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

No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#21

Post by mayhemchaos »

jMyles wrote: post #6

Is the idea here that these 3D models can be used by educators to build their own visual aids, which will have proper colors and shading, etc? Because, as it stands, I'm not sure the benefit of having a bunch of purple penises. They certainly don't look realistic.

We really wanted to release the textures that go with the models in order to make them more realistic. However, that would likely put us into the pornography realm and make the site even harder to share with others. And also, printing these models with such color resolution just isn't possible yet -- we've got a long way to go in 3D printing for that to be workable.

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#22

Post by mayhemchaos »

pontifier wrote: post #17

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 tak…

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 - 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. :(

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#23

Post by DoreenMichele »

mayhemchaos wrote: post #22
pontifier wrote: post #17

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 tak…

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/…

You might want to read this comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28350174

Best of luck.

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#24

Post by DoreenMichele »

mayhemchaos wrote: post #20
darkcha0s wrote: post #9

Why are like 70% of the models vaginas?

pope_meat is right -- even in the age of unsolicited dick pics, mostly women were interested in participating in this project. Men were very hesitant. Also, more models of women than men worked out, since photogrammetry is very sensitive to movement. Any body parts further from the core where more subjected to movement from heartbeats and breaths. Vulvas are closer to the body and thus less affected.

Women have more need for information on our genitals. Our genitals are hidden from view and we get less natural exposure to what they look like, what's normal, how they compare to others, etc.

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#25

Post by [deleted] »

okkdev wrote: post #14
noxer wrote: post #11

I dont think this website convinced me that we are all beautiful. Saw some things I definitely did not consider beautiful. Maybe instead of "forcing" everyone into accepting that everyone is beautiful we should just accept that taste is personal and there is nothing wrong with finding something/someone not beautiful.

Sure, but something you don't like someone else might like. Thus making everyone beautiful.

[deleted]

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#26

Post by swiley »

okkdev wrote: post #14
noxer wrote: post #11

I dont think this website convinced me that we are all beautiful. Saw some things I definitely did not consider beautiful. Maybe instead of "forcing" everyone into accepting that everyone is beautiful we should just accept that taste is personal and there is nothing wrong with finding something/someone not beautiful.

Sure, but something you don't like someone else might like. Thus making everyone beautiful.

There are definitely popular preferences. Unfortunately not everyone is born equal. Rejecting reality makes it harder to solve the problems created by it.

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#27

Post by mayhemchaos »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #24
mayhemchaos wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pope_meat is right -- even in the age of unsolicited dick pics, mostly women were interested in participating in this project. Men were very hesitant. Also, more models of women than men worked out, since photogrammetry is very sensitive to movement. Any body parts further from the core where more subjected to movement from heartbeats and breaths. Vulvas are closer to the body and thus less affected.

Women have more need for information on our genitals. Our genitals are hidden from view and we get less natural exposure to what they look like, what's normal, how they compare to others, etc.

Exactly -- this was one of the reasons we created the site.

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#28

Post by Edu4all »

pontifier wrote: post #17

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 tak…

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.

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#29

Post by Edu4all »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #8
jMyles wrote: post #6

Is the idea here that these 3D models can be used by educators to build their own visual aids, which will have proper colors and shading, etc? Because, as it stands, I'm not sure the benefit of having a bunch of purple penises. They certainly don't look realistic.

What are “proper” colors to represent genitals?

I guess that depends on what the model is used for. If you like a model that looks realistic but has no texture, then go for your favorite skin tone.

If you like something that is not to “scary”, then get something more playful and make it rainbow-colored, thermochromic or better: glow in the dark. There is a reason why most sex toys (for women) are not flesh colored.

If you want to create an educational model for adults, textured would be nice.

Try the same colored model for sex ed in school and you will have very interesting conversations with concerned parents. In that case, you might also be better off with a color gradient or an unusual color (orange, green, blue, UV active).

And that way, you elegantly avoid traps that involve racial stereotypes.

Try it on wearebeautiful.info, the render engine allows you to change the color of any model you pick.

Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)

#30

Post by legostormtroopr »

mayhemchaos wrote: post #19
lilboiluvr69 wrote: post #2

This is an interesting site but perhaps the title of the link should be updated? When I clicked on it I thought it would direct me to an article arguing against the existence of copyright law.

Heh, yes, I tried a more useful link, but no one looked at it. :/

So you used a clickbait title instead to trick people into viewing it?
Post reply on HN