mapping a multi-dimensional space to a single dimensional one, which might work, but would probably be less intuitive. In the very least, we'd probably want something like a small/medium/large, then some extra info about the shoulders, and then a little bit more info for guys who want a tight fit (those guys with abs to show off). You could map those all on to 26-34, but I think it would not really help much…

This is also a male / female -type body distinction. I'd argue men have about 4 primary body shapes (roughly, height:shoulders:waist:hips), within which most are +/- a bit. Women have... a lot more.

Yeah. I implicitly assumed we were talking about guys because the idea of simplifying women's sizes just seems intractable.
Post reply on HN