Scicomm made polished, part 3

I finished a new animated Twitter thread for work. This one is on planet collisions. Woah!

You can see it here. It’s nine tweets in all.

I wrote about getting feedback on  my animated Twitter threads earlier. I was sad because I was told about how bad and unpolished my work was.

Well, after all my whining and complaining, I did the teacher’s pet, good-girl act of “let me learn from my mistakes” and “take the feedback to heart”. I decided to act all mature and pretend I was happy to be told I sucked. While making the new Twitter thread on planet collisions, I paid attention to the backgrounds and colors I was using. I worked on it for a month, and tweeted it out last Thursday. It was in fact my last act at work before becoming a Coronavirus refugee.

protoplanetary disk0062
This is supposed to represent a solar system in its infancy.

Then I sent this new thread to one of the people who had given me feedback. What do you think now? And in a very cutesy, inspiring turn of events (thankfully), I was told: this looks great! Big improvement! Nice job!

Isn’t that nice?

Further: that the colors and similarities in style between the different animations makes it much more evident that they all go together. That they have a relationship to each other through the color choices or the dark background.

lava flow0071
Lava flow.

You know what, though, I don’t know that I can fully appreciate my own work. I, for example, thought there should be something distinctively consistent in the background for each animation — something I wasn’t able to ensure. But upon receiving my feedback, that was when it first dawned on me that just the simple consistency of a dark background in each animation was enough — nothing fancier than that. So I still have a lot to learn, but it’s definitely nice to receive praise, and I think if I iterate this cycle of experimentation on my part, and feedback from others, I learn little nuggets of insight at a time.

As always, I use Blender3D to make these animations.

Texture vs Point in Blender materials

I discovered a new, tiny detail in Blender3D. It’s a tiny thing that made a big difference.

I was trying to make etches onto a cube with an image — like engrave the image in.

I wanted it to look like this:

puzzle0017

See, nice and clear! However, it was just looking like this:

puzzle0008a

Much less crisp and sharp, and when I went to print it out (the images were for a poster) it didn’t show up hardly at all.

Almost by accident, I discovered what the problem was. Below are two material settings, one for the ‘good’ image and the other for the muddled one:

material texturematerial point

Yes! The only difference was that for one image, the ‘Mapping’ node in the Materials was set to ‘Texture’ (the bad image) and on the other it was set to ‘Point’. And it made all that difference. Amazing, and so, so easy to miss.

Scicomm made polished, part 2

I was bemoaning the apparent lack of polish in my science animations and not quite understanding all the criticisms, but now it’s a few days later, and something has dawned on me.

I remember now reading people’s blogs, and them saying all all their photos are put through pre-sets in Lightroom. Meaning every photo gets a “finish” on it, or something, and it’s the exact same finish for each photo, and that finish will mute the colors all in the same way; or get the brightness of the photo to look the same; or maybe some other stuff, too. So then when you see photos from that person all together, they all have that same sheen to them, so you kind of can tell they came from the same place.

Honestly, does this not also make it boring? So every photo kind of looks the same, one to the next. But if you don’t do this, then your photos look incoherent?

Well, I’m going to try something: for my next animated Twitter thread, I will choose a color palette carefully and stick to those colors throughout the whole thread. And I’ll see if that helps with the “polish” and the “coherence.”

Explosions in blender

I need to make an explosion in Blender for work.

First I used this tutorial, which was only 7 minutes long, and I followed it easily and got the result.

But then I decided it looked too cartoonish, so I went for this tutorial, which was 14 minutes long. So still quite short, and for just double the time, it promised something way cooler-looking.

However, I tried it twice, and what I got looked very bad and different from what I was supposed to get. So I gave it up, and decided my result from the first tutorial was not so cartoonish after all.

You can decide for yourself here.

explosion0041
A still from the explosion animation

Honest feedback from kids

When I make animations with kids, part of the point is that other kids will want to watch the stories and learn something about the environment and about science on the way.

Well, after I had finished “When Anders, Dilsa, and Reza were mean: a bird story” with the kids at a local summer camp, I showed it to a 4-year-old boy. Or I tried to show it to him. He ran away to grab his video games after 10 seconds, with the cheekiest grin on his face, and blithely informed me that it was “boring”. Oh dear.

I tried the same movie with a 9-year-old boy, and he went “ho-hum” and told me he’d finished watching it after he got through watching Disney’s “The descendants”, or something … but then he never actually watched it, ever.

But that same 4-year-old boy really likes watching “Mr. Glump and the poisonous pond.” He likes it because he says, with a great giggle, that Mr. Glump looks like Trump. Well, I can honestly declare that none of the 30 kids who worked on that movie, and none of the kids or family members at the viewing party, made any such comment, but this kid is certain! So he’s watched “Mr. Glump” through a couple of times.

Mr. Glump
Mr. Glump with his scowl and his poisonous spraying bottle.

Scicomm on Halloween

I made this short little video for work way back, just in time for Halloween:

I spent the week leading up to Halloween feverishly focused on it, wanting to get it done in time. It’s haunted house-themed, and it describes the premise of CLEVER Planets research in a Halloween-flavored nutshell.

Unfortunately, as you can see, it didn’t really get a lot of views or re-tweets or anything. It felt like a bummer, because I spent a lot of time on it; but the pay-off was all limited to one day (unless I tweet it again next year); and so it felt like it was a waste of time.

I had been planning to make a model of Olaf the snowman from Frozen and use him for a winter-themed animation about CLEVER Planets research … but for now, I have decided to tread carefully around seasonal themes and avoid them.

 

A very girly science feed

I am working as a science communicator, like at a real job, can you believe it?

Well, I like shiny things, a la Taylor Swift, and I like pretty colors, and softness, and sparkles and flowers and things like that. So my plan is to use my new position to populate the online presence and outreach presence of the project I’m hired under with all those favorite things of mine, in the name of science.

So far, I’ve mostly made Twitter stories. This one has pretty flowers and pretty glaciers with a sunrise behind them, and a cute girl, too! This one was a little more sedate. Nothing very silky and golden and whimsical about it, but it’s still okay.

Right now, I’m trying to make a series that I shall call, “how we know what we know.” I am trying to make the introductory frames, first. I’ve had to do a couple of takes. My first attempt looked like this. I loved the pretty ocean water and its rich, sparkly green-ness, and I loved the glacier, and I loved the diamond moon, and the blossoming pink tree … but then I realized that it was way too busy.

So I had to take out a lot of the pretty stuff, and I ended up with this, instead. But that’s okay, because I have my girl back in it, and it’s a cleaner and clearer view of things overall. It’s just a work in progress for now.

I made these videos in Blender.