#HTE

Getting 2D Images onto 3D Shapes: Computational Thermoforming vs. Computational Hydrographics

When you need to get a complicated pattern onto a 3D surface, dip coating is a good way to go, provided your object is submersible. You can do some pretty complicated shapes, even those with undercuts. And in our “Texture Mapping in Real Life” post, we saw a rather stunning advance in this technique called computational hydrographics, which we’ll get to in a moment.

The central problem with dip coating is that you’re transferring a 2D image onto a contoured 3D shape. Thus graphics get distorted on whatever surface is not completely flat and parallel to the original pattern. However, with computers and texture mapping, it’s possible to reconcile the 2D and 3D beforehand. Here’s how a team of researchers used that idea to create a new process:

Computational Thermoforming

Pretty neat, no? That was presented at this year’s SIGGRAPH. But I reckon that the aforementioned technique of computational hydrographics, which ironically was presented at last year’s SIGGRAPH, has them beat in some ways:

Computational Hydrographics

Both techniques are valid, of course, and Industrial Design 101 says we ought be aware of both, and able to distinguish which has an advantage over the other in any given situation.

So, which process would you use, and for what? If your object has undercuts, of course, the decision is automatic. If your object doesn’t have undercuts and doesn’t require a base, it seems to me the hydrographic method will certainly be more time-consuming and expensive if you’re going for mass production.

That’s because the hydrographic method will require you to mold, 3D print or otherwise fabricate 100 of your objects prior to dipping in order to get 100 finished products. Whereas with the thermoforming method, you only need to fabricate one piece, then drop sheets of polystyrene onto it 100 times in a row.

And of course, the time required for the printing and transferring of the images would have to be factored in, too. If the hydrographics method is printing directly onto the PVA film, obviating the transferring step demonstrated in the thermoforming method, that then skews the speed results in favor of the former.

What do you guys see as other cases where you’d clearly use one over another? The thing we love about seeing new production methods like these is that it often takes a bunch of brains looking at it before some killer applications start to emerge.

http://www.core77.com/posts/55210/Getting-2D-Images-onto-3D-Shapes-Computational-Thermoforming-vs-Computational-Hydrographics